# Big Bang Therory



## Elevenpoint

I have caught a few episodes of this sitcom...amusing for tv....but on a more serious note...once long ago was there a giant fart that all life..plant matter...that all came from? Do you believe your ancestry starts with a monkey or ape?


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Do you believe your ancestry starts with a monkey or ape?


Evolution doesn't say that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. What evolution says is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Nobody is saying exactly what that common ancestor might have been.


----------



## InTownForNow

I watched God's Not Dead the other night. The science behind the evidence for creation was given in a much more succint way than i could ever spell it out. 
I believe in a biblical creation, a young earth, and an infinite God who spoke us into existence. God made apes, and God made humans. I believe the common ancestor we all share is Noah.


----------



## Nevada

InTownForNow said:


> I watched God's Not Dead the other night. The science behind the evidence for creation was given in a much more succint way than i could ever spell it out.
> I believe in a biblical creation, a young earth, and an infinite God who spoke us into existence. God made apes, and God made humans. I believe the common ancestor we all share is Noah.


You really should learn evolution in science class.


----------



## Farmerga

I believe that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. We, as all species, evolved from simpler forms. I believe that the creation of life and the evolution of life has been directed by a creator God.


----------



## MattB4

In the beginning was the egg. Than the egg was dropped and it has been a mess ever since. 

Religions are fun but eventually you realize that man invented them. They seem to have been necessary to our evolutionary development. Did religion evolve from a proto religion caused by early hominids using natural hallucinogens and rotting fruit? Quite likely. 

But once mankind evolved a imagination there has been nothing holding back the creation (of more fanciful worlds and beings). Even present day mankind keeps inventing new superstitions and imaginary spirits. 

Personally, I evolved from a T-rex. I have this big body but ridiculous small arms and hands. :nanner:


----------



## farmerDale

Nothing but a designer can explain the world as it is now. Random chance is really, really a sad and feeble effort to explain metamorphosis, gender, sight, instinct. Let alone the genome, and the unbelievable intricacies that had to occur BEFORE a simple cell even formed in the first place.

A world wide flood is the ONLY evidence that makes even a small amount of sense when looking at fossil beds, continental drift, coal formation, potash deposits, or anything at all to do with what we see today.

Just look at every single "discovery" by the secular scientists. It will ALWAYS state, "this area was once covered by an ancient sea, bla, bla, bla." Or, soft tissue and blood cells in dinosaurs is able to survive for 70 million years. We do not know how this can be, but see, we KNOW that dinosaurs died out that long ago, so that is proof enough. They KNOW the dinos died out then, because they BELIEVE it. They arbitrarily make it up. It is laughable. The harder you think, the sadder their theory becomes. The harder they look at the intricacies of dna, the more absurd it becomes, that it somehow came into being through random chance.

When I try to uncover the theories these "scientists " come up with for metamorphosis, for gender, for RNA and DNA and how it came about, it is full of maybes, could haves, and we are not really sure why. I study this a lot, and no one has a clue, so they cover their butts with the above terms. Yet many state it as FACT. lol

And they call that "science". Bwahahahahahaha! Unreal, huh?


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Nothing but a designer can explain the world as it is now. Random chance is really, really a sad and feeble effort to explain metamorphosis, gender, sight, instinct. Let alone the genome, and the unbelievable intricacies that had to occur BEFORE a simple cell even formed in the first place.


That assumes that the objective is to create what we see today. I'm of the opinion that the objective is not what we see today. This is just how it turned out.

To understand that you have to understand chance. Back in 2012 a roulette wheel at the Rio resort in Las Vegas produced number 19 seven times in a row. The question everyone had was, 'what were the odds of that happening?' The answer is (1/38)^7, or 1 in 114 billion.

http://www.footballperspective.com/what-are-the-odds-of-that/

So what does that have to do with evolution and genetics? The odds of 1 in 114 billion is not only for hitting the same number 7 times, but also for hitting ANY sequence of 7 numbers. That's because the odds of hitting 19 is the same as the odds for hitting any other number on the wheel. To illustrate that, consider the following tote board image, which displays the last 16 spin results on a roulette wheel:










As you can see, that last 7 spins produced on that wheel were 16-33-32-0-3-7-27. Although not a remarkable series of results, the odds of producing that exact sequence of numbers is 1 in 114 billion. Moreover, the 7 spins before that were 0-4-24-9-10-31-22. Again, the odds of producing that exact sequence of numbers is 1 in 114 billion.

So with odds insanely against producing those two exact sequences, was it the hand of God? Not hardly. After all, some sequence of numbers had to be produced, and this just happened to be what came up.

It's easy to see the randomness on a roulette wheel. But the same sort of randomness can be applied in evolution & genetics, although much more complicated. This example only considers 38 possibilities and 7 chances. But given the number of chances for genetic changes to happen over many millions of years, it's not so far fetched.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> That assumes that the objective is to create what we see today. I'm of the opinion that the objective is not what we see today. This is just how it turned out.
> 
> To understand that you have to understand chance. Back in 2012 a roulette wheel at Las Vegas' Rio resort produced number 19 seven times in a row. The question everyone had was, 'what were the odds of that happening?' The answer is (1/38)^7, or 1 in 114 billion.
> 
> http://www.footballperspective.com/what-are-the-odds-of-that/
> 
> So what does that have to do with evolution and genetics? The odds of 1 in 114 billion is not only for hitting the same number 7 times, but also for hitting ANY sequence of 7 numbers. That's because the odds of hitting 19 is the same as the odds for hitting any other number on the wheel. To illustrate that, consider the following tote board image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, that last 7 spins produced on the wheel were 16-33-32-0-3-7-27. Although not a remarkable series of results, the odds of producing that exact sequence of numbers is 1 in 114 billion. Moreover, the 7 spins before that were 0-4-24-9-10-31-22. Again, the odds of producing that exact sequence of numbers is 1 in 114 billion.
> 
> So with the odds is insanely against producing those two exact sequences, was it the hand of God? Not hardly. After all, some sequence of number had to be produced, and this just happened to be what came up.
> 
> It's easy to see the randomness on a roulette wheel. But the same sort of randomness can be applied in evolution & genetics.


The thing is, there is nothing random about nature. It is so obviously designed, that it is not even funny. You are a homesteader. Take a chicken egg. A "simple" chicken egg. Look at it. How did it get from point a to point b? What was point a in the first place? Step by step over millions of years of random chance??? Sudden mutations that just so happened to work together and make everything all good? How did the evolution of the egg survive by random chance? There is no way, because the first "chicken" that laid an egg, would not have hatched in the first place, unless the egg was complete and functional at the outset.

Now stretch that to the amazing intricacies of metamorphosis. What on eart directed the first metamorphosis? How did it happen by chance? How could have something partially metamorphosized, yet survived to improve upon the early steps of metamorphosis?

Gender? What on earth is that about? How did sperm production start at the exact same time, in the same place that ovum production occur? And then the penis an vagina had to fit properly to allow the organism to reproduce. The pH had to be proper so the sperm could survive. The semen had to be a perfect medium for the sperm, and had to change consistency to ensure impregnation. What made testicles appear, and how did they start producing sperm? At the EXACT same time, another organism evolved ovaries, which produced PERFECTLY complementary eggs. 

Now those are amazing, amazing odds of random occurrence. The only thing evolutionists have on their side that they think helps them somehow, is VAST amounts of time. It is all they have. But unfortunately, their vast periods of time, is completely made up. And the funny thing? The scientists KNOW it. They know it is completely made up. Why do they do this? Because who wants to be accountable to something bigger than us!

That is what it is all about, in a nut, er, eggshell.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> Nothing but a designer can explain the world as it is now. ...


So you belong to the religion of Gucci or perhaps Yves St Laurent? That must make the world horribly overpriced and available at high end malls and specialty shops. Bad enough the "beautiful people" think they are special, I would hate to have them start to have their own religions. 

Incidentally there is zero geological evidence for a World wide flood in mankind's existence. The Epic of Gilgamesh that Moses ripped off for his Genesis fable not withstanding. You do realize that Genesis was a hopeless mishmash of earlier cultures creation stories? That much of it is not only not historical but simply allegory.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Sudden mutations that just so happened to work together and make everything all good?


Random mutations are only part of the story. There is also the mighty hand of natural selection, which plays a huge role.

Consider the Galapagos finches. The finches' food supply changed to hard shelled seeds, which required a more powerful beak than their previous source of food. The result was that smaller beaked finches were selected out of the species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

If we didn't understand why the change took place we might assume that God gave them larger beaks because he wanted it that way. But Darwin's observations remove any doubt that it wasn't natural selection.

Evolution of that sort can happen very quickly. It can be observed and studied.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> But unfortunately, their vast periods of time, is completely made up. And the funny thing? The scientists KNOW it.


That's absurd. You can SEE IT in the walls of the Grand Canyon.


----------



## MDKatie

farmerDale said:


> When I try to uncover the theories these "scientists " come up with for metamorphosis, for gender, for RNA and DNA and how it came about, it is full of maybes, could haves, and we are not really sure why. I study this a lot, and no one has a clue, so they cover their butts with the above terms. Yet many state it as FACT. lol
> 
> And they call that "science". Bwahahahahahaha! Unreal, huh?


OH, you're so right! I must have missed the concrete evidence you have that god is real! :indif: 


I hope all of you who were whining about how people were bashing your religion in a thread earlier are paying attention. I see no difference in calling religion a fairy tale or calling the big bang theory a big fart.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

MattB4 said:


> In the beginning was the egg. Than the egg was dropped and it has been a mess ever since.
> 
> Religions are fun but eventually you realize that man invented them. They seem to have been necessary to our evolutionary development. Did religion evolve from a proto religion caused by early hominids using natural hallucinogens and rotting fruit? Quite likely.
> 
> But once mankind evolved a imagination there has been nothing holding back the creation (of more fanciful worlds and beings). Even present day mankind keeps inventing new superstitions and imaginary spirits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I evolved from a T-rex. I have this big body but ridiculous small arms and hands.
> 
> 
> 
> :nanner:
Click to expand...

Sorry but you shoot yourself in the foot with your T-rex example ....

T-rex has arms too short to reach his mouth and too small to support his weight... 

Why would evolution produce useless arms ???


----------



## JJ Grandits

Why do men have nipples?


----------



## City Bound

I had a science teacher once who told us that science can nether prove or disprove the existence of god.

The universe is alive and has and will always exist eternally. The universe constantly regenerates itself. 

There are the man made gods and religions and then there is the real god that no one will ever know and that no book could ever explain or contain. Religions on earth have to take the form and limitation of human hearts and minds. Humans are simple so the religion has to be simple.


----------



## Abe R Crombie

I like this explanation!
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/11449.18.0.0/world/spectacular-discovery-supports-big-bang-theory


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> But unfortunately, their vast periods of time, is completely made up.
> .


 Not as 'made up' as some of the garbage the 'Creationists' and 'young earth' proponents try to pass off as fact. 
One can believe in God, and also believe in evolution. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about that, I don't understand why some are so hostile to that idea.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Sorry but you shoot yourself in the foot with your T-rex example ....
> 
> T-rex has arms too short to reach his mouth and too small to support his weight...
> 
> *Why would evolution produce useless arms* ???


It didn't, because the earlier, smaller ancestors of T-Rex used their "arms", but most likely as legs.

As they evolved they stopped using them as much, and in nature if a feature isn't used, it's most often lost.

It even has it's own special name and is well documented in many species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_limb



> Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution.[1]
> 
> Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment.
> 
> The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful


----------



## Elevenpoint

MDKatie said:


> OH, you're so right! I must have missed the concrete evidence you have that god is real! :indif:
> 
> 
> I hope all of you who were whining about how people were bashing your religion in a thread earlier are paying attention. I see no difference in calling religion a fairy tale or calling the big bang theory a big fart.


Religions may have a fairy tale part to them...they include rules..regulations...religion is made by man. God is not religion. Fart was not the proper description for the big bang therory. Any idea that's where all of life came from is a fairy tale. Not a part. Science cannot prove much especially very little past a few hundred years ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JJ Grandits said:


> Why do men have nipples?


All mammals do
Like their brains, men's aren't good for much


----------



## fireweed farm

JJ Grandits said:


> Why do men have nipples?


There's a scientific reason for that. But I would love to hear how the bible explains this imperfection!&#128514;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

fireweed farm said:


> There's a scientific reason for that. But I would love to hear how the bible explains this imperfection!&#128514;


What makes you think it's an "imperfection"?
With a couple of random DNA fragments in the womb they could have been fully functional


----------



## secuono

Just my own opinion.

How the universe first came to be is a mystery and will never be known. 

How life on Earth came to be is from some simple cell life form(s) from a comet or other objects colliding with Earth billions, trillions of years ago.

Humans, like all other life on Earth, evolved from these original, simple life forms.

There is some type of life, either simple in form or advanced, out in the big, wide universe somewhere besides on Earth. To think that we are the only ones, to me, is ridiculous. 

To think God or another higher being created all, only begs the question, where did he/she come from? This just repeats constantly further back over and over. Who created the being who created God, who created him, who then created him and so on and so forth.

We will never know everything. And for some people, not knowing is unacceptable or unsettling. So then they either try to use/rely on science to find out an answer or they use religion to rely on/give them an answer they so desperately need. It's normal for humans to be curious and want or feel the need to know and understand.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> So you belong to the religion of Gucci or perhaps Yves St Laurent? That must make the world horribly overpriced and available at high end malls and specialty shops. Bad enough the "beautiful people" think they are special, I would hate to have them start to have their own religions.
> 
> Incidentally there is zero geological evidence for a World wide flood in mankind's existence. The Epic of Gilgamesh that Moses ripped off for his Genesis fable not withstanding. You do realize that Genesis was a hopeless mishmash of earlier cultures creation stories? That much of it is not only not historical but simply allegory.


I do not actually belong to a religion. I believe in God, and I believe He sent Jesus as our way out of death.

No evidence for a worldwide flood? What about the sedimentary rock everywhere? Rapidly buried fossils EVERYWHERE? The evidence for a flood, is everywhere.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Random mutations are only part of the story. There is also the mighty hand of natural selection, which plays a huge role.
> 
> Consider the Galapagos finches. The finches' food supply changed to hard shelled seeds, which required a more powerful beak than their previous source of food. The result was that smaller beaked finches were selected out of the species.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
> 
> If we didn't understand why the change took place we might assume that God gave them larger beaks because he wanted it that way. But Darwin's observations remove any doubt that it wasn't natural selection.
> 
> Evolution of that sort can happen very quickly. It can be observed and studied.



The finches were still finches, correct? And they had their genders in place. God created kinds. From these kinds, adaptations do take place. We all know and see that. But that is a far cry from metamorphosis and gender evolution, DNA/RNA appearing out of no where, etc.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> That's absurd. You can SEE IT in the walls of the Grand Canyon.


Tell me then about the layers made when sediments were formed in a period of a week after the MT St. Helens eruption, which formed a canyon. If we were not there to see it, we would also assume it was formed over millions of years, no?


----------



## farmerDale

MDKatie said:


> OH, you're so right! I must have missed the concrete evidence you have that god is real! :indif:
> 
> 
> I hope all of you who were whining about how people were bashing your religion in a thread earlier are paying attention. I see no difference in calling religion a fairy tale or calling the big bang theory a big fart.


Who called the big bang theory a fart?


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> Not as 'made up' as some of the garbage the 'Creationists' and 'young earth' proponents try to pass off as fact.
> One can believe in God, and also believe in evolution. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about that, I don't understand why some are so hostile to that idea.


Hostile? I could care less. I DO however see VERY problematic long age theory and macro-evolution, and belief in the God of the Bible, the I AM.

I find it absolutely fascinating, that no one explains how gender evolved so beautifully. Or how metamorphosis worked without a hitch, the very first time it gave it a whirl. Or how DNA/RNA came into being in all its amazing intricacies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Who called the big bang theory a fart?


The OP:



> I have caught a few episodes of this sitcom...amusing for tv....but on a more serious note...once long ago was *there a giant fart *that all life..plant matter...that all came from? Do you believe your ancestry starts with a monkey or ape?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Theory...should have sufficed.


----------



## Shrek

All living things evolve to their environments. The first school of thought on human evolution tended to think single linearity. Now a common school of thought on it leans toward multiple tendril evolution with lines evolving in multiple lines that over time eras combined with other evolutionary lines .

Religion, evolution both offer those who choose to accept the hypothesis/theory that suits them something they feel answers their question of origin.

Some even choose to accept a view that religious or alien based intelligent design sowed the seeds on Earth then evolved to what Mankind is today.

Our limited cognitive capabilities as a small speck of our known universe can only embrace the school of thought each of us individually feels the most comfortable accepting. That is what makes us human and generally initiates some level of the fight or flight instinct when discussions gravitate to topics of religion, sports, politics, prejudice or how often the Fibonacci Sequence presents itself within our known environment in plants, organisms , etc. 

Personally , after a lifetime reading many texts regarding Mankind's origin , I settled on accepting that the environment I live in is pretty good, the various perspectives interesting and after reading the inappropriately named five book trilogy by Douglas Adams, I always keep a towel in all my vehicle's in case this rock gets scheduled for demolition to make room for a hyperspace off ramp before the Gnab Gib and I run into Ford Prefect with his Guide and electronic hitching thumb because even if piggy backing with an experienced galaxy hitch hiker , you have to bring your own towel 

Seriously though, although I can't understand why 42 is "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" , a towel within close reach is always good to have in case of a break down, blood letting accident or just a modesty lap cover in case I am stuck in a traffic jam and have to use one of my vehicle urinals to avoid wetting my pants.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> Tell me then about the layers made when sediments were formed in a period of a week after the MT St. Helens eruption, which formed a canyon. If we were not there to see it, we would also assume it was formed over millions of years, no?


 Ash flow formed a canyon, so what? As to sedimentary rocks, uh, please crack a geology book. It wasn't a 'worldwide flooding event' that caused the miles-thick sedimentary rock beds found all over the earth. More like the constant, slow rise and fall of tectonic plates floating on a sea of magma. One eon they are above sea level, the next below. Erosion, then deposition. Geology 101 covers most of this. Heck, even high school geology for that matter.


----------



## Miss Kay

I believe in evolution and God. In fact, if you study science at all I would think you would have to believe in a God. Don't get the bible and religion confused with God! Man wrote the bible, God wrote the laws of science.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> Hostile? I could care less. I DO however see VERY problematic long age theory and macro-evolution, and belief in the God of the Bible, the I AM.
> .


 Yes, thats the problem some have with scientific knowledge, it goes against their treasured myths and threatens their belief system. 
'Long age theory'... lol you think all this creation just got 'spoken into existance' 6000 years ago?? Heck there is ice cores dated to 400k years, and rocks that cooled BILLIONS of years ago. Its ok farmerdale, if there is a god, he wants you to use your brain and your eyes, not take dusty old scrolls written by a nomadic tribe of bronze age people as the end-all-be-all scientific treatise on everything.


----------



## farmrbrown

elevenpoint said:


> I have caught a few episodes of this sitcom...amusing for tv....but on a more serious note...once long ago was there a giant fart that all life..plant matter...that all came from? Do you believe your ancestry starts with a monkey or ape?


Just to clarify.................do in-laws count?
eep:

(Just kidding.........I get along with all of them, just not all at once, lol)


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Tell me then about the layers made when sediments were formed in a period of a week after the MT St. Helens eruption, which formed a canyon. If we were not there to see it, we would also assume it was formed over millions of years, no?


But it wouldn't be in distinct layers the way the Grand Canyon is.


----------



## Elevenpoint

farmrbrown said:


> Just to clarify.................do in-laws count?
> eep:
> 
> (Just kidding.........I get along with all of them, just not all at once, lol)


Are they apes? Kidding. What is fascinating is herbs..different tastes..medicinal value etc. Then fruits and vegetables...our dietary requirements....vitamins..minerals...and that is not scientific design because science has no answer where the true origin of all of it came from. And why would it all benefit us perfectly? Just because? Nope. Only theories that come to a dead end for the scientist.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> Hostile? I could care less. I DO however see VERY problematic long age theory and macro-evolution, and belief in the God of the Bible, the I AM.
> 
> I find it absolutely fascinating, that no one explains how gender evolved so beautifully. Or how metamorphosis worked without a hitch, the very first time it gave it a whirl. Or how DNA/RNA came into being in all its amazing intricacies.


The speed of light and measurements for the distance between planets and galaxies show without refutation the age of things. 

Thinking of gender. Why would god create male and female? It is not like immaterial god would have a gender of it's own. So what purpose to a god would genders bring? (It is interesting the various gods and goddesses that early mankind dreamed up. Very human in many ways). Evolution however, using genders, allows for species to differentiate. Also, thinking of genders, why is it not perfect? Why are some born with both male and female organs? Seems like a strange thing to design so imperfectly. 

It is a great comfort to people to have religious beliefs. It provides structure and common goals. But it still does not change the fact that mankind invented all the gods. It is inescapable when you really get down to studying religious texts.


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> Ash flow formed a canyon, so what? As to sedimentary rocks, uh, please crack a geology book. It wasn't a 'worldwide flooding event' that caused the miles-thick sedimentary rock beds found all over the earth. More like the constant, slow rise and fall of tectonic plates floating on a sea of magma. One eon they are above sea level, the next below. Erosion, then deposition. Geology 101 covers most of this. Heck, even high school geology for that matter.


So I am dumb, huh? Crack a book? Look at the evidence, and explain to me what I have asked for. I realize it is impossible to answer, huh?


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> But it wouldn't be in distinct layers the way the Grand Canyon is.


That is what is so funny. It has distinct layers, just like the grand canyon has.


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> Yes, thats the problem some have with scientific knowledge, it goes against their treasured myths and threatens their belief system.
> 'Long age theory'... lol you think all this creation just got 'spoken into existance' 6000 years ago?? Heck there is ice cores dated to 400k years, and rocks that cooled BILLIONS of years ago. Its ok farmerdale, if there is a god, he wants you to use your brain and your eyes, not take dusty old scrolls written by a nomadic tribe of bronze age people as the end-all-be-all scientific treatise on everything.



I have no treasured myths. Yes, long age theory. Tell me, how do they date rocks? Yes, I believe that the Bible is accurate. Did you realize, that with ice cores, assumptions are made. Assumptions like that for every layer of ice, it is one year of deposition? If you live in a snow zone, you will know that layers occur with each snowstorm.

Why is pluto still emitting heat after billions of years? How can that be? There is a God, with a capital G, and I am thankful He exists. Speaking of brains, how did they evolve? More random chance, huh? Pretty amazing science, huh?

Are you going to take a stab at my other questions? The ones pertaining to metamorphosis, gender, instinct and so on? If your theory is fact, you should be able to simply explain off the top of your head, how these things evolved, no? Or is it too impossible?

Go for it.


----------



## farmerDale

I think it is very, very amusing, that no one is answering my questions, but are resorting to ridicule, acting like I am stupid or scientifically illiterate.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> That is what is so funny. It has distinct layers, just like the grand canyon has.


Wherever you heard this it is wrong. The ash flow has not created entirely different strata of rock. It may have different density of ash, colors and even caught up soil but it is not geological layers. 

There is much false information put out by groups trying to push some rather outlandish belief systems. The new earth creationists is one of the worst to distort facts.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> I think it is very, very amusing, that no one is answering my questions, but are resorting to ridicule, acting like I am stupid or scientifically illiterate.


I have answered all 3 of your questions and have not ridiculed you and not claimed you are stupid.

1. Speed of light used to date.
2. God is genderless why would it want to have genders? 
3. Mt. St. Helens ash flow did not create distinct geological layers.


----------



## HDRider

Sure are some real smart people on here, soulless but real smart,god-like almost in their wisdom.


----------



## poppy

My two cents. I'll stick with the Biblical version. It says God created the earth and everything on it and the heavens and everything in them. It does not give a date. Just "in the beginning". I believe the earth itself is very old with life on it for millions of years. Man in the flesh is a newcomer created by God for a special purpose. God is timeless and dwells outside of time. Our universe dwells within time. It had a beginning and will have an end. The new (rejuvenated) earth will also dwell outside of time and be our eternal home when time is done away with as described in the Bible. The Bible says at the end the heavens will roll away like a scroll when it is rolled up and also says the new earth will have no need for a sun. I suspect it will change dimensions into a timeless one. This whole dimension will likely be done away with.


----------



## Shine

Think of it for a moment. The Bible describes things so that mankind, a long time ago, might understand the principles. The strongest value espoused by the Bible is to worship God in your own personal way. All the rest is what are called "Crowns". To attain Heaven and everlasting life, you must believe with your whole heart, soul, mind and body. You are then compelled to do good in this world and do your best to love everyone to the best of your ability. I sincerely believe that the intent of your actions is what is judged, not the outcome of your actions.

But when the final judgement comes to bear upon us, we will stand before Him with those intentions, spread out for all to see. Then, upon that moment that judgement is contended, Christ will stand between me and the Lord Almighty and say to Him, This is one that you gave to me, I vouch for him. 

I do not know this to be reasonable but really, if God is timeless that would seem to imply that He sees the past, present and future all in one glance. The plan is laid out and He sees that it is good. That is enough for me.

Something else, if God is timeless, what is the duration of one of His days? Is it a day on this earth or a day somewhere else? I understand that there are many that believe that this earth is much younger than it appears to some, I wish to cast no shadow upon their understanding.

I have my marching orders, I probably fail each day with regards to rendering what He wants but you see, it is all in His plan, what I've done, what I do now, and what I will do, yet I am called to worship Him, not be a member in a church that has an altered understanding of "worship", but to be a part of the Church which is to be the Bride of Christ Almighty.

I find this to be awesome.


----------



## Shine

Just watched something... made me think about Wonders...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY#t=233.320181


----------



## Fennick

Somebody asked why do men have nipples and somebody else replied that all mammals have nipples. The reason why male mammals have nipples is because male mammals are capable of lactation to breastfeed their young in certain types of crisis situations or given the right kind of stimuli to trigger lactation in males. It's well documented in men and several types of other male mammals. Even human infants, both male and female, are capable of lactation under certain circumstances, the milk that infants produce is called _"witches milk". _For convenience I pulled up what wiki has to say about it for those who want to check the references and medical articles about male lactation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation



elevenpoint said:


> I have caught a few episodes of this sitcom...amusing for tv....but on a more serious note...once long ago was there a giant fart that all life..plant matter...that all came from? Do you believe your ancestry starts with a monkey or ape?


I won't say what I think about the universe and the spiral galaxy that our solar system is in but I think it was more like a big burp from our galaxy that created our own solar system that makes up our sun and planets and moons. I say burp because a burp is the result of something still living or active and not yet digested but a fart is a waste by-product, the result of something that has been digested and broken down into separate parts.

So our galaxy (or maybe some other galaxy) burped out the components that make up our solar system and eventually all our planets each became concentrated base materials of one type or another depending on their temperatures and distances from the sun. In addition over the course of time each planet has been getting seeded with transient space materials from other sources in the universe that are constantly peppering each planet and helping to change each planet. Like the lovely yellow/green semi-precious gemstone crystal known as peridot for example, it's not an earthly crystal and wasn't on earth when our planet first was forming. Long after earth was already formed peridot came in showers of small particle crystalline forms from elsewhere in the universe, the showers still come at regular intervals and have thoroughly peppered the earth with peridot crystals now. This adds to earth's own evolution.

Earth is mainly carbon based and all living things on earth are carbon based. We are all carbon units. If somehow the earth caught on fire all that would be left when it expired would be a cloud of particles of carbon. Other planets are based in other mineral or gaseous materials. I think the sun and all our other planets have lifeforms on them that are all based on whatever their respective celestial body's base component is.

In answer to your question about our ancestry going back to apes or monkeys, no, I don't think so. We are hominids, apes are hominids but both life forms have evolved separately from each other. Humans and apes are probably distantly related to all other earth's life forms that share similar internal organs and function (i.e. heart, skin, blood, lungs, bones, hair, digestive organs, etc., etc.) but all those living things evolved out of something else much, much older .... probably something like little worms that evolved out of primal material into other living, moving things. None of us were created with intent per se but we developed out of whatever essences we were formed from when something else in the universe burped out those essences. Which leaves us asking "what things were all those essences composing before they got burped out?"


----------



## Abe R Crombie

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."


----------



## MDKatie

farmerDale said:


> I think it is very, very amusing, that no one is answering my questions, but are resorting to ridicule, acting like I am stupid or scientifically illiterate.


You mean exactly like you did in this post of yours?



farmerDale said:


> When I try to uncover the theories these *"scientists "* come up with for metamorphosis, for gender, for RNA and DNA and how it came about, it is full of maybes, could haves, and we are not really sure why. I study this a lot, and *no one has a clue*, so they cover their butts with the above terms. Yet many state it as FACT. lol
> 
> *And they call that "science". Bwahahahahahaha! Unreal, huh?*



And you never did show proof that your god exists. I am not talking about proof that there once was a flood. I mean actual concrete evidence of your god. You can't show that, because there isn't any.


----------



## MattB4

HDRider said:


> Sure are some real smart people on here, soulless but real smart,god-like almost in their wisdom.


Souls are another mankind's creation. Used to describe our sense of self. 

I have no desire to convert people from their beliefs. No wisdom to offer other than if you have a bible read it with a critical eye. Also read other religious texts from cultures that predate the books of the bible. If nothing else it will increase your understanding of why you believe what you believe.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

"For *the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing*, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'​  "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ​ "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, *but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God*. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25​


----------



## farmerDale

MDKatie said:


> You mean exactly like you did in this post of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you never did show proof that your god exists. I am not talking about proof that there once was a flood. I mean actual concrete evidence of your god. You can't show that, because there isn't any.


Yeah, I see I kinda had a chuckle about the theory of evolution, which is not in the least scientific. See, science can be replicated, testable, and so on, and so far, no replication or testing that produced results has been done. Hence I chuckle at the theory. I am not chuckling at you personally, I like you actually... You make me think a lot. 

See, to me, the concrete proof that God exists, is the world around me. I marvel at the intricacies of nature, the amazing world we live in, and realize that random chance could have never, ever made it happen. For me, this is exactly what helps me keep my faith firm and keeps me sane.

As a farmer, there are several times a year where it hits me most intensely... Seeding time, where I put seeds in the soil, which sat in my bins all winter, and sometimes for several years, doing nothing. But then they grow. For me, it is a miracle.

Breeding time. When we release the rams with the ladies, I always marvel at how brilliant the whole system is. The instinct that causes all rams to do the same thing. The perfect harmony of male and female. 

Lambing time. When the lambs start dropping, my faith is at its maximum for the year. All the hormonal changes in the ewe, all the instinct that is automatic. It is so complex and perfect a system, and I am always amazed at my God for His wisdom and His brilliance.

Without God, I would wonder at how the first seed grew, and ensured more seeds were produced for future species preservation. I would wonder at how the heck gender and sexual reproduction came into being all at once, and the intricacies of sperm production, complementary eggs, pH balances, the amazing uterus, implantation and growth of the fertilized egg, which attaches to the wall, and placenta growth occurs, and an umbilical cord magically appears to feed the new baby. Amazing. Too amazing to not have a designer.

Without God, I would wonder how the first mammal produced milk to feed its young; How that milk was produced, why it was let down at the perfect time. Without God, I would wonder how the mammary glands formed in perfect tandem with all the other things that had to also have occurred simultaneously, or the species would have failed after its first generation. 

Actually, one of the most amazing things to me lately that shows me how amazing He is, is when we started incubating our own eggs. In three weeks, a simple egg, goes from a fertilized specimen, to a grown, viable chick. A chick that knows which way is up somehow. That just happens to have an egg tooth to help it get out. And the egg that just happens to have an air bubble in one end. How the chicks invariably tuck their head under their wing, in order to start the pipping process.

I simply do not see how this stuff could have ever happened randomly, because all these thing would have had to happen very suddenly, and very simultaneously, or else there would be no life at all. An egg with no air pocket would be no good. A ewe with no uterus, but an udder would be no good for species survival. A baby with no milk, a ram with no sperm, a ewe with no vagina, a seed that remained dormant, a plant that grew no seed in the first generation. For me, this entire planet, screams and yells GOD!!!

And that is why I keep asking about the intricacies of metamorphosis. Slow change over time, simply could not ever work; it simply had to happen suddenly. All there is to it.

Anyway, I need to be off feeding my stock now, so I hope this explains better, how I feel as I do, and why I think as I do.


----------



## Truckinguy

Those of us who breed and raise animals see Evolution happening all the time. We breed for different traits and can alter our animals in only a couple of generations. We breed for color, conformity, feed to meat conversion and many other things. I read an article, not sure where now, about many breeds of dogs that are quite different than they were at the turn of the century (1900). Bulldogs are one example, starting out as a healthy working dog and have now become become quite different, lower, shorter and wider in only the span of a hundred years or so. Spread that out over millions of years and I find it quite plausible that nature has changed dramatically. Most mammals, birds and insects share a lot of the same structure, hips, shoulders, skulls, legs, arms, fingers, etc, just in quite different configurations. Even humans have evidence of tails. I can quite easily see us coming from some common ancestors.

Personally I like tangibles. Expose water to temperatures below freezing and it turns to ice, plant a seed in the ground and it grows into a plant, stub my toe and it causes pain, light a fire and it creates heat. I think religions are a cop out to conveniently explain things that are not understood and I don't think it's an accident that most originated when there was a lack of scientific knowledge about our surroundings. If someone looks at Nature and sees a creator, good for you. I don't deny you your right to follow whatever spiritual path gives you comfort and makes you happy, just don't let your path interfere with mine.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Truckinguy said:


> Those of us who breed and raise animals see Evolution happening all the time. We breed for different traits and can alter our animals in only a couple of generations. We breed for color, conformity, feed to meat conversion and many other things. I read an article, not sure where now, about many breeds of dogs that are quite different than they were at the turn of the century (1900). Bulldogs are one example, starting out as a healthy working dog and have now become become quite different, lower, shorter and wider in only the span of a hundred years or so. Spread that out over millions of years and I find it quite plausible that nature has changed dramatically. Most mammals, birds and insects share a lot of the same structure, hips, shoulders, skulls, legs, arms, fingers, etc, just in quite different configurations. Even humans have evidence of tails. I can quite easily see us coming from some common ancestors.
> 
> Personally I like tangibles. Expose water to temperatures below freezing and it turns to ice, plant a seed in the ground and it grows into a plant, stub my toe and it causes pain, light a fire and it creates heat. I think religions are a cop out to conveniently explain things that are not understood and I don't think it's an accident that most originated when there was a lack of scientific knowledge about our surroundings. If someone looks at Nature and sees a creator, good for you. I don't deny you your right to follow whatever spiritual path gives you comfort and makes you happy, just don't let your path interfere with mine.


Excellent post. Thank you.


----------



## MDKatie

farmerDale said:


> . I am not chuckling at you personally, I like you actually... You make me think a lot.


Thanks, I like you too. I enjoyed your post, and I'm glad that your spirituality brings you joy. I marvel at those things too, and think how amazing science is to turn two single cells into new life. Sometimes there are duds (like infertile sheep, or bad seeds that don't germinate), so those genes don't get passed on. 

We'll never know exactly what happened to create our world, but as long as we're respectful about it, we're free to believe what makes the most sense to us.


----------



## JoePa

We are all made of some form of matter - tell me how does matter have the ability to think - 

You can argue till you are blue in the face and not convince anyone of the existence of God if that person can't see His handy work all around them - believing that this world just happened without a creator is like believing that a wind blowing through a junk yard can over a long enough time will eventually build a 747 jet that is able to fly - 

I believe in God and when anyone asks me why I tell them - I won't argue with them after that - let them find out some day - actually I feel sorry for them because they go through this life without a reason for even existing - their life is meaningless - here today - gone tomorrow - for what - at least I have the hope for a better place after I die -


----------



## farmerDale

Truckinguy said:


> Those of us who breed and raise animals see Evolution happening all the time. We breed for different traits and can alter our animals in only a couple of generations. We breed for color, conformity, feed to meat conversion and many other things. I read an article, not sure where now, about many breeds of dogs that are quite different than they were at the turn of the century (1900). Bulldogs are one example, starting out as a healthy working dog and have now become become quite different, lower, shorter and wider in only the span of a hundred years or so. Spread that out over millions of years and I find it quite plausible that nature has changed dramatically. Most mammals, birds and insects share a lot of the same structure, hips, shoulders, skulls, legs, arms, fingers, etc, just in quite different configurations. Even humans have evidence of tails. I can quite easily see us coming from some common ancestors.
> 
> Personally I like tangibles. Expose water to temperatures below freezing and it turns to ice, plant a seed in the ground and it grows into a plant, stub my toe and it causes pain, light a fire and it creates heat. I think religions are a cop out to conveniently explain things that are not understood and I don't think it's an accident that most originated when there was a lack of scientific knowledge about our surroundings. If someone looks at Nature and sees a creator, good for you. I don't deny you your right to follow whatever spiritual path gives you comfort and makes you happy, just don't let your path interfere with mine.


As an animal breeder, I see micro evolution as well. But that is fairly different from a sheep becoming some other species, no? I know, I know, it takes a long, long time, so none of us will ever see it in action, which is what I know evolutionists hide behind all the time. Yet it had to happen quickly as I pointed out before. Actually, it had to have happened simultaneously, or it could not have happened at all.

I believe that ancient man was much more brilliant than we give him credit for. I am not a "religious" guy, and I agree, 99.9% of them make no sense whatsoever. 

I am not trying to sway people, I just am sharing what I believe!


----------



## Irish Pixie

JoePa said:


> We are all made of some form of matter - tell me how does matter have the ability to think -
> 
> You can argue till you are blue in the face and not convince anyone of the existence of God if that person can't see His handy work all around them - believing that this world just happened without a creator is like believing that a wind blowing through a junk yard can over a long enough time will eventually build a 747 jet that is able to fly -
> 
> I believe in God and when anyone asks me why I tell them - I won't argue with them after that - let them find out some day - actually I feel sorry for them because they go through this life without a reason for even existing - their life is meaningless - here today - gone tomorrow - for what - at least I have the hope for a better place after I die -


This is one of the most patronizing and condescending posts I've ever read. I'll just leave it at that because if I respond in the same fashion I will be accused of "bashing religion". Ironic, huh?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Truckinguy said:


> Those of us who breed and raise animals see Evolution happening all the time. We breed for different traits and can alter our animals in only a couple of generations. We breed for color, conformity, feed to meat conversion and many other things. I read an article, not sure where now, about many breeds of dogs that are quite different than they were at the turn of the century (1900). Bulldogs are one example, starting out as a healthy working dog and have now become become quite different, lower, shorter and wider in only the span of a hundred years or so. Spread that out over millions of years and I find it quite plausible that nature has changed dramatically. Most mammals, birds and insects share a lot of the same structure, hips, shoulders, skulls, legs, arms, fingers, etc, just in quite different configurations. Even humans have evidence of tails. I can quite easily see us coming from some common ancestors.
> 
> Personally I like tangibles. Expose water to temperatures below freezing and it turns to ice, plant a seed in the ground and it grows into a plant, stub my toe and it causes pain, light a fire and it creates heat. I think religions are a cop out to conveniently explain things that are not understood and I don't think it's an accident that most originated when there was a lack of scientific knowledge about our surroundings. If someone looks at Nature and sees a creator, good for you. I don't deny you your right to follow whatever spiritual path gives you comfort and makes you happy, just don't let your path interfere with mine.


You can breed traits but not change the species or the dna information that species has. 

Is there physical proof of God? To me yes. Why? Because science can never disprove him. Infact it hits a wall. Based on science life starts someplace. But where? What created the first cell or atom or matter? Science can never tell you that. There is scientific proof that there was an almost instant explosion of life. Evolution has never been witnesssed or reproduced . Therfore it fails it's own scientific definition of fact. Infact science proves there are millions of species that have never changed one bit. There is no fossil evidence of evolution. There are claims but no proof. Every culture has a story of the great flood. Many without Christian influence. Including the native Americans. We know based on the big bang theory that the big bang is impossible. Earth at a time of complete surface of molten lave could not support any life. Not a single seed could survive. Let alone the billions of different seeds needed to create plants we have on earth. Not a single cell could survive. Let alone the billions of different cells with their own individual strands dna structure to create the billions of life firms on earth.

Science cannot add dna information to anything. They can mutate it. But it is never passed on to its offspring. A fish no matter how hard it tries cant tell itself to grow legs and lungs. The dna information is not there. 

Evolution changes things for the better so they say. So humans evolved away their body hair which is what would have regulated their warmth and cooling mechanism. That's devolution to the detriment of the species. A species always adapts for survival. But humans evolved traits that were detrimental to the species. We are also one of the only species that not only doesn't fight to survive, but purposely kill ourselves. 
It takes more faith to believe in the science of evolution then God.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Evolution has never been witnesssed or reproduced . Therfore it fails it's own scientific definition of fact. Infact science proves there are millions of species that have never changed one bit. There is no fossil evidence of evolution.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Darwin observed the evolution of the galapagos finches over a short period of time. Dog breeders can artificially breed features in and out of dogs in just a few generations. Evolution can be demonstrated in the lab.



Vahomesteaders said:


> Science cannot add dna information to anything.


Actually, for better or for worse, genetic editing has become a reality.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Darwin observed the evolution of the galapagos finches over a short period of time. Dog breeders can artificially breed features in and out of dogs in just a few generations. Evolution can be demonstrated in the lab.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, for better or for worse, genetic editing has become a reality.


Darwin was quoted as saying that the honey bees prefect design of the honey comb showed intelligent design and was enough to prove his own theories wrong. 

Giving a dog bigger muscles and taller ears does not make it a cat. It's still a dog. Mammals can't come from amphibians. You can alter the genetics if a species but you cannot change its dna. It is still the same species.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> You can alter the genetics if a species but you cannot change its dna.


You're just denying reality now.

_Genome editing, or genome editing with engineered nucleases (GEEN) is a type of genetic engineering in which *DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced*_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> You're just denying reality now.
> 
> _Genome editing, or genome editing with engineered nucleases (GEEN) is a type of genetic engineering in which *DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced*_
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing


Im not denying anything. Show me where they changed one species to a total different species. Show me where they added dna to tell something to grow a different appendage. And show where that dna information is passed to the young of living breathing species.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Darwin studied outward appearences. He knew nothing of dna or genetics. He said survival of the fittest. The THEORY of evolution is not fact and based on alot of assumptions and opinions


----------



## fireweed farm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Darwin was quoted as saying that the honey bees prefect design of the honey comb showed intelligent design and was enough to prove his own theories wrong.
> 
> Giving a dog bigger muscles and taller ears does not make it a cat. It's still a dog. Mammals can't come from amphibians. You can alter the genetics if a species but you cannot change its dna. It is still the same species.


Your answers suggest not even a pinch of understanding in basic science. Less than grade 4-5 science. I'm curious of your past schooling history. Not that it's my business but it is fascinating when someone didn't at minimum learn basic science.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> Yeah, I see I kinda had a chuckle about the theory of evolution, which is not in the least scientific. ...


There is nothing wrong about you having faith. If it comforts you and gives you purpose and morality. There is something wrong when you think evolution is not scientific. The competing theories are:
Creation - some god, depending on your religion and depth of belief created life and the Universe. This god has powers outside physics and science to explain. 

Evolution - life and the universe arose from basic physics and the shear fact it did. No guidance, no reason, no higher forms of evolution, just life changes. It is science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Darwin was quoted as *saying* that the honey bees prefect design of the honey comb showed intelligent design and was enough to prove his own theories wrong.
> 
> Giving a dog bigger muscles and taller ears does not make it a cat. It's still a dog. Mammals can't come from amphibians. You can alter the genetics if a species but you cannot change its dna. It is still the same species.


Saying something doesn't constitute proof of it's existence either.

It should be obvious through fossil evidence that DNA has in fact changed over time. 

Man's short, minor influence on the world is pretty much meaningless in the overall scheme


----------



## deb_rn

But it doesn't happen "by itself". Only altered by man! 

You all have given brilliant explainations of GOD's creation! 
When the "scientists" did carbon dating on the Mt. St. Helen's flow... they got a very old number. THAT alone proves that carbon dating is flawed. If it took billions of years to develop everything... the male/female original being would have been dead before the mate "evolved". There would then be no continuation. The same could be said for the plants that need a male and female plant to form seed to repopulate. It HAD to happen at the same time. There has never been replication by any scientist to show this... because God created it all in 6 days. He even explained it for us to make it clear that the earth is young... https://answersingenesis.org/creati...rth-creationist-view-summarized-and-defended/. Much more "blind faith" is needed to believe the "old earth" model than what is given us in the Bible.

Debbie


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> Darwin studied outward appearences. He knew nothing of dna or genetics. He said survival of the fittest. The THEORY of evolution is not fact and based on alot of assumptions and opinions


Find me a religion based on facts and not human imagination. For that matter point to a god that is testable using normal scientific methods. Answers to prayer are not a reliable form of testing nor is pointing to books where claims of miracles are made. 

After all we all can see at the movies comic book heroes with amazing powers. Does that prove anything? How about stage magician tricks? Is real magic happening? Never base your faith in god on the fact that evolution is a theory. Your god is a theory entirely based in faith.


----------



## Nevada

deb_rn said:


> When the "scientists" did carbon dating on the Mt. St. Helen's flow... they got a very old number. THAT alone proves that carbon dating is flawed.


Sometimes we get a false temperature reading from a thermometer, but we don't discard the scientific theory behind the thermometer. The principles of expansion & contraction are still valid. We just look at why the temperature reading was flawed.

The same is true of carbon dating. The theory of radioactive decay is sound, but there can be problems in sample contamination.


----------



## MattB4

deb_rn said:


> ... Much more "blind faith" is needed to believe the "old earth" model than what is given us in the Bible.
> 
> Debbie


Sorry Debbie but the universe can be dated by using the speed of light. 

Have you ever noticed the time delay when watching a interview on the news when someone far from the interviewer has to wait to hear what the question was before answering and the interviewer and them often start talking before the other finishes? This is because radio waves and electricity propagate at the speed of light and it takes time to travel the distance. Using math we can measure the universe and the times that come up are billions of years. If that was not so those little twinkling stars at night would not be so far off nor as big as they actually are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by deb_rn View Post
> When the "scientists" did carbon dating on the Mt. St. Helen's flow... *they got a very old number*. THAT alone proves that carbon dating is flawed.


Of course they did.
Carbon dating tests the material and not the date of deposition.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

fireweed farm said:


> Your answers suggest not even a pinch of understanding in basic science. Less than grade 4-5 science. I'm curious of your past schooling history. Not that it's my business but it is fascinating when someone didn't at minimum learn basic science.


No place in basic science are you taught a fact that a species can alter it's own information. There are mutations in gnomes . A &#8216;mutation&#8217; can be a change in the sequence of DNA. Mutations can be bad or (theoretically) good, but they all involve some change in the sequence of letters (base pairs) in the genome. A single mutation can be as simple as a single letter swap (C changed to T) or the insertion or deletion of a few letters. These simple mutations are in the majority. Mutations can also be complex, like the deletion or duplication of an entire gene, or even a massive inversion of a millions-of-base-pairs section of a chromosome arm. Genomes are not static and the DNA sequence can change over time, but some of these changes are controlled by genetic algorithms built into the genomes themselves. In other words, not all changes are accidental, and a large proportion of genetic &#8216;information&#8217; is algorithmal. I do believe there are characteristic changes that take place in a species. But I believe God designed it that way for the cause of adaption. But again. Characteristic changes are not species changes that had to accure in the beggining for evolution to be true. God is the greatest scientist of all time.

http://creation.com/mutations-new-information


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> No place in basic science are you taught a fact that a species can alter it's own information. There are mutations in gnomes . A âmutationâ can be a change in the sequence of DNA. Mutations can be bad or (theoretically) good, but they all involve some change in the sequence of letters (base pairs) in the genome. A single mutation can be as simple as a single letter swap (C changed to T) or the insertion or deletion of a few letters. These simple mutations are in the majority. Mutations can also be complex, like the deletion or duplication of an entire gene, or even a massive inversion of a millions-of-base-pairs section of a chromosome arm. Genomes are not static and the DNA sequence can change over time, but some of these changes are controlled by genetic algorithms built into the genomes themselves. In other words, not all changes are accidental, and a large proportion of genetic âinformationâ is algorithmal. I do believe there are characteristic changes that take place in a species. But I believe God designed it that way for the cause of adaption. But again. Characteristic changes are not species changes that had to accure in the beggining for evolution to be true. God is the greatest scientist of all time.


This post was taken nearly completely from this site, if you'd like to read it by the original author: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> No place in basic science are you taught a fact that a species can alter it's own information.


But you've already admitted that dog breeders can grow & shrink features.

As far as creating a new species, the Galapagos finches evolved themselves into a new species.

_*Sympatric speciation* is the process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same geographic region._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> This post was taken nearly completely from this site, if you'd like to read it by the original author: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information


Creation Ministries International?


----------



## poppy

For evolution to be true, it would have to be a continual process. IOW, we should see species in the process of evolving everywhere. When you dig into rock formations millions of years old you find snail shells identical to snail shells today. They have not evolved into anything else. Where are those snails evolving into fish or anything else? Crocodiles are one of the oldest animals still alive today and are a throwback to prehistoric times. They're still Crocodiles just like those we find fossils of. Sorry, I don't buy it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> Creation Ministries International?


I know. :facepalm:


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> This post was taken nearly completely from this site, if you'd like to read it by the original author: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information


Yes I did. To explain mutations. That site proves through science what I have been saying.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> But you've already admitted the dog breeders can grow & shrink features.
> 
> As far as creating a new species, the Galapagos finches evolved themselves into a new species.
> 
> _*Sympatric speciation* is the process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same geographic region._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation


They are still a finch.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did. To explain mutations. That site proves through science what I have been saying.


It's also plagiarism. 

plaÂ·giaÂ·rism
&#712;pl&#257;j&#601;&#716;riz&#601;m
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

BTW, I didn't read it and don't believe the concept.


----------



## Nevada

poppy said:


> For evolution to be true, it would have to be a continual process. IOW, we should see species in the process of evolving everywhere.


Species are evolving every day. It's just not happening fast enough to suit you.


----------



## MattB4

Nevada said:


> Creation Ministries International?


Young Earth creationism is a fascinating group of outright conmen and poor deluded followers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism 
Main stream religion does not accept it as being a valid concept. 

For so many years of being exposed as being totally wrong it is amazing how it still gets believers.


----------



## Nevada

MattB4 said:


> Young Earth creationism is a fascinating group of outright conmen and poor deluded followers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
> Main stream religion does not accept it as being a valid concept.
> 
> For so many years of being exposed as being totally wrong it is amazing how it still gets believers.


The creationism equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## fireweed farm

poppy said:


> For evolution to be true, it would have to be a continual process. IOW, we should see species in the process of evolving everywhere. When you dig into rock formations millions of years old you find snail shells identical to snail shells today. They have not evolved into anything else. Where are those snails evolving into fish or anything else? Crocodiles are one of the oldest animals still alive today and are a throwback to prehistoric times. They're still Crocodiles just like those we find fossils of. Sorry, I don't buy it.


Wow...


----------



## fireweed farm

To the creationists, how does the bible explain dinosaurs?
No not how do new-age Christian websites explain them. What does the bible say?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

There are billions and billions of species of plants and animals on the earth. Where did they come from? If earth was molten lava where nothing could exist. How did they get here? Where did all the water come from? Remember the earth was a fragment of a much larger object blown to bits. Where did it all come from?

I know you will go on believing what you want. Neither of us will change each other mind. You can believe that your existence means so little that when you die you are forgotten like your friends and loved ones before you only to be remembered in passing once in a while. And I'll believe that we have a far more beautiful purpose of life after this one right back on this earth when it is recreated as it was supposed to be from the garden. Free of sin. Where the bible says we will be growing our own food and living as we were intended in constant good fellowship with friends, loved ones and the father. Basically homesteading for eternity with our loved ones forever.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

fireweed farm said:


> To the creationists, how does the bible explain dinosaurs?
> No not how do new-age Christian websites explain them. What does the bible say?


The bible talks of the great beasts that roamed the earth. It describes the brontosaur the stegasaurus the moseasaur and the ankliosaur. In great detail I might add. Long before the first fossil was found.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> You can believe that your existence means so little that when you die you are forgotten like your friends and loved ones before you only to be remembered in passing once in a while.


Why does it need to be any more than that? We all do our part in participating and evolving this great society humans have created, then we die.

Believe what you like. But keep in mind that this great society wasn't built on faith, it was built on an ever-evolving body of knowledge that we call science.

If there is a God, the thing that would make him most proud would be our development of science, which allows humans to build great things and solve problems themselves. Imagine what he thinks of creationists and flat earthers...


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Why does it need to be any more than that? We all do our part in participating and evolving this great society humans have created, then we die.
> 
> Believe what you like. But keep in mind that this great society wasn't built on faith, it was built on an ever-evolving body of knowledge that we call science.
> 
> If there is a God, the thing that would make him most proud would be our development of science, that allows humans to build great things and solve problems themselves. Imagine what he thinks of creationists and flat earthers...


I agree for the most part. And I never said I was a young earth creationist. God said the earth was void and without life. It doesn't say how long it was that way before he started creating life. If your a believer God lays out how he hopes we will live or lives. He doesn't force it. So we follow his example. We were founded on faith. Every culture has a basis of faith in a god or gods. It's in the history of every culture. And man lived that way for tens of thousands of years. It's only been the last few hundred that's started changing.

And I don't treat anyone different. I respect everyone's right to believe in whatever they choose. I got gay atheists in my family who are at my table every thanksgiving. And I love them. Lol


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Darwin observed the evolution of the galapagos finches over a short period of time. Dog breeders can artificially breed features in and out of dogs in just a few generations. Evolution can be demonstrated in the lab.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, for better or for worse, genetic editing has become a reality.


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That is NOT evolution. Not even close. Finches with adaptations always existed. Remember the old farce that was the peppered moth? Same thing, except that one was a big, fat hoax.

Nothing new genetically was added to the finches. 

Same with the dogs. Yes, features can be selected. This is completely obvious. But there is no new material added t their genetic code. It is simply allowing certain genes to express, while breeding out others. In fact, it is often the case that information is LOST, not gained.

That is not evolution, or it is MICRO evolution at best, which is indeed observable in a lab. But that does not mean a finch can eventually become a raven, or that a wolf can become a whale. Macro evolution is simply put, preposterous. It will never be demonstrated in a lab. Of course the evolutionist answer is we need more time. Really? Coal can be made in a lab in a matter of hours. Oil too. Wood can be petrified in very short order. Science can prove, and does prove, that things once thought to take eons of time to form, can occur very swiftly. So should not evolutionists, with all their "facts" with all their knowledge, be able to create life from nothing? Be able to rapidly select say a fruit fly, and make it change into something else? 

Macro evolution, has nothing to stand on. Animals adapting to environments? One would be foolish to claim it does not happen.


----------



## farmerDale

fireweed farm said:


> Your answers suggest not even a pinch of understanding in basic science. Less than grade 4-5 science. I'm curious of your past schooling history. Not that it's my business but it is fascinating when someone didn't at minimum learn basic science.


Just quoting this so Irish Pixie can see the true meaning of patronizing and cruel intent. Now THAT was patronizing...


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Species are evolving every day. It's just not happening fast enough to suit you.


So which species is transitional as we speak? I assume you would say all are then? I want to see the wolf that was partly a whale before it moved into the sea, after its nostrils migrated up to the top of its head. Gotta be piles of them in the fossil record, no? What about the bats with partly formed wings? How about the first testicles before they were fully testicles? What about the first failed metamorphosis?


----------



## Farmerga

Most of us are heavy into the agricultural business, correct? Well, here is a simple way to prove evolution. Keep in mind that all evolution is, is a change in a group over time through genomic means. 

Say you have a herd of Texas Longhorn cattle. You soon tire of cutting off horns, or, face having your equipment/body/dogs/family damaged by the horns. You decide to eat all of your herd bulls and replace them with Black Angus bulls. What happens to the next calf crop? Will they look different than previous calf crops? Of course they will. That is change in a population, or, evolution, albeit a directed form. 

We see evolution everywhere on the farm. When you deworm your animals for years using Ivomec and, eventually it doesn't seem to work as well as it once did, that is evolution. 

When you hear about a super bug at the local hospital, that is resistant to current antibiotics, that is evolution. 

Evolution is real. There can be no serious denial of that. Personally, I believe that large scale evolution is directed, much like we do with our animals, by a creator God, but, it is happening.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmerDale said:


> Just quoting this so Irish Pixie can see the true meaning of patronizing and cruel intent. Now THAT was patronizing...


Nope, not any more so than telling someone they're going to suffer if they don't believe exactly what you do.

Let me refresh your memory- joepa said this: "I believe in God and when anyone asks me why I tell them - I won't argue with them after that - *let them find out some day - actually I feel sorry for them because they go through this life without a reason for even existing - their life is meaningless *- here today - gone tomorrow - for what - at least I have the hope for a better place after I die -"


----------



## farmerDale

fireweed farm said:


> To the creationists, how does the bible explain dinosaurs?
> No not how do new-age Christian websites explain them. What does the bible say?


The Bible talks about the behemoth, and the Leviathon. The word dinosaur was not around then. The description in Job, speaks about an enormous animal with a "tail" like a cedar. There is no animal that exists with a tail like a cedar tree today. 

What do you think of ancient carvings all over the place which CLEARLY show that the artists knew about dinosaurs with great accuracy. There are triceratops carvings, stegasaur type etchings, and many brontosaurus type depictions, OUTSIDE the bible.

I find it fascinating, personally.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> There is nothing wrong about you having faith. If it comforts you and gives you purpose and morality. *There is something wrong when you think evolution is not scientific.* The competing theories are:
> Creation - some god, depending on your religion and depth of belief created life and the Universe. This god has powers outside physics and science to explain.
> 
> Evolution - *life and the universe arose from basic physics and the shear fact it did.* No guidance, no reason, no higher forms of evolution, just life changes. It is science.


It isn't scientific. That is the issue. It is not replicated in a lab. It can not be proven using the greatest tools in mankind's arsenal. It is a theory, and it has no place in science, knowing what we know about the complexities of the genetic code for example.



There is only one God which even comes close to explaining the beginnings of life, the free will and failings of man, and the Way to reconnect with Him. The other gods are uncapitalized, mythical creations of mankind indeed.

God is the ultimate scientist. I think he is incredibly brilliant and incredibly amazing. Science constantly copies his ideas, because his ideas are always the best ones.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Farmerga said:


> Most of us are heavy into the agricultural business, correct? Well, here is a simple way to prove evolution. Keep in mind that all evolution is, is a change in a group over time through genomic means.
> 
> Say you have a herd of Texas Longhorn cattle. You soon tire of cutting off horns, or, face having your equipment/body/dogs/family damaged by the horns. You decide to eat all of your herd bulls and replace them with Black Angus bulls. What happens to the next calf crop? Will they look different than previous calf crops? Of course they will. That is change in a population, or, evolution, albeit a directed form.
> 
> We see evolution everywhere on the farm. When you deworm your animals for years using Ivomec and, eventually it doesn't seem to work as well as it once did, that is evolution.
> 
> When you hear about a super bug at the local hospital, that is resistant to current antibiotics, that is evolution.
> 
> Evolution is real. There can be no serious denial of that. Personally, I believe that large scale evolution is directed, much like we do with our animals, by a creator God, but, it is happening.


You are right to a degree. But the cows are still cattle. Evolutionists say a group of cells became eventually a living creature in the water. That creature decided it was tired of the water so it grew legs and air breathing lungs and walked on land. It then got tired of going slow and evolved longer faster legs. Then it hated land so it grew wings and feathers from scales and started flying. Then decided we still need fish so it went back to its original form self procreated more fish then did the same for every single species on earth. They all came from the same group of cells in the same mud puddle with the same dna structure. Every single species of animal and plants and insects from the same group of cells and nobody's can tell us how that group of cells got here or what created them. 

Most of what we see in agriculture is genetic modification. Not evolution. Now I believe in that and adaptation. Not in my food of coarse.lol


----------



## farmerDale

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not any more so than telling someone they're going to suffer if they don't believe exactly what you do.
> 
> Let me refresh your memory- joepa said this: "I believe in God and when anyone asks me why I tell them - I won't argue with them after that - *let them find out some day - actually I feel sorry for them because they go through this life without a reason for even existing - their life is meaningless *- here today - gone tomorrow - for what - at least I have the hope for a better place after I die -"


He states that he feels for you, that is called compassion. What did he say you were going to suffer? I missed that part I guess???


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Most of what we see in agriculture is genetic modification. Not evolution. Now I believe in that and adaptation. Not in my food of coarse.lol


Changes are too subtle for you, but they happen. You really can't expect a cat to turn into an alligator overnight. The fact that you haven't seen a radical change yourself doesn't mean that it can't happen.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Changes are too subtle for you, but they happen. You really can't expect a cat to turn into an alligator overnight. The fact that you haven't seen a radical change yourself doesn't mean that it can't happen.


So show us the cat/alligator so to speak. Quick, google missing link!  I know evolutionists have all kinds of apparent transitional fossils in their theory. If it takes so long, there should be PILES and PILES of transitional species. So where are they exactly?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmerDale said:


> He states that he feels for you, that is called compassion. What did he say you were going to suffer? I missed that part I guess???


Read my post again, I never said a specific person said anything about suffering. 

He stated that anyone that doesn't believe in god their life is meaningless. Do you really think that is compassionate? Seriously? :facepalm:


----------



## Farmerga

Vahomesteaders said:


> You are right to a degree. But the cows are still cattle. Evolutionists say a group of cells became eventually a living creature in the water. That creature decided it was tired of the water so it grew legs and air breathing lungs and walked on land. It then got tired of going slow and evolved longer faster legs. Then it hated land so it grew wings and feathers from scales and started flying. Then decided we still need fish so it went back to its original form self procreated more fish then did the same for every single species on earth. They all came from the same group of cells in the same mud puddle with the same dna structure. Every single species of animal and plants and insects from the same group of cells and nobody's can tell us how that group of cells got here or what created them.
> 
> Most of what we see in agriculture is genetic modification. Not evolution. Now I believe in that and adaptation. Not in my food of coarse.lol


 You are confusing two different things. evolution is simply a genetic change in a population over time. Genetic modification is evolution, either natural or directed by man. Adaptation is not a genetic change in a population, but, rather becoming "used" to a differing environment. 

Now, some believe that we came from primordial goo through chemical reactions that formed the first, simple life, and, through evolution, different species came to be, all by chance. That is their belief. Mine differs. I see the complexity of life and think that the chances are so unbelievably small of such complexity just being a matter of chance, that it is laughable to the extreme.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Changes are too subtle for you, but they happen. You really can't expect a cat to turn into an alligator overnight. The fact that you haven't seen a radical change yourself doesn't mean that it can't happen.


It is impossible. The dna information isn't present. The cat has nothing in its dna to say I can possibly be an alligator. It will never happen. Heck look at humans. We can't even interchange human parts without taking medicine to keep the body from rejecting it. And even then it has to be perfect blood match. Even the same species barely comingles on a genetic scale. So how can a species become something different?


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> There are billions and billions of species of plants and animals on the earth. Where did they come from? If earth was molten lava where nothing could exist. How did they get here? Where did all the water come from? Remember the earth was a fragment of a much larger object blown to bits. Where did it all come from?
> 
> ...


They came from evolution. Not loaded up on Noah's Ark. Can you even imagine the size a ship would have to be to contain a breeding population of all the insects and animal life? Not to mention the food storage needed. It is ludicrous. makes for a good story but it simply is impossible without magic happening. 

The earth formed from stellar dust. That dust was the remains of burnt out stars. This is the reason we have heavy elements. The water on earth came through impacts with ice bearing objects like comets and meteors. At one time it was molten due to activity of repeated collisions with celestial objects. Our moon is a example where a very large impact tossed off enough debris to form the moon. Once the bombardment slowed down the earth began to cool. 

So saying the earth is a fragment of a much large object is a bit strange unless you refer to the dust cloud being the remnant of earlier stars. We are not the broken remains of a previous larger planet in out solar system. 

Where did it all come from? Nothing and everything. Thus the Big Bang theory.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If it takes so long, there should be PILES and PILES of transitional species.
> 
> So *where are they* exactly?


It's difficult for fossils to form, and the Earth is in constant motion so much of what came before has been destroyed. 

New discoveries are still being made, and it's only been in the last couple of decades we could use DNA testing to see relationships among species

Many "transitional" species have been identified, but it's doubtful there will ever be actual physical examples of entire evolutionary lines, even if DNA fragments show connections

Humans haven't been around long enough to see many things


----------



## Vahomesteaders

MattB4 said:


> They came from evolution. Not loaded up on Noah's Ark. Can you even imagine the size a ship would have to be to contain a breeding population of all the insects and animal life? Not to mention the food storage needed. It is ludicrous. makes for a good story but it simply is impossible without magic happening.
> 
> The earth formed from stellar dust. That dust was the remains of burnt out stars. This is the reason we have heavy elements. The water on earth came through impacts with ice bearing objects like comets and meteors. At one time it was molten due to activity of repeated collisions with celestial objects. Our moon is a example where a very large impact tossed off enough debris to form the moon. Once the bombardment slowed down the earth began to cool.
> 
> So saying the earth is a fragment of a much large object is a bit strange unless you refer to the dust cloud being the remnant of earlier stars. We are not the broken remains of a previous larger planet in out solar system.
> 
> Where did it all come from? Nothing and everything. Thus the Big Bang theory.


That's what they say. Space rocks carried the water here. Ignoring that there isn't even enough time based on their own dating of earth for that much water to accumulate. Not to mention the amount of time it would take a single cell to form. It's mathematically impossible. No meteors that have been found show any signs of carrying water or seeds or life. According to their description of earth and it's atmosphere any ice that was on a rock would burn up and evaporate into space as the atmosphere could not hold back nor contain water. And even if it could. Where did it come from? Nothing in our galaxy shows signs of life. Do you know how many rocks from other galaxies would have to travel to our own and hit earth? And the size they would have to be? And how frequently it would have to happen? Why isn't it still happening? Why aren't we being pounder daily with water rocks replenishing the earth's water supply? I know it hadn't happened since science started keeping record. See all the things they say happened to create earth and life should still be happening but they arent.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> gnoring that there isn't even enough time based on their own dating of earth for that much water to accumulate. Not to mention the amount of time it would take a single cell to form. It's mathematically impossible.


Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## MattB4

Irish Pixie said:


> .. "I believe in God and when anyone asks me why I tell them - I won't argue with them after that - *let them find out some day - actually I feel sorry for them because they go through this life without a reason for even existing - their life is meaningless *- here today - gone tomorrow - for what - at least I have the hope for a better place after I die -"


I stopped being religious much later in life after being a firm believer. It happened as I begin to really study what I was raised in and other religions. It took quite some time to let go of the comforting notion that I had a eternal soul. Or that when others that I cared for died that they would live on in Heaven. 

Life is it's own meaning. Yes, we only get a number of years to enjoy it. Anticipating death, because life is so negative, is far worse in my opinion than simply accepting your life and making the best of it. You should strive to live honorably without promoting suffering for the other lives out there. They in turn should do the same. If they will not or can not, than those that can must protect ourselves against them. Thus laws of behavior.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> ...Why isn't it still happening? Why aren't we being pounder daily with water rocks replenishing the earth's water supply? I know it hadn't happened since science started keeping record. See all the things they say happened to create earth and life should still be happening but they arent.


It is still going on. Dust, micrometeorites, and even larger objects impact earth. However there is no evidence that life evolved other where and was transported to earth. I do not believe in Pan-Spermia. I do not believe there is life on other planets. I also do not say there is no chance that there is no alien life. Just that no evidence has been found to support any theory. It is a null. Likely always to be since the distance between star systems is insurmountable.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Where do you get this stuff?


It is in refrence to rocks bringing water to earth. Earth according to science is 4.54 billion years old. Estimates say that a meteor carrying enough ice to equal 1 gallon of water would be the size of texas. Upon entering the earth most would burn up in the explosion. Do you know how many meteors would have to hit the earth to cover it in 70% water on the surface and even more in the ground? Do you know what earth would look like being bombarded like that? We would still be cooling. And should still be seeing this water carrying rocks today. It's just not there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's what they say. Space rocks carried the water here. Ignoring that there isn't even enough time based on their own dating of earth for that much water to accumulate. Not to mention the amount of time it would take a single cell to form. It's mathematically impossible. No meteors that have been found show any signs of carrying water or seeds or life. According to their description of earth and it's atmosphere any ice that was on a rock would burn up and evaporate into space as the atmosphere could not hold back nor contain water. And even if it could. Where did it come from? Nothing in our galaxy shows signs of life. Do you know how many rocks from other galaxies would have to travel to our own and hit earth? And the size they would have to be? And how frequently it would have to happen? Why isn't it still happening? Why aren't we being pounder daily with water rocks replenishing the earth's water supply? I know it hadn't happened since science started keeping record. See all the things they say happened to create earth and life should still be happening but they arent.


There's so much misunderstanding there it's impossible to even begin to point it all out.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> It is in refrence to rocks bringing water to earth. Earth according to science is 4.54 billion years old. Estimates say that a meteor carrying enough ice to equal 1 gallon of water would be the size of texas. Upon entering the earth most would burn up in the explosion. Do you know how many meteors would have to hit the earth to cover it in 70% water on the surface and even more in the ground? Do you know what earth would look like being bombarded like that? We would still be cooling. And should still be seeing this water carrying rocks today. It's just not there.


You don't think water could be formed on earth?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> You don't think water could be formed on earth?


No. Not in its form they say it was in the beginning. Any water that did come would evaporate back into space with no atmosphere. Even science can't explain the problem. Other than ice on meteors. And even that doesn't satisfy most scientist but they admit it's the best they have.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> No. Not in its form they say it was in the beginning. Any water that did come would evaporate back into space with no atmosphere. Even science can't explain the problem. Other than ice on meteors. And even that doesn't satisfy most scientist but they admit it's the best they have.


Did you ever study physical science?


----------



## fireweed farm

Vahomesteaders said:


> There are billions and billions of species of plants and animals on the earth. Where did they come from? If earth was molten lava where nothing could exist. How did they get here? Where did all the water come from? Remember the earth was a fragment of a much larger object blown to bits. Where did it all come from?


Actually about 1.58 MILLION species in total, and I know they seem like implausible questions that only a simple answer form religion can handle. But, all these have technical answers through science


----------



## Vahomesteaders

fireweed farm said:


> Actually about 1.58 MILLION species in total, and I know they seem like implausible questions that only a simple answer form religion can handle. But, all these have technical answers through science


Actually science estimates 4 plus billion species have come and gone in earth's history.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> No. Not in its form they say it was in the beginning. Any water that did come would evaporate back into space with no atmosphere. *Even science can't explain the problem*. Other than ice on meteors. And even that doesn't satisfy most scientist but they admit it's the best they have.


Science has explained it
You seem to have missed it

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/making-north-america.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_North_America_(film)



> The series describes the very beginnings and later developments of the North American continent: from the origin of planet Earth 4.54 billion years ago; to the various movements of tectonic plates and their effect on the sculpturing of the continent's land and mountains, including the Rocky Mountains, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon; to the emergence of life on the continent and its later evolution; and, finally, to the more recent settlement of the land by humans.[1][2]
> 
> According to Johnson, "Most people will not have considered a time when there was no North America ... What was there before North America? How did it form? When did it start? How did it come together?"[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> Science has explained it
> You seem to have missed it
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/making-north-america.html
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_North_America_(film)
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth


Yep. That opinion and theory explain everything on how water got here. How does earth retain what's not there? Again it goes back to the space rocks theory.


----------



## wr

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did. To explain mutations. That site proves through science what I have been saying.


I added the link to your comment but HT is pretty firm on copyright violations. In all cases, you post a short comment and a link back to the original author.


----------



## fireweed farm

farmerDale said:


> So which species is transitional as we speak? I assume you would say all are then? I want to see the wolf that was partly a whale before it moved into the sea, after its nostrils migrated up to the top of its head. Gotta be piles of them in the fossil record, no? What about the bats with partly formed wings? How about the first testicles before they were fully testicles? What about the first failed metamorphosis?


Again, wow. How do you have a conversation with someone that didn't take ANY science in school, whatsoever?
Your examples above are no further from the theory than if you were suggesting that if evolution was real how come elephants don't fly?
You aren't grasping the basics.

IMO (and I'm no scientist but I have taken high school and some general 100-200 level college science courses) all species are ever evolving but it's terribly slow! As in not much happened since the bible was written.

I figure humans have pretty much stopped going forward since we have made it possible (through science NOT MIRACLES) for kids with life threatening diseases to grow old enough to have kids their own, perhaps spreading genetic conditions. How about all the kids born by c-section- instead of death like any other wild animal we are in effect over generations creating a population that need medical intervention- are we not? "In the wild" we'd die and if difficult birthing is "culled" whether in the bush or on the farm, you wind up with herd problems.
Kind of like evolution in reverse.
How many wild animals need coke bottle glasses? None? Oh. Yet a kid with glasses will have kids with glasses and on and on and on.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> They came from evolution. Not loaded up on Noah's Ark.* Can you even imagine the size a ship would have to be to contain a breeding population of all the insects and animal life? Not to mention the food storage needed. It is ludicrous. makes for a good story but it simply is impossible without magic happening.*
> .


The arks size is perfectly clear. And the vast majority of earth life forms, was not taken on the ark. Insects would not have to be taken, fish and water animals make up a HUGE proportion of earths species, but they did not have to be high and dry. The big animals could have been young specimens. The average size of life forms on earth, is quite small. 

It is not like one would have needed each different color phase of animal. They were brought to the ark according to their "kind". Kind is a general term, it does not mean species and sub species, etc.


----------



## farmerDale

fireweed farm said:


> Again, wow. How do you have a conversation with someone that didn't take ANY science in school, whatsoever?
> Your examples above are no further from the theory than if you were suggesting that if evolution was real how come elephants don't fly?
> You aren't grasping the basics.
> 
> IMO (and I'm no scientist but I have taken high school and some general 100-200 level college science courses) all species are ever evolving but it's terribly slow! As in not much happened since the bible was written.
> 
> I figure humans have pretty much stopped going forward since we have made it possible (through science NOT MIRACLES) for kids with life threatening diseases to grow old enough to have kids their own, perhaps spreading genetic conditions. How about all the kids born by c-section- instead of death like any other wild animal we are in effect over generations creating a population that need medical intervention- are we not? "In the wild" we'd die and if difficult birthing is "culled" whether in the bush or on the farm, you wind up with herd problems.
> Kind of like evolution in reverse.
> How many wild animals need coke bottle glasses? None? Oh. Yet a kid with glasses will have kids with glasses and on and on and on.


Haha, Yep, I am scientifically a dunce, huh? I challenged evolution in university in a weed science class while getting my degree in Agriculture. My professor commended me on my effort, and I got high marks. He was dumbfounded, and had not been challenged mentally like my essay did.


----------



## Miss Kay

I don't have time to read 7 pages, I've got supper on the stove! Anyone keeping score? Who's ahead?


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> Haha, Yep, I am scientifically a dunce, huh? I challenged evolution in university in a weed science class while getting my degree in Agriculture. My professor commended me on my effort, and I got high marks. He was dumbfounded, and had not been challenged mentally like my essay did.


So far I have not seen a valid challenge you have made to evolution in this thread. If your professor was impressed with your line of reasoning concerning it, it must be because he harbored religious beliefs. Not surprising since many do including atheists. I can't tell you the number of atheists I have encountered that believe in spirits, aliens, human goodness, magic, fantasy, alternative medicines and other goofiness. you would think if a atheist renounces a belief system they would renounce all beliefs, but not so. 

People are filled with beliefs. Very few are willing to ask the question, "what if my belief is wrong"?


----------



## JoePa

Well - now that we solved that problem maybe we can tackle another - meanwhile back at the ranch Old Joe is shoveling snow and his faithful cat Annie is watching him through the window - meanwhile at the head of the bay Otto is driving his cattle home - and meanwhile Donald is Ducking the debate tomorrow -


----------



## MattB4

Miss Kay said:


> I don't have time to read 7 pages, I've got supper on the stove! Anyone keeping score? Who's ahead?


I would say the folks that have religious beliefs are ahead. They know what they know and are happy about knowing it. Certainty is always better than uncertainty.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> They were brought to the ark according to their "kind". Kind is a general term, it does not mean species and sub species, etc.


So is a "kind" free to evolve into multiple species? Can you say where "kind" fits in to phylum, genus, and species?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Miss Kay said:


> I don't have time to read 7 pages, I've got supper on the stove! Anyone keeping score? Who's ahead?


God's perfect design has no close second...the world's top scientists cannot figure out where the oceans were formed...there is this theory...then another...it may have happened like this...or another idea is...they even disagree with each other. Human beings sure have to be entertaining to Him.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> God's perfect design has no close second...the world's top scientists cannot figure out where the oceans were formed...there is this theory...then another...it may have happened like this...or another idea is...they even disagree with each other. Human beings sure have to be entertaining to Him.


Does it frighten you to cross a bridge or enter a large building? With no faith in science, it should. You would have to be crazy to take an engineer's word for the safety of a structure if you doubt the underlying science.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Does it frighten you to cross a bridge or enter a large building? With no faith in science, it should. You would have to be crazy to take an engineer's word for the safety of a structure if you doubt the underlying science.


Doubting the science of the origins of life and doubting the science of physical engineering that you know without a doubt is factual are two different things. I know based on the visual appearance and the basic design of a bridge makes it safe and good sound engineering. Where as a theory that has never been witnessed or reproduced fails sciences own definition of fact.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Doubting the science of the origins of life and doubting the science of physical engineering that you know without a doubt is factual are two different things. I know based on the visual appearance and the basic design of a bridge makes it safe and good sound engineering. Where as a theory that has never been witnessed or reproduced fails sciences own definition of fact.


So you believe some science, but not others? Are you aware that bridge & building foundations are done with radioactive density measurements? If you doubt carbon dating then you can't trust radio density measurements, can you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_density_gauge

What keeps tall buildings from being blown over in high winds?

What is the scientific definition of a fact? Where does the term "fact" fit in with a scientific hypothesis, theory, or law?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> So you believe some science, but not others? Are you aware that bridge & building foundations are done with radioactive density measurements? If you doubt carbon dating then you can't trust radio density measurements, can you?
> 
> What keeps tall buildings from being blown over in high winds?
> 
> What is the scientific definition of a fact? Where does the term "fact" fit in with a scientific hypothesis, theory, or law?


Nobody says science is bad. Of coarse I believe in science and the mathematical equations behind most scientific facts related to real world sutuations. There is alot of science behind my farming. Scientific facts about my crop growing methods, my AI operations with my cattle etc.. I use scientific methods daily. But evolution is a theory and an opinion.

A scientific-theory-is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of-facts-that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. 

Evolution does not fit that bill


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> A scientific-theory-is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of-facts-that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.


Yes, a fact is something like "the temperature was 76 degrees." You gather facts, then form a hypothesis to explain the set of facts. If the hypothesis stands the test of peer review then it's accepted as a theory. A theory will never become a fact, regardless of the level of proof.

But you can't pick & choose which science you accept and which you'll reject. Understand that there are exceptional people with integrity working in all fields of science. They spend their lives pursuing the understanding of their chosen specialty. Scientific fraud is rare. Discarding the best ideas we have about where we come from flies in the face of logic. It's right up there with people who watch Dr. Oz and think doctors don't know how to treat disease. It's not only short-sighted, it's just plain wrong.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> So you believe some science, but not others? Are you aware that bridge & building foundations are done with radioactive density measurements? If you doubt carbon dating then you can't trust radio density measurements, can you?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_density_gauge
> 
> What keeps tall buildings from being blown over in high winds?
> 
> What is the scientific definition of a fact? Where does the term "fact" fit in with a scientific hypothesis, theory, or law?


The art science and engineering behind builing is the greater part of my everyday life. That's man made and pales in comparison to the ocean which is not man made. There are 3 springs within 40 miles of where I live that their combined daily output gives every person in the U.S. 2.5 gallons per day. Although there may be science behind a spring it is not man made. Besides...no reason trying to explain the ocean when the scientists have not figured out the ant yet.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> The art science and engineering behind builing is the greater part of my everyday life.


Then why don't tall building get blown over in high winds?



elevenpoint said:


> Besides...no reason trying to explain the ocean when the scientists have not figured out the ant yet.


I tried to explain it, but you didn't like my explanation. I can't help that.


----------



## keenataz

MattB4 said:


> I would say the folks that have religious beliefs are ahead. They know what they know and are happy about knowing it. Certainty is always better than uncertainty.


I am an athiest and quite certain of it, so I to am quite happy too.

As far as the religious folks go, good for them, but they can't be certain either as there is no proof god exists and if it does if it is the one they believe in.


----------



## keenataz

farmerDale said:


> The arks size is perfectly clear. And the vast majority of earth life forms, was not taken on the ark. Insects would not have to be taken, fish and water animals make up a HUGE proportion of earths species, but they did not have to be high and dry. The big animals could have been young specimens. The average size of life forms on earth, is quite small.
> 
> It is not like one would have needed each different color phase of animal. They were brought to the ark according to their "kind". Kind is a general term, it does not mean species and sub species, etc.


This is truly a sincere question. How did Noah manage to get animals from as far away as penguins and polar bears?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

keenataz said:


> This is truly a sincere question. How did Noah manage to get animals from as far away as penguins and polar bears?


Noah spent over 100 years building the ark. Animals migrate. God had over 100 years to impress on the animals to migrate to Noah's location


----------



## keenataz

Vahomesteaders said:


> Noah spent over 100 years building the ark. Animals migrate. God had over 100 years to impress on the animals to migrate to Noah's location


And again, this is respectfully asked. How would a penguin (just an example) get from Antarctica to someplace in the middle east? Thanks


----------



## greg273

keenataz said:


> And again, this is respectfully asked. How would a penguin (just an example) get from Antarctica to someplace in the middle east? Thanks


 Its simple, they didn't. Little details like that don't matter when you're spinning fables.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

keenataz said:


> And again, this is respectfully asked. How would a penguin (just an example) get from Antarctica to someplace in the middle east? Thanks


Simple. Penguins have been found to swam over 4000 miles from Antarctica. So swimming to a landmass in the area and walking and swimming the coast lines as well as river systems could put them anywhere in the world


----------



## Nevada

keenataz said:


> This is truly a sincere question. How did Noah manage to get animals from as far away as penguins and polar bears?


I always wondered how Noah kept the lions from eating the lambs.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> I always wondered how Noah kept the lions from eating the lambs.


They were under God's command. He often speaks of the lion laying down with the lamb in peace.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Most of earth's culture and societies have a recount of the flood. This isn't just a Christian belief


----------



## keenataz

Vahomesteaders said:


> Simple. Penguins have been found to swam over 4000 miles from Antarctica. So swimming to a landmass in the area and walking and swimming the coast lines as well as river systems could put them anywhere in the world


Thanks for your answer. I think you and I have different ideas, but I do respect your sincere belief and faith.


----------



## HDRider

farmerDale said:


> He states that he feels for you, that is called compassion. What did he say you were going to suffer? I missed that part I guess???


Well, there is that Hell thing.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> I always wondered how Noah kept the lions from eating the lambs.


*One* of life's little mysteries.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> It is in refrence to rocks bringing water to earth. Earth according to science is 4.54 billion years old. Estimates say that a meteor carrying enough ice to equal 1 gallon of water would be the size of texas. Upon entering the earth most would burn up in the explosion. Do you know how many meteors would have to hit the earth to cover it in 70% water on the surface and even more in the ground? Do you know what earth would look like being bombarded like that? We would still be cooling. And should still be seeing this water carrying rocks today. It's just not there.


 Wowza. If this is your understanding of science, I suggest you do some more research.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> I always wondered how Noah kept the lions from eating the lambs.


According to Dr. Sheldon Cooper's mother...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAjhkC8PlyI[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yep. That opinion and theory explain everything on how water got here. How does earth retain what's not there? Again it goes back to the space rocks theory.


I gave you links.
I'm not explaining it all for you.

It has nothing to do with "space rocks"

The water is retained, like everything else, by gravity


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> Wowza. If this is your understanding of science, I suggest you do some more research.


I already tried that approach.


----------



## greg273

keenataz said:


> Thanks for your answer. I think you and I have different ideas, but I do respect your sincere belief and faith.


 I wouldn't even go that far... I will acknowledge someones beliefs, but I sure as heck don't have to* respect* them. I have put far too much effort into learning, observing, and researching to 'respect' beliefs that ignore science, and use 'the bible' as their sole source of scientific knowledge.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> I wouldn't even go that far... I will acknowledge someones beliefs, but I sure as heck don't have to* respect* them. I have put far too much effort into learning, observing, and researching to 'respect' beliefs that ignore science, and use 'the bible' as their sole source of scientific knowledge.


All that education and learning and you learned no respect or common decency towards your fellow man. Especially when not a single person denied the importance of science to our society. Just it's fallacy on creation. Your one to look up too. And they say Christians have no respect.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> All that education and learning and you learned no respect or common decency towards your fellow man. Especially when not a single person denied the importance of science to our society. Just it's fallacy on creation. Your one to look up too. And they say Christians have no respect.


 Did I say I didn't respect you as a person? No, I said I do not respect BELIEFS that purport to use the bible as the final word on science.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Did I say I didn't respect you as a person? No, I said I do not respect BELIEFS that purport to use the bible as the final word on science.


A person's beliefs are apart of who they are. I respect your beliefs I just don't agree with them. Doesn't make me view a person any different. That's the beauty of things. We all have the right to believe what we want. No reason to say a person who holds fast to their belief deserves no respect for those beliefs.


----------



## keenataz

greg273 said:


> I wouldn't even go that far... I will acknowledge someones beliefs, but I sure as heck don't have to* respect* them. I have put far too much effort into learning, observing, and researching to 'respect' beliefs that ignore science, and use 'the bible' as their sole source of scientific knowledge.


I think you and I agree on most things Greg, but not on this one I guess. My hope is that is I respect their beliefs they will respect mine. Like you I can't understand how scientific facts can be discounted, but that is their choice.

Now I certainly don't think policy and laws should be made based on those beliefs, but what a person believes at home or church, I figure what the heck?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> I already tried that approach.


One can only comprehend the amount of research that has been done by the most world renowned scientists on earth...and then it is a dead end. And the world's most steadfast atheist after dedicating his entire life to science...in the end said science finally changed his mind...had to be a creator.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

keenataz said:


> I think you and I agree on most things Greg, but not on this one I guess. My hope is that is I respect their beliefs they will respect mine. Like you I can't understand how scientific facts can be discounted, but that is their choice.
> 
> Now I certainly don't think policy and laws should be made based on those beliefs, but what a person believes at home or church, I figure what the heck?


Good point. And I respect your beliefs. I also agree that beliefs or theories should not be forced on any person. Including our children in school. I think it should be viewed from all angles and theories including creation and the children left to choose what they believe to be correct.


----------



## haley1

How old did Noah live too?

Why do men have nipples? As a place to put their piercings


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's the beauty of things. We all have the right to believe what we want. .


 Yes, you can believe anything you want. Doesn't necessarily make it true though. 
People were burned at the stake for believing things not found in the bible, things science and observation later found to be true. I will not disrespect those peoples sacrifices, or the thousands of years of hard-won human knowledge, to coddle the feelings of people who are heir to the tradition of heretic burning.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

haley1 said:


> How old did Noah live too?
> 
> Why do men have nipples? As a place to put their piercings


Scientific answer is this. For the first several weeks a developing embryo follows a "female blueprint," from reproductive organs to nipples. Only after about 60 days does the hormone testosterone kick in (for those of us with a Y chromosome), changing the-genetic activityof cells in the genitals and brain. But by then those mammary papillae aren't going anywhere.

See I use and agree with science. L


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Yes, you can believe anything you want. Doesn't necessarily make it true though.
> People were burned at the stake for believing things not found in the bible, things science and observation later found to be true. I will not disrespect those peoples sacrifices, or the thousands of years of hard-won human knowledge, to coddle the feelings of people who are heir to the tradition of heretic burning.


Many more Christians have died for their beliefs than scientist. And most all recognized early scientists still believed in God.


One of my favorite Einstein quotes.

I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details. God does not play dice. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


----------



## greg273

keenataz said:


> Now I certainly don't think policy and laws should be made based on those beliefs, but what a person believes at home or church, I figure what the heck?


 I agree, what a person believes at home or church is their business, when they start coming onto a public forum to discuss those issues, then they have opened themselves up to debate. 
And for the record, I DO respect people with differing views... I have a cousin who is convinced the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were put there by satan to decieve people. And because we respect each other as people, and as family, we don't debate those beliefs. Even though my 'belief' is based on hard-won scientific knowledge built over hundreds of human generations, and his is based on a few lines from an ancient scroll, we let it be and it doesn't change our relationship as kinfolk.


----------



## keenataz

greg273 said:


> I agree, what a person believes at home or church is their business, when they start coming onto a public forum to discuss those issues, then they have opened themselves up to debate.
> And for the record, I DO respect people with differing views... I have a cousin who is convinced the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were put there by satan to decieve people. And because we respect each other as people, and as family, we don't debate those beliefs. Even though my 'belief' is based on hard-won scientific knowledge built over hundreds of human generations, and his is based on a few lines from an ancient scroll, we let it be and it doesn't change our relationship as kinfolk.


I agree with you. That is why I asked the question about how Noah got all his animals. The poster gave me an answer which I disagree with. 

But once we hit that point I realize there is no useful purpose in trying to convince them that they are or even could be wrong. Just agree to disagree.

I had a co worker at one time who said the same thing about Satan planting dinosaur bones. I truly thought he was joking and laughed at him. Of course he was serious and it still boggles my mind.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> I agree, what a person believes at home or church is their business, when they start coming onto a public forum to discuss those issues, then they have opened themselves up to debate.
> And for the record, I DO respect people with differing views... I have a cousin who is convinced the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were put there by satan to decieve people. And because we respect each other as people, and as family, we don't debate those beliefs. Even though my 'belief' is based on hard-won scientific knowledge built over hundreds of human generations, and his is based on a few lines from an ancient scroll, we let it be and it doesn't change our relationship as kinfolk.


Is not hard won facts. In the latest Gallup pole 43% believe in creationism. 30% believed in evolution with God's guidance. And 19% believe in evolution with no God. So the majority of Americans by a long shot believe in one way or another God created this world. By 73% to 19%.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Many more Christians have died for their beliefs than scientist.
> .


 Often because they didn't follow the SCRIPTURES of other religious people.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Is not hard won facts. In the latest Gallup pole 43% believe in creationism. 30% believed in evolution with God's guidance. And 19% believe in evolution with no God. So the majority of Americans by a long shot believe in one way or another God created this world. By 73% to 19%.


That's really sad. Obviously science educators haven't done their job very well. The USA is way behind on this. They get much better numbers in Europe.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Is not hard won facts..


 What are you even talking about?? I stated at the beginning of this debate belief in God and 'belief' in evolution can be compatible.


----------



## greg273

Nevada said:


> That's really sad. Obviously science educators haven't done their job very well. The USA is way behind on this. They get much better numbers in Europe.


 And if you delve into that poll, you find the majority of those expressing that view have a high school education or less,tend to be from the south, and attend church regularly. Also, the sample size was laughably small...


> Survey data came from telephone interviews between May 8-11, 2014, with a random sample size of 1,028 adults aged 18 or older. The sampling error is Â±4 percentage points, with a confidence level of 95%.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Often because they didn't follow the SCRIPTURES of other religious people.


Like Hitler and his sctiptures? If you think about it millions of Christians have died for God of the bible. Now. Since record keeping began how many gods or goddesses have there been? How many cultures who had gods come and gone? What God has stood the test of time globally and changed so many lives for the better. Only one. God of the bible and Jesus Christ. How could someone not real affect so many lives? The Greek and Roman gods all vanished. The voodoo gods of Africa are gone and never reached global scale. We know from history Jesus existed. We know his disciples existed and died horrible deaths. These are historical facts. Yet many write them off.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> What are you even talking about?? I stated at the beginning of this debate belief in God and 'belief' in evolution can be compatible.


You said your beliefs are from hard won scientific facts. But the majority of America believes otherwise. So I don't see how scientific theory has won anything.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> And if you delve into that poll, you find the majority of those expressing that view have a high school education or less,tend to be from the south, and attend church regularly. Also, the sample size was laughably small...


How about 84% of the world population believe in God in one form or another. Big enough sample size for you? 32% of the world population is Christian. 

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/w...cent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> And if you delve into that poll, you find the majority of those expressing that view have a high school education or less,tend to be from the south, and attend church regularly. Also, the sample size was laughably small...


I don't care so much about adults having that attitude, but stunting school kids with those ideas hurts us all. Adults can believe something off the wall, such as a flat earth, but hopefully kids will have enough of a scientific background to see the absurdity of those ideas.

I'll never understand someone taking the Bible literally when science directly refutes what it says. That doesn't help society, and can even be dangerous.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> I don't care so much about adults having that attitude, but stunting school kids with those ideas hurts us all. Adults can believe something off the wall, such as a flat earth, but hopefully kids will have enough of a scientific background to see the absurdity of those ideas.
> 
> I'll never understand someone taking the Bible literally when science directly refutes what it says. That doesn't help society, and can even be dangerous.


Again science doesn't refute it. And the 1987 court ruling says you can teach both points of view together You can't focus on just one view to advance scientific growth.

So while you can't teach just creationism. It can be taught along with evolution. Which is fine. Competing theories open the mind.


----------



## Shine

So, this has turned into a bash Christianity thread. 

I'll take it on Faith that Christ walked this world. When the answer to how Noah got all those animals in the Ark is provided to me, I promise to share it on this thread. 

You may continue with the bashing now... I hope it makes you feel better.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again science doesn't refute it. And the 1987 court ruling says you can teach both points of view together You can't focus on just one view to advance scientific growth.
> 
> So while you can't teach just creationism. It can be taught along with evolution. Which is fine. Competing theories open the mind.


That's where I draw the line -- at the classroom. Science is the study of our surroundings through observation, and scripture is not science. This isn't about being right or wrong, it's about whether or not it's science.

If creationists want their ideas to be considered science then they should present them to the scientific community for peer review. Attempting the make an end-run around the scientific community by appealing to politicians & school boards in the interest of fairness makes no sense. In fact it's grossly unfair.


----------



## Sumatra

Miss Kay said:


> I don't have time to read 7 pages, I've got supper on the stove! Anyone keeping score? Who's ahead?


One side consistently attempts to disprove the other's argument. The other mainly refuses to even consider the reply as a valid response, without much extra effort on their part. It's up to you who's ahead on that.


----------



## farmerDale

keenataz said:


> This is truly a sincere question. How did Noah manage to get animals from as far away as penguins and polar bears?


I believe that the world pre-flood, was a VERY different world that we have today. IE, the flood pre-dated the ice age, the land was a single continent, and there were no ice caps. I believe the result of the flood, WAS the ice age and the climate shake-up, continental drift etc., which led to several things. Unique marsupials and such in Australia, Animals adapted to specific environments as they were cut off and isolated, and therefore, and thereafter adapted to their new homes. If it were a single continent at that time, the middle east would have been dead center geographically, and so if the animals DID have specific habitats, they would not have had to cross oceans etc. 

Also, during the flood, there are many animals that may well have not been included on the ark. Ones that can survive in water for long periods, for example. Penguins and polar bears could well have found refuge on the massive floating debris fields there would have inadvertently been, in a catastrophic flood. Seagulls, water birds, beavers, muskrats, those kind of animals may well have not had to be gathered.

When you read the passages about the flood, it was not just rain. It was the "fountains of the great deep", breaking forth, which would have included MASSIVE volcanic activity, earthquakes, etc. The forces would have been absolutely extreme. I think of ocean trenches and mountain ranges. I think of the many current events that occur, that show how fast an island can form for example. Googly new islands, it is simply fascinating! There is water beneath the earths crust, that can explain the source for the fountains of the great deep. Rain was a tiny fraction of the water. The world was COMPLETELY made over by this event. It would have been unrecognizable compared to how it had been before. 

EVERY single culture has flood legends. I find that cool as well...


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> I always wondered how Noah kept the lions from eating the lambs.


Pens??? It was a floating zoo in effect.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> So while you can't teach just creationism. It can be taught along with evolution. Which is fine. Competing theories open the mind.


 If we're going to teach religious theories in science class, why stop at just the Christian ones? Everyone can get their theory taught as just another 'competing theory'. Kids can learn that lightning is just Zeus getting angry, and darkness is because a great serpent swallowed the sun, only to vomit it out the next morning. Wouldn't want to have a 'closed mind', now would we?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Is not hard won facts. In the latest Gallup pole 43% believe in creationism. 30% *believed* in evolution with God's guidance. And 19% *believe* in evolution with no God. So the majority of Americans by a long shot *believe* in one way or another God created this world. By 73% to 19%.


10% of college students asked *believe* Judge Judy is a Supreme Court Justice
Belief still isn't fact nor evidence


----------



## Nevada

Sumatra said:


> One side consistently attempts to disprove the other's argument. The other mainly refuses to even consider the reply as a valid response, without much extra effort on their part. It's up to you who's ahead on that.


I don't care which is right, because it's not about right or wrong. Scripture isn't science. It's not helping school kids to pretend that it is.


----------



## farmerDale

HDRider said:


> Well, there is that Hell thing.


Who talked about hell?


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> I wouldn't even go that far... I will acknowledge someones beliefs, but I sure as heck don't have to* respect* them. I have put far too much effort into learning, observing, and researching to 'respect' beliefs that ignore science, and use 'the bible' as their sole source of scientific knowledge.


Who is using the Bible as their sole source of science? Good grief, greg.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> If we're going to teach religious theories in science class, why stop at just the Christian ones? Everyone can get their theory taught as just another 'competing theory'. Kids can learn that lightning is just Zeus getting angry, and darkness is because a great serpent swallowed the sun, only to vomit it out the next morning. Wouldn't want to have a 'closed mind', now would we?


When did the Sun get devoured?


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> I agree, what a person believes at home or church is their business, when they start coming onto a public forum to discuss those issues, then they have opened themselves up to debate.
> And for the record, I DO respect people with differing views... I have a cousin who is convinced the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were put there by satan to decieve people. And because we respect each other as people, and as family, we don't debate those beliefs. Even though my 'belief' is based on hard-won scientific knowledge built over hundreds of human generations, and his is based on a few lines from an ancient scroll, we let it be and it doesn't change our relationship as kinfolk.


Your cousin has science issues indeed. No where in the Bible does it say satan planted bones. He is out to lunch. My neighbors believe that too, I also find it quite funny! lol


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> That's really sad. Obviously science educators haven't done their job very well. The USA is way behind on this. They get much better numbers in Europe.


Better numbers? You mean numbers that agree with you? Look, science textbooks have had so many hoaxes in them, so many lies and deceptions about evolution over the years, that many of us have caught on, and lost trust in the teachings of evolution. When science must lie, like evolutionists have in the past to try and "prove" their point, and then put these lies and hoaxes in actual TEXTBOOKS, and then teaches it as facts of science, that is where I draw the line.


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> And if you delve into that poll, you find the majority of those expressing that view have a high school education or less,tend to be from the south, and attend church regularly. Also, the sample size was laughably small...


Again, you are acting as though christians are stupid and un-educated. Your arrogance is plain and simply astounding.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> That's where I draw the line -- at the classroom. Science is the study of our surroundings through observation, and scripture is not science. This isn't about being right or wrong, it's about whether or not it's science.
> 
> If creationists want their ideas to be considered science then they should present them to the scientific community for peer review. Attempting the make an end-run around the scientific community by appealing to politicians & school boards in the interest of fairness makes no sense. In fact it's grossly unfair.


As I said to dear greg, I draw the line when evolutionists resort to blatant lying and hoaxes to try and brainwash kids.

Creationists HAVE offered their research to peer review, but do you know what happens to their research? It gets tossed, because the challenge is too great, the bias too huge, the paradigm too engrained. Go and google christians and peer reviewed science. You will see what I mean. Great work and great science gets tossed if it challenges the established belief system. 

Just like the global warming garbage. Oh wait, you believe in that too.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Better numbers? You mean numbers that agree with you? Look, science textbooks have had so many hoaxes in them, so many lies and deceptions about evolution over the years, that many of us have caught on, and lost trust in the teachings of evolution. When science must lie, like evolutionists have in the past to try and "prove" their point, and then put these lies and hoaxes in actual TEXTBOOKS, and then teaches it as facts of science, that is where I draw the line.


It seems we've been here before. You question evolution science, but everything else you believe. You don't like evolution science because it conflicts with your religion. But is that a reasonable excuse to doubt science?

Why not tell school kids that there is no realistic debate about evolution among the scientific community? That would be the truth.


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> If we're going to teach religious theories in science class, why stop at just the Christian ones? Everyone can get their theory taught as just another 'competing theory'. Kids can learn that lightning is just Zeus getting angry, and darkness is because a great serpent swallowed the sun, only to vomit it out the next morning. Wouldn't want to have a 'closed mind', now would we?


Native americans believe a raven made the world out of a snowball. I do not think that should be taught in school.

The God of the Bible IS SCIENCE. The author of science. The Bible IS scientific. Look at archaeology. Many, many times, cities and places, kings and leaders of ancient times, have been affirmed by later digs, even though there is no mention in other writings of these places. The accuracy of history is unbelievably reliable.

Outside the God of the Bible, I agree, no other "religion" makes any scientific sense at all. And yes, those writings are complete fairy tales. But when archaeology jives and is backed up by only one source, the Bible, one must surely wonder if it is THAT accurate in benign place names, why would it be inaccurate elsewhere?


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> Again, you are acting as though christians are stupid and un-educated.


 Some of them are. Some atheists are also stupid and uneducated. That is not the debate here.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> I agree, what a person believes at home or church is their business, when they start coming onto a public forum to discuss those issues, then they have opened themselves up to debate.
> And for the record, I DO respect people with differing views... I have a cousin who is convinced the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were put there by satan to decieve people. And because we respect each other as people, and as family, we don't debate those beliefs. Even though my 'belief' is based on hard-won scientific knowledge built over hundreds of human generations, and his is based on a few lines from an ancient scroll, we let it be and it doesn't change our relationship as kinfolk.


Hard won scientific knowledge? Such as? After an exausting amount of research I cannot find the top scholars in the world that have agreed as to how the oceans formed...plants..animals..humans. Therory...it may have been...it could be...another idea is...what could have happened...but nothing yet. Would be interesting to know how many scientists reached a dead end...and looked at one another and said...Creator?


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> It seems we've been here before. You question evolution science, but everything else you believe. You don't like evolution science because it conflicts with your religion. But is that a reasonable excuse to doubt science?
> 
> Why not tell school kids that there is no realistic debate about evolution among the scientific community? That would be the truth.


I am anti-evolution, not because of my "religion". I have no religion. I have a faith, yes, but I am not religious. Anyway, the reason I have issues with evolution, is because it is deceptive, it is unbelievable, and it has no place in science, because it can not be tested and proven in a lab.

I do not doubt science one bit. But "science" fails miserable when it enters the realm of origins, and of explaining how things so intricate evolved. You will not tackle metamorphosis, gender, instinct, etc. because there is no proof, no way to explain it using the theory you back so firmly.

You obviously have not been paying attention to debate about the theory of evolution. There are THOUSANDS of scientists, MUCH wiser than me, who sure do debate and question the theory. Highly educated people who do not buy into the theory. Try googling sometime.

People of faith are not automatically dumb like you and greg seem to think. 

About that metamorphosis. Yet again, in your own words, explain to me how it evolved. Thank you.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> Native americans believe a raven made the world out of a snowball. I do not think that should be taught in school.
> 
> The God of the Bible IS SCIENCE. The author of science. The Bible IS scientific. Look at archaeology. Many, many times, cities and places, kings and leaders of ancient times, have been affirmed by later digs, even though there is no mention in other writings of these places. The accuracy of history is unbelievably reliable.
> 
> Outside the God of the Bible, I agree, no other "religion" makes any scientific sense at all. And yes, those writings are complete fairy tales. But when archaeology jives and is backed up by only one source, the Bible, one must surely wonder if it is THAT accurate in benign place names, why would it be inaccurate elsewhere?


 You seem to be confusing historical records with 'science'. Of course the bible is full of historical references, it was written a long time ago BY MEN who were there. 
As far as science, the ancient scriptures of the Vedas, the Indo-Aryan peoples of India, have far more in the way of scientific knowledge contained therein than does the Christain bible. In their cosmological view, the universe was 'exhaled', it expands, and then contracts again. Very similar to the 'big bang theory', and those scriptures pre-date the bible by a thousand years or so.


----------



## mreynolds

keenataz said:


> And again, this is respectfully asked. How would a penguin (just an example) get from Antarctica to someplace in the middle east? Thanks


Simple. Penguins didn't even need a boat as they could swim.


Sorry, just had to say that.


----------



## farmerDale

elevenpoint said:


> Hard won scientific knowledge? Such as? After an exausting amount of research I cannot find the top scholars in the world that have agreed as to how the oceans formed...plants..animals..humans. Therory...it may have been...it could be...another idea is...what could have happened...but nothing yet. Would be interesting to know how many scientists reached a dead end...and looked at one another and said...Creator?


Thousands have done just that, elevenpoint! There is lots of testimony out there where former atheists hit that exact dead end, and recognized that the intricacy in the world HAD to have a designer. Especially dna researchers as they discover the amazing complexity of the genome that had to be in place even before a cell was formed...


----------



## watcher

Microevolution is proven and can been seen in selective breeding.

Macroevolution has no facts back it up, only many assumptions. These assumptions and flaws makes it difficult to be taken seriously.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Hard won scientific knowledge? Such as? After an exausting amount of research I cannot find the top scholars in the world that have agreed as to how the oceans formed...plants..animals..humans. Therory...it may have been...it could be...another idea is...what could have happened...but nothing yet. Would be interesting to know how many scientists reached a dead end...and looked at one another and said...Creator?


 Again, belief in a God, or a Creator, does not invalidate evolution. Why would it, unless you are such a literalist that you would take a few lines of ancient text over years of observation, research and testing, and declare 'that is all there is'. You may be right, we may just be here because a god said we are here. Should that stop people from exploring the world and trying to understand its intricate nature?


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> You seem to be confusing historical records with 'science'. Of course the bible is full of historical references, it was written a long time ago BY MEN who were there.
> As far as science, the ancient scriptures of the Vedas, the Indo-Aryan peoples of India, have far more in the way of scientific knowledge contained therein than does the Christain bible. In their cosmological view, the universe was 'exhaled', it expands, and then contracts again. Very similar to the 'big bang theory', and those scriptures pre-date the bible by a thousand years or so.


Cosmological views and theory are just that. Just a thought.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Cosmological views and theory are just that. Just a thought.


 Kind of like Noah and his polar bears swimming 4000 miles to end up in the desert?


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> I am anti-evolution, not because of my "religion". I have no religion. I have a faith, yes, but I am not religious. Anyway, the reason I have issues with evolution, is because it is deceptive, it is unbelievable, and it has no place in science, because it can not be tested and proven in a lab.
> 
> I do not doubt science one bit. But "science" fails miserable when it enters the realm of origins, and of explaining how things so intricate evolved. You will not tackle metamorphosis, gender, instinct, etc. because there is no proof, no way to explain it using the theory you back so firmly.
> 
> You obviously have not been paying attention to debate about the theory of evolution. There are THOUSANDS of scientists, MUCH wiser than me, who sure do debate and question the theory. Highly educated people who do not buy into the theory. Try googling sometime.
> 
> People of faith are not automatically dumb like you and greg seem to think.
> 
> About that metamorphosis. Yet again, in your own words, explain to me how it evolved. Thank you.


Just keep scripture out of the science classroom. That's all I ask.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

The bible has many refrences to the stars and cosmology. The wise men were likely astronomers. The bible is all for science. They go hand in hand. And teaching children all view points is ok. To say otherwise is to support a nanny state approach. Interestingly enough is the home schooled educated children mostly from Christian homes, that are excelling the most in the educational field and being sought after by most colleges over public schooled children. And the vast majority claim a creationism view. Yet many Excell in science. And like I said. some of the greatest Minds in history believed in God and his creation.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Microevolution is proven and can been seen in selective breeding.
> 
> Macroevolution has no facts back it up, only many assumptions. .


 Not just assumptions, but lifetimes worth of observations. Its really a pretty simple theory, gradual changes over time. Why is it so hard to believe? Perhaps because it contradicts a few lines in an ancient text? Perhaps the ancient text is wrong, or misinterpreted, or only meant as allegory and not to be taken literally. I know those are herectical ideas to some.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Again, belief in a God, or a Creator, does not invalidate evolution. Why would it, unless you are such a literalist that you would take a few lines of ancient text over years of observation, research and testing, and declare 'that is all there is'. You may be right, we may just be here because a god said we are here. Should that stop people from exploring the world and trying to understand its intricate nature?


Because I don't base anything on a few lines of ancient text...it goes much deeper. I am all for exploring the world and nature..and all scientists too...as much as we have discovered in the last 30 years is good. I see God in every single thing as soon as I walk out the door. When we have the absolute truth about an ant...then the scientists can resolve the other billions of answers that all want to know. I truly believe there is a reason we...all..will not have the answers.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Just keep scripture out of the science classroom. That's all I ask.


I have not asked for scripture in the classroom, no worries!


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> Not just assumptions, but lifetimes worth of observations. Its really a pretty simple theory, gradual changes over time. Why is it so hard to believe? Perhaps because it contradicts a few lines in an ancient text? Perhaps the ancient text is wrong, or misinterpreted, or only meant as allegory and not to be taken literally. I know those are herectical ideas to some.


It is hard to believe, because it does not jive with the scientific method whatsoever. Do you know the difference between micro, and macro evolution? 

So you say it is a slow change over time? That explains how bird eggs evolved indeed, and how sperm, slowly, over time, at the same time, mind you, as ova formed slowly over time, in an amazingly complex, and perfectly integrated and complimentary fashion. Gotcha! It just takes lots of time, and lots of trial and error. Meanwhile, the species died out because the first effort failed.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> Do you know the difference between micro, and macro evolution?


 The only difference is the timescales involved.


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> The only difference is the timescales involved.


Tell me you jest. Surely, you jest? lol


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Kind of like Noah and his polar bears swimming 4000 miles to end up in the desert?


50,000 miles if need be...too much to grasp for humans. Not Him.


----------



## MattB4

elevenpoint said:


> 50,000 miles if need be...too much to grasp for humans. Not Him.


That is another thing. Why go to the strange effort to have a world wide flood, and save Noah and the animals in a wooden Ark, for a All powerful god? Why not simply disintegrate all the evil people and be done with the matter? Think about it. 

The stories of Genesis are rather fanciful. About on par with how the elephant got it's trunk myth. But gods bow in the sky is a everlasting sign that man would no longer face a flood. Well except those folks in Indonesia and Japan. Probably they were really wicked.


----------



## MDKatie

I don't exactly understand why some humans feel the need to KNOW everything. There are some things we will never know, like exactly how the earth was created or what exactly caused it. We will never know if there's truly one almighty god. (And I mean actually KNOW, not just believe very strongly). Isn't that ok? I'm all for understanding what we can, and finding things out through research, but can't we just be happy to BE?


----------



## MattB4

MDKatie said:


> ... Isn't that ok? I'm all for understanding what we can, and finding things out through research, but can't we just be happy to BE?


It is the nature of mankind to want to understand. You see that in children when they ask, "Why..."?


----------



## HDRider

MDKatie said:


> I don't exactly understand why some humans feel the need to KNOW everything. There are some things we will never know, like exactly how the earth was created or what exactly caused it. We will never know if there's truly one almighty god. (And I mean actually KNOW, not just believe very strongly). Isn't that ok? I'm all for understanding what we can, and finding things out through research, but can't we just be happy to BE?


Right. We each choose where we place our faith.

And,, to explain all the mysteries that exist by science, or with faith in God, assumes more credence to the intelligence of man than I am willing to give.

I don't deny science, and I don't deny God. I acknowledge both.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

MattB4 said:


> That is another thing. Why go to the strange effort to have a world wide flood, and save Noah and the animals in a wooden Ark, for a All powerful god? Why not simply disintegrate all the evil people and be done with the matter? Think about it.
> 
> The stories of Genesis are rather fanciful. About on par with how the elephant got it's trunk myth. But gods bow in the sky is a everlasting sign that man would no longer face a flood. Well except those folks in Indonesia and Japan. Probably they were really wicked.


It was a two part deal. In those days it did not rain on the earth. The dew watered the earth. That's why they thought Noah was crazy. God planned for life to carry on. He used the water to create all the lakes and bodies of fresh water we have today. The land after the flood would be rich and lush for a new beggining. So evil as well as the nephilim were wiped out and the earth replenished. The rain that followed there after contained rainbows. Which are a creation of God. Interestingly enough it is sinners who stole God's symbol of his promise for their evilness.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> It was a two part deal. In those days it did not rain on the earth. The dew watered the earth. That's why they thought Noah was crazy. God planned for life to carry on. He used the water to create all the lakes and bodies of fresh water we have today. The land after the flood would be rich and lush for a new beggining. So evil as well as the nephilim were wiped out and the earth replenished. The rain that followed there after contained rainbows. Which are a creation of God. Interestingly enough it is sinners who stole God's symbol of his promise for their evilness.


What is a nephilim? No lakes before the flood? Are you serious? I suppose that you also believe in evil spirits, fairies, assorted demons and also witches. 

What religion are you a member of that has such odd ideas? None of that was taught me in Sunday School.

ETA. You did not answer why a All powerful god would go to such strange efforts. You actually made it worse.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> That is another thing. Why go to the strange effort to have a world wide flood, and save Noah and the animals in a wooden Ark, for a All powerful god? Why not simply disintegrate all the evil people and be done with the matter? Think about it.
> 
> The stories of Genesis are rather fanciful. About on par with how the elephant got it's trunk myth. But gods bow in the sky is a everlasting sign that man would no longer face a flood. Well except those folks in Indonesia and Japan. Probably they were really wicked.



God knew what humankind after the flood would need. IE. oil, coal, potash, various forms of water, rich soil, etc. If he had just zapped everyone, we would have long ago died out due to the lack of the above. A theory of course. I guess he coulda zapped everyone and put oil deposits and potash in the ground out of the blue? But the evidence for that would have been pretty weak for all humankind, compared to the evidence for a flood which is everywhere on the planet. He was merciful enough, to do it in a way that would be a reminder to us daily, as we dig up old fossils, and burn our fossil fuels...  Simply zapping everyone would not have left His mark. After a few generations, people would have laughed at the story as fanciful.

The promise of the rainbow was not that it would never flood anywhere ever again. It was His promise that He would never destroy the entire earth again with a world wide flood. The earth would never again be destroyed with water.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

MattB4 said:


> What is a nephilim? No lakes before the flood? Are you serious? I suppose that you also believe in evil spirits, fairies, assorted demons and also witches.
> 
> What religion are you a member of that has such odd ideas? None of that was taught me in Sunday School.
> 
> ETA. You did not answer why a All powerful god would go to such strange efforts. You actually made it worse.


Why is it strange? Earth was pretty much one big land mass. Science even agrees with that. The upheaval of water and volcanic activity devided those land mass. It cut the grand Canyon and filled the lakes of these new land masses.

As to the rain pre flood. Genesis tells us the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and-there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the groundâ-

Now it may have rained at times some place on the earth. But Noah had never seen it. 
I'm just a believer. No denomination. I don't believe in ghost and spooks. There are evil and good spirits. No fairies and witches.


----------



## farmerDale

Vahomesteaders said:


> Why is it strange? Earth was pretty much one big land mass. Science even agrees with that. The upheaval of water and volcanic activity devided those land mass. It cut the grand Canyon and filled the lakes of these new land masses.
> 
> As to the rain pre flood. Genesis tells us the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and-there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the groundâ-
> 
> Now it may have rained at times some place on the earth. But Noah had never seen it.
> I'm just a believer. No denomination. I don't believe in ghost and spooks. There are evil and good spirits. No fairies and witches.


It is hard to understand for many non-believers, how a Bible believing christian thinks and how they see the Bible. They think we are "religious" and that we are some denomination. I go to church, yes, but my denomination means nothing. But the fact it is a church that COMPLETELY takes the Bible at its word, I go to it.

Most denominations and churches within them, do not actually believe the entire Bible anymore. THAT is what makes it hard for non-believers to catch on to, because in all honesty, it is such a rare commodity these days.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

farmerDale said:


> It is hard to understand for many non-believers, how a Bible believing christian thinks and how they see the Bible. They think we are "religious" and that we are some denomination. I go to church, yes, but my denomination means nothing. But the fact it is a church that COMPLETELY takes the Bible at its word, I go to it.
> 
> Most denominations and churches within them, do not actually believe the entire Bible anymore. THAT is what makes it hard for non-believers to catch on to, because in all honesty, it is such a rare commodity these days.


Very true. We worship with a few neighbors and friends. We are very rural. And they only couple of churches in the area do not teach from God's word. Heck. Even in this small mountain community one little methodist church is pastored by a lesbian.lol I believe denominations cause devision. One holds to this belief or that to set themselves apart. Jesus never labeled us as anything other then believers. So that's what I go by. And those not brought up on the Lord don't understand.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> Why is it strange? Earth was pretty much one big land mass. Science even agrees with that. The upheaval of water and volcanic activity devided those land mass. It cut the grand Canyon and filled the lakes of these new land masses.
> 
> As to the rain pre flood. Genesis tells us the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and-there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the groundâ-
> 
> Now it may have rained at times some place on the earth. But Noah had never seen it.
> I'm just a believer. No denomination. I don't believe in ghost and spooks. There are evil and good spirits. No fairies and witches.


The bible states that Eden was bounded by rivers, they are even named. Where do you think rivers originate from if there is no rain? Not to mention the fact if you have rivers that they form lakes. The mist rising to water the earth is in the 7 days of creation not afterwards when natural activity was than in place. God had rested, creation was done. Read your Genesis.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> It is hard to understand for many non-believers, how a Bible believing christian thinks and how they see the Bible. They think we are "religious" and that we are some denomination. I go to church, yes, but my denomination means nothing. But the fact it is a church that COMPLETELY takes the Bible at its word, I go to it.
> 
> Most denominations and churches within them, do not actually believe the entire Bible anymore. THAT is what makes it hard for non-believers to catch on to, because in all honesty, it is such a rare commodity these days.


I am a former believer. I also have a bible that I still refer to regularly as my understanding has grown. It is interesting to think back and wonder why I accepted some of the interpretations that I accepted back than. It is fun to reread some of the stories with a more educated mind.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

MattB4 said:


> The bible states that Eden was bounded by rivers, they are even named. Where do you think rivers originate from if there is no rain? Not to mention the fact if you have rivers that they form lakes. The mist rising to water the earth is in the 7 days of creation not afterwards when natural activity was than in place. God had rested, creation was done. Read your Genesis.


Where did the oceans come from?where did water come from? God created them. And if you knew genisis you would know the river originated as a fountain in eden and flowed out to water the garden. It was split 4 ways to encompass the lands of the garden. God put the water there with his hand in creation. Not rain.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> Where did the oceans come from?where did water come from? ...


The oceans came from Kronos and given to Poseidon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon 
The Earth shaker.

Anyone knows that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Vahomesteaders View Post
> Where did the oceans come from?where did water come from? ...


I gave you links that explained it but evidently you don't really want to know


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> I gave you links that explained it but evidently you don't really want to know


I read the theories. They just aren't any more likely then my belief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> I read the theories. They just aren't any more likely then my belief.


Which is what makes these discussions pointless, since you will automatically reject anything that isn't based on your own religion


----------



## Farmerga

IMO, this discussion is on two different things. 1) How the earth was made and 2) Who/what made it?

Science can answer number 1

number 2 is a matter of faith and cannot be proven/disproven.


----------



## Truckinguy

Wow, I get busy for a day and this thread explodes into 12 pages. There are too many posts that i want to reply to so I'll try to sum up my position.

I think we have only discovered the tip of the iceberg when it comes to knowledge of our surroundings and where we came from. Although there are many things that we can't explain at this time, I tend to think that a lot of the questions will be answered in time and I think that many things may never be explained. I don't think trying to make sense of things we don't know about or can't wrap our heads around by just saying "God did it" is a bit of a cop out. If humanity did that from our beginnings we would all still be living in Africa where we apparently started and looking around in ignorant wonder at the universe around us.

I don't doubt that the Bible is historically accurate and I even believe it's possible that Jesus was a real person. However, just because he started a religious movement and convinced a lot of people to follow him doesn't make his message true. There are a lot of very charismatic people who have started organizations and convinced a lot of people to follow them, even to their deaths. The Bible is impossible to take literally anyway, having gone through interpretations by many people from a few other languages. There have even been threads on this forum discussing the different meanings and interpretations about words that can change the meaning of sentences or whole verses.

There are species of bacteria, crustaceans and small fish that live and thrive in volcanic vents deep at the bottom of the ocean in temperatures as high as 450 degrees Celsius. I find it completely plausible that life could have started and survived on the molten surface of a young Earth or possibly deeper in the crust in conditions that would be inhospitable to most life forms we know now. I believe that it's completely within the realm of possibility that Nature could have randomly evolved to be as complex and wonderful as it is today.

We don't have all the answers and maybe we never will. I watch with wonder as the eggs in my incubator grow into chicks in 21 days and I'm humbled by the incredible beauty of it but I believe there are scientific principles at work there as opposed to a God controlling everything. Someone looks at the beauty of the world around us and sees God, I see Nature. To each their own.


----------



## MDKatie

I feel like this meme sums it up pretty well. I feel like scientists are constantly looking to prove (and therefor also disprove) the theory of evolution. They want to know and find the truth. I feel like those who believe in creation are so close minded to other options that they simply don't care to know even if there is any evidence disproving their theory. 

I realize it is a very big generalization, comparing 2 individuals to entire groups of evolution/creation believers, but it still sums it up pretty well, in my own opinion.


----------



## fireweed farm

I just read that the bible states in multiple places that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. Please explain.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which is what makes these discussions pointless, since you will automatically reject anything that isn't based on your own religion


This is not about religion...educate yourself. Your links provide another version..another theory.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> I am a former believer. I also have a bible that I still refer to regularly as my understanding has grown. It is interesting to think back and wonder why I accepted some of the interpretations that I accepted back than. It is fun to reread some of the stories with a more educated mind.


I agree. The more I see and read and learn about the Bible, the more I love it and draw near to it. The funny thing is, the more supposed "discoveries" that science makes about the ancient past, in general science and evolutionary literature, the more I believe in the Bible.

If their evidence was concrete, and not a stretch each time they "find" some evidence, I could change my mind in sadness. I am open enough for that. If they had concrete evidence that macro evolution was factually correct, I would sadly, reluctantly, have to call my belief quits...

I am that kind of person. I love science. I believe in SOUND science.


----------



## painterswife

Do you find more evidence in the Bible because you want to because it supports your beliefs?

I believe in science because while it has yet to prove everything it has proven much more than the bible. I also don't feel the need to believe it, I question it all the time.


----------



## farmerDale

fireweed farm said:


> I just read that the bible states in multiple places that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. Please explain.


I would love to see the references for that. I know that it was called the "circle of the earth". "as far as the east is from the west", also implies a circular earth.

The flat earth verses would interest me. I will have to check that out...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> *This is not about religion*...educate yourself. Your links provide another version..another theory.


You're kidding, right?
All the talk about the bible and creation isn't about "religion"?
It's certainly not about science


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> ...
> I am that kind of person. I love science. I believe in SOUND science.


Do you consider the laws of physics to be sound? If you do, you can not fine explanation for how a god can work. You have to believe in magic. 

All your arguments in support of your faith have at the root a god that violates natural laws. You can say he made the rules and thus can change them any time he wants to, but than you have just abandoned science, since things that can randomly change for no reason can not be quantifiable or testable. Science would limit god. So if god is limited to the rules than none of the so called miracle acts are really miracles, just natural phenomenon.


----------



## farmerDale

painterswife said:


> Do you find more evidence in the Bible because you want to because it supports your beliefs?
> 
> I believe in science because while it has yet to prove everything it has proven much more than the bible. I also don't feel the need to believe it, I question it all the time.



No. I find the evidence, because it is there. It is so plain, but today's world, and today's "science", lives on pre-conceived notions like a 10 B year old universe. That light travel speed has always been the same. That the law of entrophy is irrelevant when it comes to evolution. That dating methods are actually accurate, that dinosaur soft tissue and actual blood cells "somehow" can survive 70 million years. That there was not a global flood, despite all the evidence right in front of us all. That ice deposition on the ice caps, has remained constant each year, even though the massive compression of the ice is impossible to measure.

If "science" they use for evolution, had a leg to stand on, and did not start with a pre-determined paradigm, I would be more prone to pay attention to that branch of science.

If Christian and other scientists who hand in papers that PROVE evolution and eon ages are false, and actually had them published because they ARE science, but the establishment refuses to allow for alternate views because frankly, it scares them. There are lots of studies that do not get published, proving the earth could not be billions of years old.

Diamonds that are supposedly billions of years old, have been carbon dated to be no more that several thousand years old. Did I say CARBON DATED? Yep, I did. There is not supposed to be carbon hanging around that long, due to its short half life.

The moon is moving away from earth. If the earth was more than several thousand years old, it would have been in big trouble! 

Stuff as simple as that, is stifled, avoided, and shrugged off by the general "science" community.

That is the problem...


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> Do you consider the laws of physics to be sound? If you do, you can not fine explanation for how a god can work. You have to believe in magic.
> 
> All your arguments in support of your faith have at the root a god that violates natural laws. You can say he made the rules and thus can change them any time he wants to, but than you have just abandoned science, since things that can randomly change for no reason can not be quantifiable or testable. Science would limit god. So if god is limited to the rules than none of the so called miracle acts are really miracles, just natural phenomenon.


Yup the laws of physics are sound. Gd made the natural laws. Far from violates them. I fail to see your point on that???

God has not toyed with the laws for a very long time IMO. And he DID use and DOES use nature to do HIS will at times. The flood is an excellent example of that.


----------



## painterswife

farmerDale said:


> Y
> 
> God has not toyed with the laws for a very long time IMO. And he DID use and DOES use nature to do HIS will at times. The flood is an excellent example of that.


Could you be so kind as to provide proof of those beliefs.


----------



## farmerDale

"Science" used by evolutionists, is not remotely open to the possibility that the earth is young, in spite of much evidence stating otherwise. I believe that is not science at all. You say I start with a pre-conceived notion. Well, I would argue so does evolutionary theory. 

BIG TIME!


----------



## fireweed farm

farmerDale said:


> I would love to see the references for that. I know that it was called the "circle of the earth". "as far as the east is from the west", also implies a circular earth.
> 
> The flat earth verses would interest me. I will have to check that out...


Found this on yahoo answers. Like everything with the bible it's all about reader perception, but if these are true passages (?) I can see where the bible should have be more clear.

"The sun moves and not the earth: 

Joshua 10:12-13 
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 

Ecclesiastes 1:5 
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. 

The earth is stationary: 



1 Chronicles 16:30 
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved. 

Psalms 93:1 
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved. 

Psalms 96:10 
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." 

It is planted in a foundation: 



2 Samuel 22:16 
Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils. 

Psalms 18:15 
Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils. 

Psalms 102:25 
Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. 

Proverbs 8:27-29 
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, 

Isaiah 48:13 
My hand laid out the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. 

John 17:24 
Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. 

The Earth is flat (you cannot see the entire Earth because it is round): 



Job 28:24 
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens. 

Psalms 19:4-6 
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat. 

Daniel 4:10-11 
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. 

Matthew 4:8 
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 

Isaiah 40:22 
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; 


There are about another fifty passages relating to either the flat Earth, the water around the Earth (blue sky was mistaken for waters in the Hebrew), the stars are fixed lights, the Earth sits on pillars (which is why it shakes during earthquakes), there is an ocean under the Earth (there are archaeological finds of Jewish worship of the creatures of this underground sea), God keeps the upper water back by using windows, the Earth has ends and isn't round. 

Gallileo was tried for proving about 50 bible verses false and being too noisy about it."


----------



## farmerDale

painterswife said:


> Could you be so kind as to provide proof of those beliefs.


Which beliefs? The flood, or the young diamonds, or what?


----------



## fireweed farm

farmerDale said:


> "Science" used by evolutionists, is not remotely open to the possibility that the earth is young, in spite of much evidence stating otherwise. I believe that is not science at all. You say I start with a pre-conceived notion. Well, I would argue so does evolutionary theory.
> 
> BIG TIME!


The only way to see the earth is young is by having faith in a religion or lack of education. All evidence clearly proves otherwise. All religious "proof" of a young earth can be disproven. No gaps. Not that you will accept that proof. But evidence is proof. Faith is.... blind to this.

I remember in school kids coming back from bible camp claiming fossils weren't old because apparently a chicken bone was carbon dated to millions of years old. Not even possible. Just a creationists attempt to deceive young followers.


----------



## painterswife

farmerDale said:


> Which beliefs? The flood, or the young diamonds, or what?


How about how Noah built an ark big enough to house an the animals in the world. How they all got to that ark and stayed alive during the flood.


----------



## farmerDale

fireweed farm said:


> Found this on yahoo answers. Like everything with the bible it's all about reader perception, but if these are true passages (?) I can see where the bible should have be more clear.
> 
> "The sun moves and not the earth:
> 
> Joshua 10:12-13
> Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
> 
> *That one is very interesting indeed. Many scholars have looked for the apparent "lost day", with varying results. I am not sure personally on the science of that situation. I freely admit that.*
> 
> Ecclesiastes 1:5
> The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
> 
> *I don not know what you are thinking this is saying here? Is this not everyday language? We all say the sun comes up and goes down. We do not mean the earth is just sitting still.*
> 
> The earth is stationary:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Chronicles 16:30
> tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
> 
> *Again, this is not saying anything, but that which God has put in place, can not be changed. No biggie.*
> 
> Psalms 93:1
> The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
> 
> *Same as above.*
> 
> Psalms 96:10
> Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
> 
> *Same.*
> 
> It is planted in a foundation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Samuel 22:16
> Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
> 
> *This is not even close to literally meaning the earth is on foundations. LOL. We talk about our lives and things all the time in everyday language using terms like that.*
> 
> Psalms 18:15
> Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
> 
> *Same*
> 
> Psalms 102:25
> Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
> 
> *Same. and foundations can mean anything which would be the building blocks of anything. *
> 
> Proverbs 8:27-29
> When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
> 
> *Same. I think foundations in this case means more boundaries than anything*
> 
> Isaiah 48:13
> My hand laid out the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
> 
> *Same, pretty shaky.*
> 
> John 17:24
> Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.
> 
> *In this case, it is abundantly clear that what is being spoken of is the beginning of time, the founding or the establishment of the earth*
> 
> The Earth is flat (you cannot see the entire Earth because it is round):
> 
> 
> 
> Job 28:24
> For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.
> 
> *God is omnipotent, and CAN see the whole picture at once. If not, He would not be who He says he is... If the verse was speaking about some human dude, that would be a big problem. this verse is an obvious call out to how great God is*
> 
> Psalms 19:4-6
> yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
> 
> *The end of the earth, does not imply anything but that the whole earth would hear and be reached*
> 
> Daniel 4:10-11
> The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
> 
> *The end of the earth again means that it would be visible to all, not that the earth has "ends" lol*
> 
> Matthew 4:8
> Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
> 
> *Jesus and Satan did not have to be up on a mountain to know about all the earth, and the kingdoms within. The point is, Jesus was tempted to sin, but He refused.*
> 
> Isaiah 40:22
> It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
> 
> *Says right there, the earth is a circle. I dunno what else to say???*
> 
> 
> There are about another fifty passages relating to either the flat Earth, the water around the Earth (blue sky was mistaken for waters in the Hebrew), the stars are fixed lights, the Earth sits on pillars (which is why it shakes during earthquakes), there is an ocean under the Earth (there are archaeological finds of Jewish worship of the creatures of this underground sea), God keeps the upper water back by using windows, the Earth has ends and isn't round.
> 
> Gallileo was tried for proving about 50 bible verses false and being too noisy about it."


*The stars are fixed lights, refers CLEARLY to the fact you can used them for navigation. Nothing more. I dunno about the pillars verse, have to look it up.

The under crust ocean, of which there ARE remaining waters, is exactly what the fountains of the great deep were, that cause most of the calamity during the flood. There are still seeping vents all over the oceans.

I have no idea about the Jews worshiping underwater creatures. If they did, what is the point? It is not like those ones wrote the old testament.
*


----------



## MattB4

painterswife said:


> How about how Noah built an ark big enough to house an the animals in the world. How they all got to that ark and stayed alive during the flood.


Some animals did not make it. It was touch and go for the sloths and turtles but the unicorns flat out refused to be caught and penned. The griffins fought it out with hipogrifs and the mammoths took a vote and decide to go extinct. Noah had his hands full with the rats and mice, keeping them from over running the Ark and eating all the stores. Than there was the fun with ostriches and koalas to put up with.


----------



## farmerDale

fireweed farm said:


> The only way to see the earth is young is by having faith in a religion or lack of education. All evidence clearly proves otherwise. All religious "proof" of a young earth can be disproven. No gaps. Not that you will accept that proof. But evidence is proof. Faith is.... blind to this.
> 
> I remember in school kids coming back from bible camp claiming fossils weren't old because apparently a chicken bone was carbon dated to millions of years old. Not even possible. Just a creationists attempt to deceive young followers.


You are plain wrong about that. Prove there was no global flood. Prove macro evolution in a lab. Prove evolution of sperm, of metamorphosis. Explain polystrate trees.

I just explained "ancient" diamonds having been carbon dated to thousands of years. These diamonds, were in the "scientific" theory, between 1 and 2 BILLION years old. Explain that.

There are lots of un-scientific people, who use silly stories and silly science to try to prove a young earth. There are MANY arguments which are indeed faulty, and should not be used. Drives me nuts. But there are also MANY arguments which are sound science, and should be shared and published. Again, the establishment si not going to publish a paper that says their theory is all shot to heck because there are young diamonds, t-rex blood cells and soft tissue that could not possibly be 70 million years old. Speaking of that, what did science which was SHOCKED at the discovery do about it? They MADE UP a theory to explain how the blood cells could have survived that long. A theory which is of course un-provable unless one has the fortune to live 70 million years.


----------



## farmerDale

painterswife said:


> How about how Noah built an ark big enough to house an the animals in the world. How they all got to that ark and stayed alive during the flood.


All he needed was the several KINDS. He did not take on all the kinds of animals of the earth. He also did not take on board any ocean creatures, because it was obviously un-necessary. He would have had to put up hay and collect feed, IMO. The Bible clearly says God sent the animals. Pretty bizarre, but the circumstance would dictate this is the only way it could have happened.


----------



## painterswife

farmerDale said:


> All he needed was the several KINDS. He did not take on all the kinds of animals of the earth. He also did not take on board any ocean creatures, because it was obviously un-necessary. He would have had to put up hay and collect feed, IMO. The Bible clearly says God sent the animals. Pretty bizarre, but the circumstance would dictate this is the only way it could have happened.


Why would he only need several kinds? That does not seem at all logically to me. Why would he need any at all if he only needed a few?


----------



## farmerDale

You guys like talking myths, right. Did you know the prevailing theory about whale evolution, is based on the thought and belief that wolf like, land based ancestors over time took to the water to hunt, and turned into whales.

Wanna talk about something beyond belief? That there is a pretty prime candidate in my view. But they say this with a straight face... They pass it off as "science". And you wonder why I have my doubts. Stuff like that is so laughable and extremely ridiculous, and most in the world if asked about the feasibility of a story like that, would cringe and shudder at the thought. lol


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> Some animals did not make it. It was touch and go for the sloths and turtles but the unicorns flat out refused to be caught and penned. The griffins fought it out with hipogrifs and the mammoths took a vote and decide to go extinct. Noah had his hands full with the rats and mice, keeping them from over running the Ark and eating all the stores. Than there was the fun with ostriches and koalas to put up with.


lol I love it!


----------



## farmerDale

painterswife said:


> Why would he only need several kinds? That does not seem at all logically to me. Why would he need any at all if he only needed a few?


A few is a relative term, meaning the land dwellers, the non waterfowl, the ones that can not survive in water. Which is relatively VERY few of the species known to us today, as most live in water, or at least can for a time...


----------



## painterswife

farmerDale said:


> A few is a relative term, meaning the land dwellers, the non waterfowl, the ones that can not survive in water. Which is relatively VERY few of the species known to us today, as most live in water, or at least can for a time...


So you have no proof you are just assuming things.


----------



## fireweed farm

farmerDale said:


> *The stars are fixed lights, refers CLEARLY to the fact you can used them for navigation. Nothing more. I dunno about the pillars verse, have to look it up.
> 
> The under crust ocean, of which there ARE remaining waters, is exactly what the fountains of the great deep were, that cause most of the calamity during the flood. There are still seeping vents all over the oceans.
> 
> I have no idea about the Jews worshiping underwater creatures. If they did, what is the point? It is not like those ones wrote the old testament.
> *


 I will take this as your answer however it doesn't make it any clearer for me.


----------



## painterswife

How about you explain how Noah could live so long and science finds no evidence of any human living that long.


----------



## fireweed farm

farmerDale said:


> You are plain wrong about that. Prove there was no global flood. Prove macro evolution in a lab. Prove evolution of sperm, of metamorphosis. Explain polystrate trees.
> .


Polystrate trees: trees buried by multiple mud flows, encroaching sand dunes, multiple volcanic eruptions, or perhaps any other rapid sedimentation. 
Polystrate trees are often incorrectly used by creationists to misguidedly explain the 'great flood' or other faith based fossil explanations.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> All he needed was the several KINDS.


That infers that evolution can create new species. I thought creationists didn't believe that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

fireweed farm said:


> Found this on yahoo answers. Like everything with the bible it's all about reader perception, but if these are true passages (?) I can see where the bible should have be more clear.
> 
> "The sun moves and not the earth:
> 
> Joshua 10:12-13
> Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 1:5
> The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
> 
> The earth is stationary:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Chronicles 16:30
> tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
> 
> Psalms 93:1
> The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
> 
> Psalms 96:10
> Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
> 
> It is planted in a foundation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Samuel 22:16
> Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
> 
> Psalms 18:15
> Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
> 
> Psalms 102:25
> Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
> 
> Proverbs 8:27-29
> When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
> 
> Isaiah 48:13
> My hand laid out the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
> 
> John 17:24
> Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.
> 
> The Earth is flat (you cannot see the entire Earth because it is round):
> 
> 
> 
> Job 28:24
> For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.
> 
> Psalms 19:4-6
> yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
> 
> Daniel 4:10-11
> The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
> 
> Matthew 4:8
> Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
> 
> Isaiah 40:22
> It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
> 
> 
> There are about another fifty passages relating to either the flat Earth, the water around the Earth (blue sky was mistaken for waters in the Hebrew), the stars are fixed lights, the Earth sits on pillars (which is why it shakes during earthquakes), there is an ocean under the Earth (there are archaeological finds of Jewish worship of the creatures of this underground sea), God keeps the upper water back by using windows, the Earth has ends and isn't round.
> 
> Gallileo was tried for proving about 50 bible verses false and being too noisy about it."


So many misinterpretation there. He is telling time to stand still. And that earth shall not be moved from it orbit.


----------



## MattB4

painterswife said:


> Why would he only need several kinds? That does not seem at all logically to me. Why would he need any at all if he only needed a few?


Which is why I asked why did a All powerful god even bother with a Ark? He could bring forth all the animals again after he kept Noah alive. Heck, he did not even have to keep Noah alive, he could have just magically re-created him whenever he wanted to. There was no great reason to have a Ark other than narrative. Noah and his family could simply have woke up to a world without any other people in it. 

God is able to suspend the rules according to those that believe in him. 2+2= Blue. Not always mind you, but whenever it suits god for it to be so. This they claim is more a science than accepted science.

At best they have devious arguments to counter accepted science. It takes a effort to disprove their claims because you first have to see how they got them and what they entail, like the nonsense polystrate trees. It is almost like trying to fight mosquitoes with a cannon.


----------



## painterswife

MattB4 said:


> Which is why I asked why did a All powerful god even bother with a Ark? He could bring forth all the animals again after he kept Noah alive. Heck, he did not even have to keep Noah alive, he could have just magically re-created him whenever he wanted to. There was no great reason to have a Ark other than narrative. Noah and his family could simply have woke up to a world without any other people in it.
> 
> God is able to suspend the rules according to those that believe in him. 2+2= Blue. Not always mind you, but whenever it suits god for it to be so. This they claim is more a science than accepted science.
> 
> At best they have devious arguments to counter accepted science. It takes a effort to disprove their claims because you first have to see how they got them and what they entail, like the nonsense polystrate trees. It is almost like trying to fight mosquitoes with a cannon.


I agree. No evidence provided so far just hypotheticals. At least science has more evidence.


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> I agree. No evidence provided so far just hypotheticals. At least science has more evidence.


The science world has not got a handle on the origin of ants yet...they did believe they were close to mud daubers...alas...the had a dead end too. Science is still in the horse and buggy stage when it comes to the entire universe and having the answers. First though..lets get the ant figured out...then move on to flies...etc.


----------



## MattB4

elevenpoint said:


> The science world has not got a handle on the origin of ants yet...they did believe they were close to mud daubers...alas...the had a dead end too. Science is still in the horse and buggy stage when it comes to the entire universe and having the answers. First though..lets get the ant figured out...then move on to flies...etc.


Great, so there is no proof for evolution and there is no proof for god. What is your theory for the origin of life, the universe and everything? What is your proof that can be tested for your theory. 

You have yet to provide a valid workable hypothesis for anything. 

I guess you do not really know what it is what you believe.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Earth is round


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> The science world has not got a handle on the origin of ants yet...they did believe they were close to mud daubers...alas...the had a dead end too. Science is still in the horse and buggy stage when it comes to the entire universe and having the answers. First though..lets get the ant figured out...then move on to flies...etc.


One thing I've had to live with is the idea that not enough is known about some things. That's troubling when lives hang in the balance. But things have to be built and we do the best we can.

I don't see how accepting that "God did it" will help matters any. We keep looking and hope to have answers someday, but we can't accept that God did it. Way too many thing have been explained that way in the past that have practical answers today.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> One thing I've had to live with is the idea that not enough is known about some things. That's troubling when lives hang in the balance. But things have to be built and we do the best we can.
> 
> I don't see how accepting that "God did it" will help matters any. We keep looking and hope to have answers someday, but we can't accept that God did it. Way too many thing have been explained that way in the past that have practical answers today.


But God is the ultimate hope. Do you know how many lives have been saved turning to God? I know drug addicts who over night gave up heroine because they cried out to God. No withdrawals . Just done. I seen it in my own life which is why I'm a believer. When my son was 3 I was very sick. They had done a colonoscopy and found pollups. At the same time my gullbladder was completely diseased. If you have ever had that you know it feels like a heart attack and you can't breath. I was on the couch curled up in tears. My son asked me to go outside and play. I told him I couldn't that I was to sick and that my belly hurt. At 3 years old that little boy put his hands on my stomach and said "dear lord. Please touch my daddies belly and take all his pain away so he can play with me. I know you can do this lord. In Jesus name. Amen." The instant he said amen, every single ounce of pain left. I sat up like a rocket in shock. I wasn't really living for God at the time. But I taught my children of him and my father was a minister. So they knew how to pray. But that was a miracle. One of many in my life. That's why nothing will convince me of anything else. Once you have felt that power abs level of love. You never forget. Through the words of my small son, God opened my eyes and heart.


----------



## Elevenpoint

MattB4 said:


> Great, so there is no proof for evolution and there is no proof for god. What is your theory for the origin of life, the universe and everything? What is your proof that can be tested for your theory.
> 
> You have yet to provide a valid workable hypothesis for anything.
> 
> I guess you do not really know what it is what you believe.


God was very clear on what he did in six days...on the seventh he rested. When I see a oak leaf unfurl in the spring..pink at first...I say thanks God. When I am knee deep in a stream...releasing a trout or smallmouth bass...thanks God. Hornets are fascinating...our government spent untold millions to study them...their flying behavior...maneuvers..etc...from that came the FA/18 Hornet fighter jet...which is great as a fighter jet but pales in comparison to an actual hornet. Science has it's limitations and always will...Solomon said the wisest man cannot understand what goes on under the Sun....so far noone has proved him wrong.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Just keep scripture out of the science classroom. That's all I ask.


How about keeping all teachings out that must be taken on faith? Theories that there was nothing then something happened and then there was something. You know the big bang theory.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Not just assumptions, but lifetimes worth of observations. Its really a pretty simple theory, gradual changes over time. Why is it so hard to believe? Perhaps because it contradicts a few lines in an ancient text? Perhaps the ancient text is wrong, or misinterpreted, or only meant as allegory and not to be taken literally. I know those are herectical ideas to some.


They are assumptions based on observations. You see that you can breed a dog down to the size of a teacup chihuahua or up to the size of a dane then you assume that you can breed one which has wings and feathers. There has been exactly zero evidence which shows that macroevolution is possible. That is heretical for those followers of the religion of science.

Seems to me it would be fairly easy to prove. You take a organism with a fairly short life span, place it in a harsh environment and expose it to low levels of radiation. In decade you should have at least the start of a new organism.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> The only difference is the timescales involved.


No, one you wind up with a critter that looks different but has the same DNA. In the other you wind up with a critter with a different DNA and can no longer breed with the original.


----------



## fireweed farm

Nevada said:


> One thing I've had to live with is the idea that not enough is known about some things. That's troubling when lives hang in the balance. But things have to be built and we do the best we can.
> 
> I don't see how accepting that "God did it" will help matters any. We keep looking and hope to have answers someday, but we can't accept that God did it. Way too many thing have been explained that way in the past that have practical answers today.


Really? You are agreeing that (in this case) ants may be unexplainable by science?

There IS fossil evidence that ants evolved from wasp like insects in the mid-cretaceous period. This is not an unknown it is general knowledge.


----------



## watcher

farmerDale said:


> No. I find the evidence, because it is there. It is so plain, but today's world, and today's "science", lives on pre-conceived notions like a 10 B year old universe. That light travel speed has always been the same. That the law of entrophy is irrelevant when it comes to evolution. That dating methods are actually accurate, that dinosaur soft tissue and actual blood cells "somehow" can survive 70 million years. That there was not a global flood, despite all the evidence right in front of us all. That ice deposition on the ice caps, has remained constant each year, even though the massive compression of the ice is impossible to measure.


Is there evidence to support these "facts"? Can anyone tell me how fast light travels in deep space outside the gravity wells caused by stars and planets? Or must we just take it on faith that it has the same speed in both places?




farmerDale said:


> Diamonds that are supposedly billions of years old, have been carbon dated to be no more that several thousand years old. Did I say CARBON DATED? Yep, I did. There is not supposed to be carbon hanging around that long, due to its short half life.


The problem is carbon dating has had its black swan moment where it was shown that it was completely unreliable.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> The moon is moving away from earth. If the earth was more than several thousand years old, it would have been in big trouble!
> 
> Stuff as simple as that, is stifled, avoided, and shrugged off by the general "science" community.


 I guess you skipped physics, geology, and a whole bunch of other classes when you went to college. You keep postulating all these things science supposedly has no answer to, yet if you searched google for a few minutes, you could find those answers pretty readily.


----------



## painterswife

For me the problem is that bible is just a book with no facts to prove the theory of creation. I could write a book and have my own theory of creation that also has no evidence to back it up.


Science may not have it all but it has more than the bible.


----------



## HDRider

Wars get started over crap like this.

What really amazes me is the energy both sides exert arguing their position, but, like I said, wars get started over this kind of thing.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> I guess you skipped physics, geology, and a whole bunch of other classes when you went to college. You keep postulating all these things science supposedly has no answer to, yet if you searched google for a few minutes, you could find those answers pretty readily.


Very interesting article on the science of the moons proof of earth's age.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/


----------



## DaveNay

:duel:

I must say, this has been one of the most entertaining threads on any subject that I have read in years!


----------



## HDRider

painterswife said:


> For me the problem is that bible is just a book with no facts to prove the theory of creation. I could *write a book* and have my own theory of creation that also has no evidence to back it up.
> 
> 
> Science may not have it all but it has more than the bible.


Try it and see if you can get 2.5 billion living people to buy in.

See if you can get exponentially more than 2,500,000,000 throughout the millennium to swear their very being to it being something to base their most sacred faith on its promise.

All those people are, or were, uneducated idiots, misguided by something they feel and believe. Like I said, we sure are lucky to have all these smart people here on HT to enlighten us.

I guess if majority rules, then Christians are wrong by representation since only 1/3 of all living people on Earth believe in Jesus Christ.

Oh wait, add in almost 2 billion more folks as they actually believe in the same God, they just split off 600 years after Jesus died a bloody death on a cross.

Still,, idiots all, all 4.5 billion of them.


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> Try it and see if you can get 2.5 billion living people to buy in.
> 
> See if you can get exponentially more than 2,500,000,000 to swear their very being to it being something to base their most sacred faith on its promise.
> 
> All those people are, or were, uneducated idiots, misguided by something they feel and believe. Like I said, we sure are lucky to have all these smart people here on HT to enlighten us.
> 
> I guess if majority rules, then Christian are wrong by representation since only 1/3 of all living people on Earth believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> Oh wait, add in almost 2 billion more folks as they actually believe in the same God, they just split off 600 years after Jesus died a bloody death on a cross.
> 
> Still,, idiots all, all 4.5 billion of them.


Why couldn't I ? It has been done before. Just give me the same time frame.


----------



## HDRider

painterswife said:


> Why couldn't I ? It has been done before. Just give me the same time frame.


Somewhat arrogant, but not alone as such, in your postings here.

Give it your best shot, I have to think you have a few million in your pocket so far, right. Best hurry.. You will die soon. But maybe you will rise again too after three days.

I am anxious to read your book of fancy and fiction that so many would swear to their death of its basic truth. I assume it is on Amazon. Should I search painterswife as your pseudonym?


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> Somewhat arrogant, but not alone as such, in your postings here.
> 
> Give it you best shot, I have to think you have a few million in your pocket so far, right. Best hurry.. You will die soon. But maybe you will rise again too after three days.


Actually, i might go a different direction with my book. Resurection is so last century.


----------



## HDRider

painterswife said:


> Actually, i might go a different direction with my book. Resurrection is so last century.


Last 200 centuries in fact.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

The letters and scrolls we have are historical artifacts and they are many. Some of the greatest Minds they claim existed have works of far less detail yet they are taken seriously. One of which I can't think of his name at the moment but I know many touted him as an Icon and genius. Yet only 7 pieces of his work exist. Literally 7 pages of works. A few being second hand. The bible is not the only historical works on God, Jesus and creation. The dead sea scrolls backed it all as well as Roman artifacts proving the existence of both pilot and Jesus. If these were scientific findings in line with today's thinking they would be seen as factual history.


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> Actually, i might go a different direction with my book. Resurection is so last century.


I'm waiting for..." How my dog evolved from a fish then grew wings and flew away."

Only 19.95...5 billion copies available.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DaveNay said:


> :duel:
> 
> I must say, this has been one of the most entertaining threads on any subject that I have read in years!


How many do you think have changed any of their views?


----------



## DaveNay

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many do you think have changed any of their views?


Precisely zero with a standard deviation of zero.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DaveNay said:


> Precisely zero with a standard deviation of zero.


Congratulations on giving the first and only correct answer on the entire thread

:bow:


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Actually, i might go a different direction with my book. Resurection is so last century.


If you farm out parts to a bunch of people that never met you it will go faster. Just sayin'.


----------



## fireweed farm

elevenpoint said:


> I'm waiting for..." How my dog evolved from a fish then grew wings and flew away."
> 
> Only 19.95...5 billion copies available.


Someone else who skipped science class (or was homeschooled!)


----------



## Vahomesteaders

fireweed farm said:


> Someone else who skipped science class (or was homeschooled!)


Science class teaches only theories of evolution. Not facts of evolution.


----------



## fireweed farm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science class teaches only theories of evolution. Not facts of evolution.


Google "what is a scientific theory". 
It is not what we generally call a theory. While it leaves the door open for new information to be added, a scientific theory is a solid understanding of the subject.


----------



## Fennick

Bearfootfarm said:


> Congratulations on giving the first and only correct answer on the entire thread
> 
> :bow:


Dave Nay's answer was correct but each and every other poster has been correct with their answers too, if to nobody else then at least to themself.

Like ..... I know for sure I am correct, that was my story and I'm sticking to it. :happy2:


----------



## farmerDale

HDRider said:


> Wars get started over crap like this.
> 
> What really amazes me is the energy both sides exert arguing their position, but, like I said, wars get started over this kind of thing.


Nah, no war, just friendly debate. I am enjoying it myself. :happy2:


----------



## Elevenpoint

fireweed farm said:


> Someone else who skipped science class (or was homeschooled!)[/Q
> 
> Publish your book of your version then...maybe it will sell.


----------



## MattB4

elevenpoint said:


> God was very clear on what he did in six days...on the seventh he rested. When I see a oak leaf unfurl in the spring..pink at first...I say thanks God. When I am knee deep in a stream...releasing a trout or smallmouth bass...thanks God. Hornets are fascinating...our government spent untold millions to study them...their flying behavior...maneuvers..etc...from that came the FA/18 Hornet fighter jet...which is great as a fighter jet but pales in comparison to an actual hornet. Science has it's limitations and always will...Solomon said the wisest man cannot understand what goes on under the Sun....so far noone has proved him wrong.


I am sorry but you have given not one iota of proof. Proof is not a collection of writings from different authors in different eras bound into a book. You do realize there are several contemporary books that are not included in the bible? Heck there are stories of Lilith (The first woman created alongside Adam as his wife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith) that are very ancient. Nor is your feelings of awe when viewing the world proof of anything other than you have a sense of aesthetics and artistry. 

You offer no science just emotional feelings. You can not prove god by disproving various scientific theories. However if you really can disprove a major scientific theory than I expect you will become famous once you publish your proofs. Good luck with that.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science class teaches only theories of evolution. Not facts of evolution.


You're exploiting that scientists don't really use the word 'fact.'

You also suggest that the word 'theory' carries the same meaning as in casual conversation. Scientists don't call it a theory because they are unsure. They call it a theory because they are always open to a challenge by a new idea.

To suggest that scientists call an explanation a theory because the explanation might be tentative is both misleading and dishonest.


----------



## fireweed farm

elevenpoint said:


> fireweed farm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else who skipped science class (or was homeschooled!)[/Q
> 
> Publish your book of your version then...maybe it will sell.
> 
> 
> 
> ? There are plenty of science journals, texts and books.
Click to expand...


----------



## haypoint

HDRider said:


> Last 200 centuries in fact.


I'm thinking the Resurrection was 20 centuries ago. Still a long time ago.

I take a more basic approach, one that serves to aggravate both sides.

Scientists agree on the progression of evolution. Planets, atmosphere, oceans, fish, birds, animals, humans. The Bible offers the exact same, in order, progression. The debate then centers on the time. Biblical scholars are often steadfast that it was all done in what we know as 6 revolutions of the earth. Can we agree that the average person, 3000 years ago, would not have understood an explanation that included billions of years? Then, can we agree that the time frame isn't all that important, as long as it is in the correct order, with us as the final masterpiece?

I think even non-believers can agree that the Bible is an important book with lots of lessons of behavior that aid civilization. Fables or Parables are a good way to teach, right? Well, I've been a hard worker most of my life and quite a few years of it, I didn't take days off. But it finally occurred to me that after about a week of steady work, I'd be tired. I NEEDED a day off and if I took it, I could actually do better work and get more done. I think a lot of people miss this. If I were to teach this important life lesson to others, I'd have to do it myself. That's why "do as I say, not as I do." doesn't work. So, let's say people, inspired by the wisdom of a higher power, told a story of creation and folded in the lesson on taking a break once a week. Even better to use that seventh day to count your blessings, spend some time with your community members, review the book of civilized society parables and history.

So, in the beginning of the Bible, we get the science of evolution , in an understandable, correct order, plus a helpful hint to give our bodies a rest and while at rest, review the guidelines to a civilized society and network with the neighbors. That don't seem half bad, does it?

PM me if you'd like to learn that the miracle of the fishes and loaves of bread wasn't a miracle but a story about stone soup, retold badly.


----------



## HDRider

haypoint said:


> I'm thinking the Resurrection was 20 centuries ago. Still a long time ago.


My bad.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> That infers that evolution can create new species. I thought creationists didn't believe that.


 I guess I am what you would call a "creationist" and see evolution as a tool used for creation.


----------



## haypoint

If there were no conductor would the orchestra play just as sweet? Can anyone accept evolution guided by a creator?


----------



## painterswife

haypoint said:


> If there were no conductor would the orchestra play just as sweet? Can anyone accept evolution guided by a creator?


If there is a creator, where did he/she come from? Why is there only one creator? Maybe we are like the who's in whoville. Just a small planet in a speck of dust.


----------



## haypoint

painterswife said:


> If there is a creator, where did he/she come from? Why is there only one creator? Maybe we are like the who's in whoville. Just a small planet in a speck of dust.


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQmzvnXaJIw[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk[/ame]

Perhaps these two short video clips can explain it in another way?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> If there is a creator, where did he/she come from? Why is there only one creator? Maybe we are like the who's in whoville. Just a small planet in a speck of dust.


 We have only begun to scratch the surface as to what is "out there". Is there a universe, or, multiverse? How many different plains of existence are there? I would be open to the thought of many creators, or, one. What is immortality, from our point of view? What is a God, from our point of view? Time is funny stuff and I feel that there is plenty room and time for a creator god, or, many. 

I do believe that no religion on Earth has scratched the surface on the nature of that God, any more than no Scientist on Earth has scratched the surface on the nature of Creation.


----------



## MattB4

haypoint said:


> If there were no conductor would the orchestra play just as sweet? Can anyone accept evolution guided by a creator?


That was my last position before I finally gave up on my religious beliefs. It is understandable that many could stay in that conclusion. Religious practices and belief are a large part of how we work with each other, cope with a universe that is indifferent, force ourselves to be moral and provide comfort when suffering from grief of loss. It is the framework for the teachings of our children since it provides lessons of co-operative behavior. It gives a person a feeling of place. Getting together to sing religious hymns and having group prayer is satisfying on a very deep level of our psyche. 

Plus the Atheists throw terrible potlucks and Sunday picnics.


----------



## mmoetc

MattB4 said:


> That was my last position before I finally gave up on my religious beliefs. It is understandable that many could stay in that conclusion. Religious practices and belief are a large part of how we work with each other, cope with a universe that is indifferent, force ourselves to be moral and provide comfort when suffering from grief of loss. It is the framework for the teachings of our children since it provides lessons of co-operative behavior. It gives a person a feeling of place. Getting together to sing religious hymns and having group prayer is satisfying on a very deep level of our psyche.
> 
> Plus the Atheists throw terrible potlucks and Sunday picnics.


But the Saturday pig roasts are epic!


----------



## Truckinguy

HDRider said:


> Try it and see if you can get 2.5 billion living people to buy in.
> 
> See if you can get exponentially more than 2,500,000,000 throughout the millennium to swear their very being to it being something to base their most sacred faith on its promise.
> 
> All those people are, or were, uneducated idiots, misguided by something they feel and believe. Like I said, we sure are lucky to have all these smart people here on HT to enlighten us.
> 
> I guess if majority rules, then Christians are wrong by representation since only 1/3 of all living people on Earth believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> Oh wait, add in almost 2 billion more folks as they actually believe in the same God, they just split off 600 years after Jesus died a bloody death on a cross.
> 
> Still,, idiots all, all 4.5 billion of them.


One doesn't have to be an uneducated idiot to believe in something like Christianity. In fact, a lot of pretty smart people are Christians. Nobody wants to cease to exist and if someone comes along with a message that we could live forever just by basically being a good person and fulfilling a few requirements many people would jump on board. It's no real mystery why some religions have a huge following. In spite of humans being resourceful, smart and pretty capable of taking care of ourselves, we, as specks of dust on this tiny blue ball in an unimaginably huge universe, would take comfort in a greater power that controls all things and would protect us from anything bad happening and, if something bad happens, it was in his plan and we'll all live forever in some sort of paradise where nothing bad ever happens. Once you got people interested you could throw in the burning in Hell part which might seal the deal. It's actually a very compelling message to those who are vulnerable to being led. Once you have a few generations believing then it is taught from birth which cements it into the psyche and there you go. It's psychology 101. It would also conveniently explain everything we didn't know in one fell swoop by just saying that God did it.

Once people start being raised in something from birth it perpetuates itself and is very difficult to break the chain. I was born into Christianity and my struggle with it and eventual freedom from it nearly cost me my life. It's very difficult to break from the bonds of something that has been ingrained in you from the beginning. That is not restricted to Christianity, there are many other cults that take hold of the mind and are difficult to free people from.


----------



## Truckinguy

Irish Pixie said:


> If you farm out parts to a bunch of people that never met you it will go faster. Just sayin'.


It should also be written in a couple of languages not familiar with the common populace and then translated into multiple languages so that the meaning of pretty much all of it is up for individual interpretation and can be twisted to serve the varied interests of it's diverse readers.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Truckinguy said:


> One doesn't have to be an uneducated idiot to believe in something like Christianity. In fact, a lot of pretty smart people are Christians. Nobody wants to cease to exist and if someone comes along with a message that we could live forever just by basically being a good person and fulfilling a few requirements many people would jump on board. It's no real mystery why some religions have a huge following. In spite of humans being resourceful, smart and pretty capable of taking care of ourselves, we, as specks of dust on this tiny blue ball in an unimaginably huge universe, would take comfort in a greater power that controls all things and would protect us from anything bad happening and, if something bad happens, it was in his plan and we'll all live forever in some sort of paradise where nothing bad ever happens. Once you got people interested you could throw in the burning in Hell part which might seal the deal. It's actually a very compelling message to those who are vulnerable to being led. Once you have a few generations believing then it is taught from birth which cements it into the psyche and there you go. It's psychology 101. It would also conveniently explain everything we didn't know in one fell swoop by just saying that God did it.
> 
> Once people start being raised in something from birth it perpetuates itself and is very difficult to break the chain. I was born into Christianity and my struggle with it and eventual freedom from it nearly cost me my life. It's very difficult to break from the bonds of something that has been ingrained in you from the beginning. That is not restricted to Christianity, there are many other cults that take hold of the mind and are difficult to free people from.


Christianity is far from a cult. Some people have a very hard time with its acceptence and applications to their lives because of the nature of sin in their hearts. Many reject it because they lack the simple understanding of its beautiful workings. They ask God to help in a time of need and it doesn't come in the form they hoped it would. So they write Him off. Their minds can't grasp the understanding of an unyielding love from an almighty creator so they feel there must be something wrong with him. When in fact is the fallacies of the individual. Not God.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> Christianity is far from a cult. Some people have a very hard time with its acceptence and applications to their lives because of the nature of sin in their hearts. Many reject it because they lack the simple understanding of its beautiful workings. They ask God to help in a time of need and it doesn't come in the form they hoped it would. So they write Him off. Their minds can't grasp the understanding of an unyielding love from an almighty creator so they feel there must be something wrong with him. When in fact is the fallacies of the individual. Not God.


While true of some that fall away (or are driven away by people professing to be christian but are really lousy people) it is not all. Some of us simply start looking at it from a scientific inquisitiveness. Once you read up on various historical religions and you understand basic physics you begin to realize that all religions are man made artifacts. The more you learn of the natural workings of the universe the more you fail to see a guiding hand. 

I did not reject god because he did not give me a pony when I asked for one. Nor did I encounter a pedophile priest. I just stopped believing in gods, magic and any other stories of fantasy. I still enjoy fantasy but I do not believe in it. I see the imagination of people behind all the accounts. Human beings love a good story.


----------



## Truckinguy

Vahomesteaders said:


> Christianity is far from a cult. Some people have a very hard time with its acceptence and applications to their lives because of the nature of sin in their hearts. Many reject it because they lack the simple understanding of its beautiful workings. They ask God to help in a time of need and it doesn't come in the form they hoped it would. So they write Him off. Their minds can't grasp the understanding of an unyielding love from an almighty creator so they feel there must be something wrong with him. When in fact is the fallacies of the individual. Not God.


Christianity meets many of the criteria set out in the Miriam-Webster dictionary for cults and has been responsible for many dangerous practices that have resulted in the destruction of countless lives. Yes, a lot of good has been done in the name of Christianity but I think an equal or greater amount of harm has been done by Christians meting out punishment and judgement to those who they think deserve it. I've seen firsthand both the good and bad done by those who follow the same path. I've seen incredible generosity by some people who turn around the next day and forcibly split up families because some members of the family don't agree with the teachings of the church. I'm not singling out Christianity, all three Abrahamic religions have contributed their fair share. I"m not sure of other religions such as Buddhism, Sikhism or others, most of them don't seem as combative as the three main ones.

If someone follows whatever spiritual path that makes them happy and interacts freely with those around them it's all good. However, when someone like Kim Davis shows up or something happens like the Paris attacks they should be resisted with whatever resources necessary so the rest of us can go about our lives without interference.


----------



## MattB4

Truckinguy said:


> Christianity meets many of the criteria set out in the Miriam-Webster dictionary for cults and has been responsible for many dangerous practices that have resulted in the destruction of countless lives. Yes, a lot of good has been done in the name of Christianity but I think an equal or greater amount of harm has been done by Christians meting out punishment and judgement to those who they think deserve it. I've seen firsthand both the good and bad done ...


Not to pick on you but you sound angry at religion. Many atheists are and ascribe the worlds ill to it. Indeed there are some religions that are very harmful though I can not say the teachings of Jesus had much that is bad. Indeed Christianity promotes the individual as having rights that many others simply did not have. Far better for the promotion of a free society than ones than allow for rulers to be divine. 

I think the atheists unhappy with religion have suffered by people practicing the religion much more so than those of us that have placed religion into the evolution of society category. They still have beliefs but now those beliefs are negative focused. Mankind has gravitated towards a belief system since we first gained awareness. To think if religion had not existed that people would be "better" is a delusion. 

All kinds of humans have meted out good and evil. Whether they were so called religious or simply bad people. Blaming the religion is only valid when the religion has evil practices like human sacrifice or convert or die stance. Some of the apocalyptic cults are especially troublesome.


----------



## MattB4

mmoetc said:


> But the Saturday pig roasts are epic!


 Must be at the Muslim inspired atheists mosques. The Christian inspired atheists tend to vegetable sacrifice for some odd reason. Ripping the heart out of a artichoke as a homage to "nothing".


----------



## Nevada

MattB4 said:


> Not to pick on you but you sound angry at religion.


I'm not angry, but I haven't been treated well by religious people in general.

The way I see it, there's something about religion that's important to a lot of people. Knowing that, I would ever try to shake someone's belief, because I have no desire to take something important from anyone. I would also never mock beliefs or make fun of someone for what they believe. I would also never try to maneuver someone into a situation where they are forced to listen to the particulars of my beliefs.

But I can't say that about most Christians. They take delight when I'm forced into a situation where I am exposed to their religious teachings. I've had family members, teachers, and even friends maneuver me into those situations, even to the point of lying to me to get me to do it.

In this very thread my beliefs in scientific principles have been mocked and ridiculed in the most cruel ways. Much of that ridicule isn't even true, so they're actually misrepresenting (perhaps lying) about the facts.

Why do Christians think it's OK to mock my beliefs, when mocking their beliefs is off limits?


----------



## farmerDale

Truckinguy said:


> Christianity meets many of the criteria set out in the Miriam-Webster dictionary for cults and has been responsible for many dangerous practices that have resulted in the destruction of countless lives. Yes, a lot of good has been done in the name of Christianity but I think an equal or greater amount of harm has been done by Christians meting out punishment and judgement to those who they think deserve it. I've seen firsthand both the good and bad done by those who follow the same path. I've seen incredible generosity by some people who turn around the next day and forcibly split up families because some members of the family don't agree with the teachings of the church. I'm not singling out Christianity, all three Abrahamic religions have contributed their fair share. I"m not sure of other religions such as Buddhism, Sikhism or others, most of them don't seem as combative as the three main ones.
> 
> If someone follows whatever spiritual path that makes them happy and interacts freely with those around them it's all good. However, when someone like Kim Davis shows up or something happens like the Paris attacks they should be resisted with whatever resources necessary so the rest of us can go about our lives without interference.


You do have to realize, that within christianity, there are so many branches. MANY do not actually believe the Bible, much less follow it: the ones who do, are not going to be doing anything "in the name of Christ", other than charity, forgiveness, generosity, and trying to reach and unsaved world as we are commanded to do.

So before stating things like that, you must realize that there are huge differences within the sphere of christianity. 

Is a priest molesting children a Bible believer? Nope. Is a nut case bombing others saved by grace? Nope. Were witch burners following the Bible? Nope.

They are people that SAY they believe, but obviously do not.

I have several great friends in our growing church, who were drug addicts, drug dealers, and they came to a point in their lives, where they called out for GOD to help them. Through meeting the right people at the right times, they are now changed people. Completely.

It is amazing to see. No human endeavor can make a change like that so rapidly. Not AL ANON, not islam, not some country club church, not a good old fashioned spanking. Only Christ has that influence.

And this extends throughout the world, it happens every single day. If it is not real, what is it exactly? How can a man who lived 2000 years ago, still have the influence, the power if you will, to be the answer for so many?

It really is amazing if you look at it.

I am curious how Christ nearly caused your death.


----------



## Nevada

MattB4 said:


> Must be at the Muslim inspired atheists mosques. The Christian inspired atheists tend to vegetable sacrifice for some odd reason. Ripping the heart out of a artichoke as a homage to "nothing".


Note: Great example of mocking someone's belief structure, but surprisingly it's socially acceptable in this country as long as Christianity remains off limits.

Thanks for helping me make my point.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Christians have been mocked here too.Infact they are many times all over HT. Im sorry you have met such people. But I assure you they are the minority. Most all I know go out of their way for others.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> I'm not angry, but I haven't been treated well by religious people in general.
> 
> The way I see it, there's something about religion that's important to a lot of people. Knowing that, I would ever try to shake someone's belief, because I have no desire to take something important from anyone. I would also never mock beliefs or make fun of someone for what they believe. I would also never try to maneuver someone into a situation where they are forced to listen to the particulars of my beliefs.
> 
> But I can't say that about most Christians. They take delight when I'm forced into a situation where I am exposed to their religious teachings. I've had family members, teachers, and even friends maneuver me into those situations, even to the point of lying to me to get me to do it.
> 
> In this very thread my beliefs in scientific principles have been mocked and ridiculed in the most cruel ways. Much of that ridicule isn't even true, so they're actually misrepresenting (perhaps lying) about the facts.
> 
> Why do Christians think it's OK to mock my beliefs, when mocking their beliefs is off limits?


You must hang with or know nominal christians then? A christian who follows the Bible, should not be lying to you, cheating you, mocking you. If I have come across as mocking, I hereby apologize, and ask your forgiveness. I do tend to mock evolutionary theory, but that is not a person.

I guess I can see your point in mocking of beliefs. I am human, I may have been too off base at times, and I am sorry if I am one who was too far in speaking out. 

I never thought of it that way, I appreciate that you made the point...


----------



## MattB4

Nevada said:


> Note: Great example of mocking someone's belief structure, but surprisingly it's socially acceptable in this country as long as Christianity remains off limits.
> 
> Thanks for helping me make my point.


Mocking and satire are frequently confused. 

I have not seen that Christianity has been off limits at all. Indeed it is one of the few religions that mocking of is a common practice among the Left and progressives in this country. It is mainstream and sometimes vicious in extent. You almost never see mocking of Budhists, Shintoism or other groups. 

Mocking Islam however can be dangerous.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> If I have come across as mocking, I hereby apologize, and ask your forgiveness. I do tend to mock evolutionary theory, but that is not a person.


Yes, but that's my belief structure. Would it be OK to mock a Christian for believing that Jesus died for his sins? I think not.


----------



## watcher

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science class teaches only theories of evolution. Not facts of evolution.


You might want to sit in on a few science classes. You will discover it is being taught much more as established fact than an unproven and unprovable theory.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You're exploiting that scientists don't really use the word 'fact.'
> 
> You also suggest that the word 'theory' carries the same meaning as in casual conversation. Scientists don't call it a theory because they are unsure. They call it a theory because they are always open to a challenge by a new idea.
> 
> To suggest that scientists call an explanation a theory because the explanation might be tentative is both misleading and dishonest.


They don't use that word they use the word "law". Once something is accepted as fact scientist upgrade it to a "law".


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> If there is a creator, where did he/she come from? Why is there only one creator? Maybe we are like the who's in whoville. Just a small planet in a speck of dust.


Where did the big bang come from? Neither question can be answered.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Yes, but that's my belief structure. Would it be OK to mock a Christian for believing that Jesus died for his sins? I think not.


Sure, as long as you didn't become insulting to the individual. You have a right to express your opinion on my beliefs any way you wish.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> They don't use that word they use the word "law". Once something is accepted as fact scientist upgrade it to a "law".


Again, that's not how it works. A theory is never upgraded to a law. A law describes something, usually with a mathematical formula in physical science. So the law of gravity describes how we would expect gravity to act on an object. But the law of gravity doesn't explain what gravity is. We would turn to a theory for that.

A theory is an explanation for something. A theory can also have mathematical expressions associated with it, but those expressions aren't the essence of the explanation the way laws are.

Both laws and theories are derived from hypotheses, but take different paths in their development. So a law is not above a theory. They're different kinds of things.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

watcher said:


> You might want to sit in on a few science classes. You will discover it is being taught much more as established fact than an unproven and unprovable theory.


Just because they teach it as such does not make it anymore true or plausible than my belief


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Just because they teach it as such does not make it anymore true or plausible than my belief


 You're back to the old 'if i believe it, then it must be true'. Which is not how the world works. You may believe you can fly, but step off a tall building and your belief doesn't count for much. So no, none of us gets to determine what is true and what is not. Its not 'every belief is as valid as the next'. Thats hogwash, kind of like the pseudo-scientific malarky you posted about the moon.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> You're back to the old 'if i believe it, then it must be true'. Which is not how the world works. You may believe you can fly, but step off a tall building and your belief doesn't count for much. So no, none of us gets to determine what is true and what is not. Its not 'every belief is as valid as the next'. Thats hogwash, kind of like the pseudo-scientific malarky you posted about the moon.


Lol. OK. Well when they observe it and repeat it in the lab, we will talk more. Because that's what science uses as its basis for factual evidence . Pseudo science? We know how fast and far the moon is pulling away from the earth. A simple mathematical equation would show there isn't enough time for the earth to be as old as they say. The moon would already be so far outside of our orbit it would have no affect on the earth.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> We know how fast and far the moon is pulling away from the earth. A simple mathematical equation would show there isn't enough time for the earth to be as old as they say. The moon would already be so far outside of our orbit it would have no affect on the earth.


 Yes, you posted pseudo-science, because what you posted about the moon is not even remotely true. 


> The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 Ã 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29



If you care to look, you can see some of the other erroneous pseudo-scientific 'creationist' beliefs corrected, in this point-by-point refutation of creationisms more widespread tropes. Its ok Vahomesteader, there can still be a God, even if some scrolls from the bronze age, written by men, aren't word-for-word literal. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


----------



## watcher

Vahomesteaders said:


> Just because they teach it as such does not make it anymore true or plausible than my belief


But it does in the mind of an impressionable student. Having an authority figure tell children something over and over and they come to believe its true. History is full of examples of this.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Having an authority figure tell children something over and over and they come to believe its true. History is full of examples of this.


 Hmm, sounds exactly like what religion does.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Yes, you posted pseudo-science, because what you posted about the moon is not even remotely true.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)
> 
> 
> 
> If you care to look, you can see some of the other erroneous pseudo-scientific 'creationist' beliefs corrected, in this point-by-point refutation of creationisms more widespread tropes. Its ok Vahomesteader, there can still be a God, even if some scrolls from the bronze age, written by men, aren't word-for-word literal.
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


One of the quotes from your link you shared. 


Evolution is entirely consistent with a belief in God, including even "special creation." Special creation need not refer to the creation of every animal; it can refer simply to creation of the universe, of the first life, or of the human soul, for example.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But it does in the mind of an impressionable student. Having an authority figure tell children something over and over and they come to believe its true. History is full of examples of this.


But you can't have students showing up at college saying that the explanation for some scientific questions is that God did it.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> But you can't have students showing up at college saying that the explanation for some scientific questions is that God did it.


Wait. I did. And I got an excellent mark, because I used my brain, and challenged the professor about herbicide resistant weeds. I did the same thing in a biology class once, and so stumped the professor, that he called me to his office for further discussion, and I was so persuasive in my approach, he told me he was stumped. Where as here, I get belittled as being unscientific and plain dumb and un-educated, at university, my prof actually said my science was as valid or more valid than his.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Wait. I did. And I got an excellent mark, because I used my brain, and challenged the professor about herbicide resistant weeds. I did the same thing in a biology class once, and so stumped the professor, that he called me to his office for further discussion, and I was so persuasive in my approach, he told me he was stumped. Where as here, I get belittled as being unscientific and plain dumb and un-educated, at university, my prof actually said my science was as valid or more valid than his.


Good! How do I apply that to size a pump for a refinery application? Tell my boss to ask about it in church next Sunday?

You talk about science as though it's all recreational discussion.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Good! How do I apply that to size a pump for a refinery application? Tell my boss to ask about it in church next Sunday?
> 
> You talk about science as though it's all recreational discussion.


Science is more often wrong than it is right. Same with engineer's. Use your brain. Your pump issue is easy peasy!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Use your brain. Your pump issue is easy peasy!


How so?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How so?


Why would it be difficult?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Why would it be difficult?


It's straightforward science, but there's a lot to consider. Have you ever specified a pump for a commercial application?

Actually, there's software that helps with pump sizing. My boss used to joke that I might be replaced with a diskette some day. It was closer to the truth that I was comfortable with.


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> It's straightforward science, but there's a lot to consider. Have you ever specified a pump for a commercial application?
> 
> Actually, there's software that helps with pump sizing. My boss used to joke that I might be replaced with a diskette some day. It was closer to the truth that I was comfortable with.


I recently saw some software developed by a structural engineer that showed the calcs for building wood trusses. 

*Now, this was not intended for use by laymen.*

Yeah, that will never happen right?


----------



## Nevada

mreynolds said:


> I recently saw some software developed by a structural engineer that showed the calcs for building wood trusses.
> 
> *Now, this was not intended for use by laymen.*
> 
> Yeah, that will never happen right?


Pump vendors would visit the refinery and give us little pump sizing software snippets. I always did it by hand. I have ways to mathematically test for problems like cavitation & surge.


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> Pump vendors would visit the refinery and give us little pump sizing software snippets. I always did it by hand. I have ways to mathematically test for problems like cavitation & surge.


My living is construction. Both commercial and master carpenter residential. I have built some really big things in commercial too. Like you I have seen many things that make you go Hmmm. You and I both have probably seen both competent and the other kind of engineers that we talk about at home. I have found that the best ones do it by hand. At least they have a working knowledge of what they are doing and not do it by a disk or software. 

I am not an engineer but I juts built some timber frame trusses by hand figuring too. Then an 80 mph straight line wind hit it two months later and they didn't budge. I just didn't feel I needed to spend the 60 bucks a month for the software. 

So, what were the pumps you worked on for? Pumping the fuel to the rack or other?


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> Pump vendors would visit the refinery and give us little pump sizing software snippets. I always did it by hand. I have ways to mathematically test for problems like cavitation & surge.


Keep in mind I only have limited knowledge in hydraulics. Only fire service type and volunteer at that. But it fascinates me anyway.


----------



## Nevada

mreynolds said:


> Keep in mind I only have limited knowledge in hydraulics. Only fire service type and volunteer at that. But it fascinates me anyway.


We have pump cavitation problems in the fire service too.

Usually that happens near the end of the fire, where hose bales are shut off and water in the pump is static. If the pump keeps churning the water gets hot, leading to cavitation.


----------



## mreynolds

Nevada said:


> We have pump cavitation problems in the fire service too.
> 
> Usually that happens near the end of the fire, where hose bales are shut off and water in the pump is static. If the pump keeps churning the water gets hot, leading to cavitation.


Yes we do and it ends badly too lol. Biggest problems we have or most frequent anyway is water hammer. Dang rookies and tunnel vision.


----------



## Nevada

mreynolds said:


> So, what were the pumps you worked on for? Pumping the fuel to the rack or other?


I've worked all over the refinery, mostly on processing units. I think the largest were cooling water pumps, 800 hp. Pumping hydrocarbon materials is probably more challenging, since more things can go wrong in a wide range of operating conditions. Centrifugal chiller pumps are the most sensitive to condition upsets. They have to be sized very precisely of a particular lift.

Mostly I was called upon to determine why a process wasn't performing as it should. I only did pump sizing early in my career. I would double check pump specification from time to time though. The wrong pump can really screw things up.


----------



## Nevada

mreynolds said:


> Yes we do and it ends badly too lol. Biggest problems we have or most frequent anyway is water hammer. Dang rookies and tunnel vision.


Sure, a water hammer can break an arm or a few ribs if the hose bursts. It happens from time to time.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> It's straightforward science, but there's a lot to consider. Have you ever specified a pump for a commercial application?
> 
> Actually, there's software that helps with pump sizing. My boss used to joke that I might be replaced with a diskette some day. It was closer to the truth that I was comfortable with.


I have! I've even had to modify volutes to get my desired results, more heat. I modified them to decrease their efficiency, of all things.


----------



## Truckinguy

MattB4 said:


> Not to pick on you but you sound angry at religion. Many atheists are and ascribe the worlds ill to it. Indeed there are some religions that are very harmful though I can not say the teachings of Jesus had much that is bad. Indeed Christianity promotes the individual as having rights that many others simply did not have. Far better for the promotion of a free society than ones than allow for rulers to be divine.
> 
> I think the atheists unhappy with religion have suffered by people practicing the religion much more so than those of us that have placed religion into the evolution of society category. They still have beliefs but now those beliefs are negative focused. Mankind has gravitated towards a belief system since we first gained awareness. To think if religion had not existed that people would be "better" is a delusion.
> 
> All kinds of humans have meted out good and evil. Whether they were so called religious or simply bad people. Blaming the religion is only valid when the religion has evil practices like human sacrifice or convert or die stance. Some of the apocalyptic cults are especially troublesome.


You're right, I don't think very highly of religion in general due to many negative things I've experienced and seen. I have seen many good things done in the name of religion but I've also seen many good things done just because people felt moved to do them in a way that had nothing to do with religion. Religions have evil practices like marginalizing and shunning people just because they don't fit the mold of what a good Christian should be. Gays are one group who have suffered negative consequences for no good reason other than the Bible says what they do is wrong. Women are another group who are treated poorly. 

You're right, though, there would still be bad things happening in the world if there was no religion but I think good and bad would be easier and simpler to sort out. Religion cloaks a lot of evil doing under the guise of doing good and then holds itself up as being morally superior than everyone else.

I've stated a few times before on other threads that if someone is happy with their spiritual path I'm happy for them. However, the second that they start telling me that I need saving or start causing any negative impact on other people's loves they've crossed the line and will be told so.


----------



## Truckinguy

farmerDale said:


> You do have to realize, that within christianity, there are so many branches. MANY do not actually believe the Bible, much less follow it: the ones who do, are not going to be doing anything "in the name of Christ", other than charity, forgiveness, generosity, and trying to reach and unsaved world as we are commanded to do.
> 
> So before stating things like that, you must realize that there are huge differences within the sphere of Christianity.
> 
> Is a priest molesting children a Bible believer? Nope. Is a nut case bombing others saved by grace? Nope. Were witch burners following the Bible? Nope.
> 
> They are people that SAY they believe, but obviously do not.
> 
> I have several great friends in our growing church, who were drug addicts, drug dealers, and they came to a point in their lives, where they called out for GOD to help them. Through meeting the right people at the right times, they are now changed people. Completely.
> 
> It is amazing to see. No human endeavor can make a change like that so rapidly. Not AL ANON, not islam, not some country club church, not a good old fashioned spanking. Only Christ has that influence.
> 
> And this extends throughout the world, it happens every single day. If it is not real, what is it exactly? How can a man who lived 2000 years ago, still have the influence, the power if you will, to be the answer for so many?
> 
> It really is amazing if you look at it.
> 
> I am curious how Christ nearly caused your death.


I understand about the different branches of Christianity but you have to realize that, whether they are all actually following the Bible or not, they all represent Christianity to the rest of us and the negative and sometimes catastrophic consequences they have on people's lives are very real. The fact that there are so many different branches and sub branches and so on casts a lot of doubt on the legitimacy of the institution. I think all the different branches of Christians should have a big meeting and sort out what the real message is before they try to tell us what is right and wrong.

I don't doubt that your Christian message helped those who needed it. I"ve seen many people convert to Christianity and change their lives and I applaud that. It doesn't mean that there is a God. It just means they believe the story. If someone embraced a Norse or Greek God and it changed their life for the better that would be great but it doesn't mean that particular God exists. Again, if these things have a positive influence in someone's life I"m all for it. 

I've touched on some of mine and my family's experiences in other threads and I'm not going to go into detail here but, long story short, I was raised in a strict Christian sect and was very sheltered from the world but at 17 the priests made me move out of my Parents house so I could "find myself", I guess. I had no idea about rent, how to find a job (worked with my Uncle in the church). I was found a room in a basement of a house and left on my own. I had two good friends from high school, one who found me a job and through that job I met two good friends, all four still friends with me now more than 30 years later. Through the influence of other shady people I got into booze and drugs and one suicide attempt but my four friends stood by me. When I was 20 my Parents told me they had left the church and I moved back home. Once free of the church we had good lives but those who were still in the church cut ties with us, one sister, uncles, aunts, cousins, childhood friends and grandparents. My Dad died three years ago not knowing he was a great grandfather. My Parents were not allowed to attend my grandparent's funerals and I believe my parents were only notified about their mother's deaths after they were buried.

The universal message that we should all live by is to treat others like we would like to be treated. Pretty simple and covers most of the bases.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Lol. OK. Well when they observe it and repeat it in the lab, we will talk more. Because that's what science uses as its basis for factual evidence ..


 I've provided you and farmerDale with links that prove the moon is receding at only 1.5" per year, and as such is entirely consistent with the earth-moon system being BILLIONS of years old. This comes from direct measurments and observations. 
Believe what you want in your own home, but when people come onto these forums spreading lies about proven scientific facts, then they should expect a pushback.


----------



## MattB4

Truckinguy said:


> ...
> 
> You're right, though, there would still be bad things happening in the world if there was no religion but I think good and bad would be easier and simpler to sort out. Religion cloaks a lot of evil doing under the guise of doing good and then holds itself up as being morally superior than everyone else.
> 
> ...


It is people that cloak themselves in religion that are doing evil. I guarantee you it does not quit even if you have no religion. Societies have tried to suppress religion like the former Soviet Union, China and others. All that does is remove some of the good religion does and replace it with a powerful State. The urge to dominate others simply changes with the system. 

When I gave up my faith it was not from any persons acts. It was a reasoned one from study and much thought. It is why I do not call my self a atheist. Instead I am a pragmatist. If a god should somehow present themselves and he could prove without a shadow of a doubt or trickery that he actually had supernatural powers, I would have to incorporate that in my thinking. But with fantastical claims come equally fantastical proof. 

I do not believe in evolution. I accept evolution as being the likeliest mechanism to explain life. I do not even much like evolution since it seems to require a bit of faith in areas and I gave up on that kind of thing.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Hmm, sounds exactly like what religion does.


Religions of all types do it. The good ones allow for the individual to question the standards, e.g. Christianity, the bad ones punish anyone who questions the basic tenets, e.g. science.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But you can't have students showing up at college saying that the explanation for some scientific questions is that God did it.


You should have them showing up knowing that there is just as much of a chance that God did it as anything else not brainwashed into thinking there is only one way it could have happened.


----------



## Truckinguy

MattB4 said:


> It is people that cloak themselves in religion that are doing evil. I guarantee you it does not quit even if you have no religion. Societies have tried to suppress religion like the former Soviet Union, China and others. All that does is remove some of the good religion does and replace it with a powerful State. The urge to dominate others simply changes with the system.
> 
> When I gave up my faith it was not from any persons acts. It was a reasoned one from study and much thought. It is why I do not call my self a atheist. Instead I am a pragmatist. If a god should somehow present themselves and he could prove without a shadow of a doubt or trickery that he actually had supernatural powers, I would have to incorporate that in my thinking. But with fantastical claims come equally fantastical proof. As for how we got here, there is reasonable proof of the journey of evolution and I believe there is much we haven't learned yet. As for the existence of God, there is no proof that I can see. I think Nature is quite able to be as intricate and detailed as it is through natural development.
> 
> I do not believe in evolution. I accept evolution as being the likeliest mechanism to explain life. I do not even much like evolution since it seems to require a bit of faith in areas and I gave up on that kind of thing.


I've never been completely sure about giving myself a label but I don't think my position is very far from yours. Being raised so strictly Christian (church every day and three times on Sunday, not a joke) during the formative years of my life I suppose I'll never completely shake the possibility of there being a God. My journey did start with the acts of others but resulted in a lot of research and soul searching. I think I may have less of an issue with there actually being a God as I do with the message. The Bible is subject to a lot of personal interpretation along with interpretation inconsistencies from different languages and Christianity has broken up into so many different branches that I think that many have lost sight of the original messages which are stunningly simple: Don't judge others, show compassion for others and, again, treat others as you would like to be treated.

I think we should still continue to study history and discover as much as we can about our beginnings but I'm less concerned with where we came from than I am with where we are and where we're going. This is an extremely beautiful and wonderful world that we live in and I try my best to be a good steward of it going forward and try to make my little corner of it better when I leave than when I got here.


----------



## greg273

Truckinguy said:


> I think we should still continue to study history and discover as much as we can about our beginnings but I'm less concerned with where we came from than I am with where we are and where we're going. This is an extremely beautiful and wonderful world that we live in and I try my best to be a good steward of it going forward and try to make my little corner of it better when I leave than when I got here.


 Right on. I just can't understand folks who deny basic science when trying to defend their faith. It doesn't do them, or anyone else, any good. It certainly doesn't convert anyone to their side. 
St. Augustine had some interesting things to say about the bible literalists denying science...


> Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_02.html


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> You should have them showing up knowing that there is just as much of a chance that God did it as anything else not brainwashed into thinking there is only one way it could have happened.


Is that really your belief, that there is just as much chance that science did it?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Is that really your belief, that there is just as much chance that science did it?


Can you prove otherwise?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Can you prove otherwise?


No. That's why I asked.

He suggests that scientists are closed-minded for not considering religious explanations equally with science. I can't help but wonder if he gives science a fair chance.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Wrong post


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Wrong post


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Including one that said we should all have the right to choose what's right for our children as parents instead of being forced or condemned. Not sure how that's bad. But evidently if was.


 You want your kids taught religion in school, then have them attend a private religious school. I aint buying the 'equal time for all viewpoints' thing, when some of those viewpoints are demonstrably FALSE. (such as your debunked moon theory). 
You can still be a religous person, a believer in the bible, without having to resort to all sorts of false, easily debunked theories about the physical world.


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> You want your kids taught religion in school, then have them attend a private religious school. I aint buying the 'equal time for all viewpoints' thing, when some of those viewpoints are demonstrably FALSE. (such as your debunked moon theory).
> You can still be a religous person, a believer in the bible, without having to resort to all sorts of false, easily debunked theories about the physical world.


It doesn't matter if it's true of false, because it isn't about being right or wrong. The fact is that scripture isn't science. Even if the scripture is correct and science turns out to be wrong, it's still isn't science.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> You want your kids taught religion in school, then have them attend a private religious school. I aint buying the 'equal time for all viewpoints' thing, when some of those viewpoints are demonstrably FALSE. (such as your debunked moon theory).
> You can still be a religous person, a believer in the bible, without having to resort to all sorts of false, easily debunked theories about the physical world.


Equal rights for all right? Including the right to raise your children as you see fit.


Also my original comment was for a different thread. But it fits here too.lol


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Equal rights for all right? Including the right to raise your children as you see fit.


Does the Constitution guarantee the right to raise your children as you see fit?

What about my freedom of religion (and freedom from religion)? Why should my kids and I be forced to sit through Christian scripture in public school science class? Wouldn't that be establishing a religion?


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Equal rights for all right? Including the right to raise your children as you see fit.
> 
> 
> Also my original comment was for a different thread. But it fits here too.lol


If you want to teach your kids the earth is 6000 years old, in defiance of all physical and scientific evidence, go right ahead. You certainly have that right.


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> If you want to teach your kids the earth is 6000 years old, in defiance of all physical and scientific evidence, go right ahead. You certainly have that right.


The political movement isn't his right to teach HIS kids that the earth is 6,000 years old. The movement is to teach it in public school science class. He wants all of our kids to be taught that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> The political movement isn't his right to teach HIS kids that the earth is 6,000 years old. The movement is to teach it in public school science class. He wants all of our kids to be taught that.


Im not saying that. I'm saying that both sides should be presented. Science is a good thing. I believe God and science fit perfectly together. I just feel that both sides of creation should be looked at. And there is no law against and many public schools do it. Teach scientific approach and a creation approach. They can both be taught as theories because in reality by sciences standards they both are.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> They can both be taught as theories because in reality by sciences standards they both are.


That's not true. And you know it isn't true because I've given you references to demonstrate that it isn't true.

So let's be truthful here. Creationism is not a theory by science standards.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But it does in the mind of an impressionable student. Having an authority figure tell children something over and over and they come to believe its true. History is full of examples of this.


Can you give me an example of something you learned in science class that has since been disproved?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Can you give me an example of something you learned in science class that has since been disproved?


Static universe, only 9 planets, universe is slowing down and increasing earth's gravity (exact opposite of truth), human body contains 100k genes and most complex. Turns out we have 20k at most and a simple moss plant contains 32k. It was fact volcanic activity killed the dinosaurs for years. Then it was an asteroid. Oh ulcers were caused by stress. Also debunked. Let's not even get into pluto.lol


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Static universe, only 9 planets, universe is slowing down and increasing earth's gravity (exact opposite of truth), human body contains 100k genes and most complex. Turns out we have 20k at most and a simple moss plant contains 32k. It was fact volcanic activity killed the dinosaurs for years. Then it was an asteroid. Oh ulcers were caused by stress. Also debunked. Let's not even get into pluto.lol


* You studied static universe in science class? That was superseded by Einstein's cosmology model in 1917. I doubt you saw that in science class.
* The number of known planets has of course changed, as the number of known elements has changed. But nothing was proven wrong, only added to.
* Actually, stress does cause ulcers, but not peptic ulcers. But I don't recall learning that in science class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_ulcer
* And what's wrong with Pluto? How it's classified doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's right where they always said it was.

I think you looked those up with Google. You have to admit, not much has changed in science class since were were in school. Advanced science, yes, but not the science we saw in K-12. Newton's laws are pretty safe.

If you suggest to school children that a lot of what they learn in science class probably will be found to be untrue, you're not only doing them a disservice, but you aren't being honest with them. Virtually all of the science they'll learn in K-12 is almost certainly going to be held true.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> * You studied static universe in science class? That was superseded by Einstein's cosmology model in 1917. I doubt you saw that in science class.
> * The number of known planets has of course changed, as the number of known elements has changed. But nothing was proven wrong, only added to.
> * Actually, stress does cause ulcers, but not peptic ulcers. But I don't recall learning that in science class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_ulcer
> * And what's wrong with Pluto? How it's classified doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's right where they always said it was.
> 
> I think you looked those up with Google. You have to admit, not much has changed in science class since were were in school. Advanced science, yes, but not the science we saw in K-12. Newton's laws are pretty safe.
> 
> If you suggest to school children that a lot of what they learn in science class probably will be found to be untrue, you're not only doing them a disservice, but you aren't being honest with them. Virtually all of the science they'll learn in K-12 is almost certainly going to be held true.


The point is to show science changes. Facts become debunked. The reason more don't as far as evolution and other steadfast theories is that they write off any new idea that strays from their way of thinking. There is sound science behind creationism. From some well known ex atheist scientist. We know carbon dating is flawed badly. Yet is used every day to determine important outcomes.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> The point is to show science changes.


No, the point is that virtually all of the science you learned in elementary school, jr. high, and high school is correct and valid today. Suggesting to school children that creationism is an accepted alternative explanation to evolution is simply not true.

I know that you don't see the harm. After all, nobody has a comprehensive explanation for the origin of life, so telling them in science class that God did it doesn't hurt anything. In fact you probably believe that injecting religion into science class helps them.

But there is no science behind creationism. If there was then advocates would submit their ideas to the scientific community for peer review. They aren't doing that. Instead they try to do an end run around the scientific community by appealing directly to school boards and politicians.

You keep bringing up carbon dating. What does carbon dating have to do with the origin of life, and what do you have against carbon dating?


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> No, the point is that virtually all of the science you learned in elementary school, jr. high, and high school is correct and valid today. Suggesting to school children that creationism is an accepted alternative explanation to evolution is simply not true.


Peppered moths? 

Piltdown man?

The fetus drawings by that dude I forget his name that were in textbooks for years?

The coelecanth?

There are plenty of hoaxes, and complete misunderstandings that evolutionists have used to teach children in our school systems, that you seem to think were good "science".

These things were blatant misrepresentations. Lies in fact. Yet you say they stand the test of time? :umno:


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> But there is no science behind creationism. *There is PLENTY* If there was then advocates would submit their ideas to the scientific community for peer review. They aren't doing that. Instead they try to do an end run around the scientific community by appealing directly to school boards and politicians.
> 
> *If atheists evolutionists, were not so frightened by the submissions, and were not against accepting excellent science for a young earth, perhaps some WOULD get published. But you know, and I know that the bias is impossible to break through, no matter how sound the science. It is not like it has not been tried. But it has, and it is stifled by God haters. *
> 
> You keep bringing up carbon dating. What does carbon dating have to do with the origin of life, and what do you have against carbon dating?


*The point with carbon dating, is that it works on artifacts that it should not work on. Like 7 billion year old diamonds.
*


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Peppered moths?
> 
> Piltdown man?
> 
> The fetus drawings by that dude I forget his name that were in textbooks for years?
> 
> The coelecanth?


To be clear, which of those are you claiming to have studied in school?


----------



## mmoetc

farmerDale said:


> Peppered moths?
> 
> Piltdown man?
> 
> The fetus drawings by that dude I forget his name that were in textbooks for years?
> 
> The coelecanth?
> 
> There are plenty of hoaxes, and complete misunderstandings that evolutionists have used to teach children in our school systems, that you seem to think were good "science".
> 
> These things were blatant misrepresentations. Lies in fact. Yet you say they stand the test of time? :umno:


The fact that new knowledge has disproved some things previously believed to be true only makes me trust science more. Religions blind faith in its perfection and the sanctity of its beliefs even when facts disprove them only increase my skepticism in any of them.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> *The point with carbon dating, is that it works on artifacts that it should not work on.
> *


Got an example?


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> To be clear, which of those are you claiming to have studied in school?


Each and every one of them.


----------



## farmerDale

mmoetc said:


> The fact that new knowledge has disproved some things previously believed to be true only makes me trust science more. Religions blind faith in its perfection and the sanctity of its beliefs even when facts disprove them only increase my skepticism in any of them.


Thing is, these things were intentionally used by evolutionists who KNEW they are patently false.

They knew it, yet use(d) them as their crutch.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Got an example?


7 Billion year old diamonds.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Each and every one of them.


Are you SURE you want to claim that you studied them all? Take a little time to see when those were debunked. Truth is important here.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Is that really your belief, that there is just as much chance that science did it?


Sure. There is nothing in the Bible which says God must act with supernatural powers. Most of the things He does follow the rules of nature. There are millions of people alive today due to modern medical advances. Followers of the religion of science see it as working within the scientific realm, those who believe in God see it as God's amazing construction which allows us to discover that we can heal things we once thought were impossible.

But there is one problem science has when it tries to abolish all discussion of God. That's the fact there will always be the question of "What caused that?" Science says that its impossible to make something out of nothing yet at the same time it says that is what happened and they have the evidence showing it.

Even the most basic logic tells us if there is a creation there must be a creator.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No. That's why I asked.
> 
> He suggests that scientists are closed-minded for not considering religious explanations equally with science. I can't help but wonder if he gives science a fair chance.


There are closed minded religious types who look to refute all science just as there are closed minded science types who look to refute all religion.

But there are a lot of people who see both as being able to work.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But there is one problem science has when it tries to abolish all discussion of God.


They're not trying to abolish any discussion of God. It's just that nobody can prove the existence of God. You say that there's evidence all around us, but science offers explanations for that evidence.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Does the Constitution guarantee the right to raise your children as you see fit?
> 
> What about my freedom of religion (and freedom from religion)? Why should my kids and I be forced to sit through Christian scripture in public school science class? Wouldn't that be establishing a religion?


Sticky wicket there my boy. A lot of science can very easily be called a religion.

Government ran schools teaching that evolution is the ONLY way to answer a question we don't have an answer for and refusing to allow any discussion on other possibilities sounds a lot like an established religious stance to me.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Government ran schools teaching that evolution is the ONLY way to answer a question we don't have an answer for and refusing to allow any discussion on other possibilities sounds a lot like an established religious stance to me.


Scientists are willing to discuss God. Just prove that he exists.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's not true. And you know it isn't true because I've given you references to demonstrate that it isn't true.
> 
> So let's be truthful here. Creationism is not a theory by science standards.


Let's see. . . 

There was nothing then some unknown thing happened and now we have everything. 

There was nothing then some unknown being did something and now we have everything. 

Now tell me why one of those statements is "acceptable" to be taught in science class while the other must be banned from even being discussed?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Let's see. . .
> 
> There was nothing then some unknown thing happened and now we have everything.
> 
> There was nothing then some unknown being did something and now we have everything.
> 
> Now tell me why one of those statements is "acceptable" to be taught in science class while the other must be banned from even being discussed?


I see what you're doing here. You're trying to conflate the origin of life with the evolution of man. In other words, you suggest that if science can't explain the origin of life then it also can't explain the evolution of man.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Can you give me an example of something you learned in science class that has since been disproved?


That carbon 14 dating must be correct because its based on the half life theory.

That the speed of light is constant and can not be changed.

There are only three phases of matter.


But my statement was not limited to science classes.

On another issue how many thing did you learn in science class that have never been proven? The last time I checked we only ASSUME that light acts the same in deep space as it does in gravity wells. The fact that we now have to add a variable to our equations to get them to be "correct" should automatically make all assumptions about what we "know" about the cosmos be questioned.

Have we even proven that light acts the same in near earth space as it does on earth? We "know" how far the moon is from the earth because we have used lasers to measure it but that's based on assumptions made about the speed of light outside earth's gravity field.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You keep bringing up carbon dating. What does carbon dating have to do with the origin of life, and what do you have against carbon dating?


I bring it up because its had its black swan event. It has been shown it is NOT reliable therefore any dating done by it must be questioned.


----------



## Nevada

---Quote (Originally by Nevada)---
Can you give me an example of something you learned in science class that has since been disproved?
---End Quote---



watcher said:


> That carbon 14 dating must be correct because its based on the half life theory.
> 
> That the speed of light is constant and can not be changed.
> 
> But my statement was not limited to science classes.


Then you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I bring it up because its had its black swan event. It has been shown it is NOT reliable therefore any dating done by it must be questioned.


Nonsense.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> They're not trying to abolish any discussion of God. It's just that nobody can prove the existence of God. You say that there's evidence all around us, but science offers explanations for that evidence.


The problem comes when you keep repeating a question; That is based on what?

At some point science can no longer answer that question with an answer which you would consider scientifically acceptable because the answer is based on assumptions which can not be proven or worse yet based on a guess because we don't know.

Even if science can scientifically prove what happened 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang I don't think it will ever be able to answer what 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds *BEFORE* the big bang.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Scientists are willing to discuss God. Just prove that he exists.


Ok, let's hold everything to that standard. Prove to me that light in deep space travels at the same speed as on or near Earth? If you can not then any discussion or teaching of anything which is based on that wild unproven belief must NOT be allowed in science classes.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I see what you're doing here. You're trying to conflate the origin of life with the evolution of man. In other words, you suggest that if science can't explain the origin of life then it also can't explain the evolution of man.


They are interconnected. IIRC, your science says you can't have man without having other life first. 

It also says you can't have life on earth before you have earth. You can't have earth before you have an universe created.


----------



## MattB4

watcher said:


> Let's see. . .
> 
> There was nothing then some unknown thing happened and now we have everything.
> 
> There was nothing then some unknown being did something and now we have everything.
> 
> Now tell me why one of those statements is "acceptable" to be taught in science class while the other must be banned from even being discussed?


First one. The second is contradictory. 

However let us subject this creator to the scientific method. What test do we use? What kind of energy can we measure to give evidence? Does this creator have the ability to affect matter? If so, we should be able to test for it. If there is no valid way to establish this creator other than by faith, ancient texts and practices of belief, wherein personal accounts are suspect, than what method is there? 

Natural phenomenon do not require human beings to attest to its existence. Gravity does not care if you believe in it.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> First one. The second is contradictory.
> 
> However let us subject this creator to the scientific method. What test do we use? What kind of energy can we measure to give evidence? Does this creator have the ability to affect matter? If so, we should be able to test for it. If there is no valid way to establish this creator other than by faith, ancient texts and practices of belief, wherein personal accounts are suspect, than what method is there?
> 
> Natural phenomenon do not require human beings to attest to its existence. Gravity does not care if you believe in it.


If you read them you see they are almost identical, in each case you have an unknown factor being the causal factor. The only difference is in the second case you put a name on the unknown factor.

We now have discovered our math for the universe doesn't work. So we "discovered" that there is "dark matter" out there because its the only way our math will work. Now calling it "dark matter" makes it scientifically OK but if you say its "space turtles" then you are a nut. Seeing as how we don't know what it is why do scientist get all bug eyed and droolly when you say its space turtles? After all they can't prove what it is and it could just well be some unknown lifeform as some unknown inert material. The only reason I can see is an unknown lifeform goes against their religious views.


----------



## Shine

I don't know, take a couple dozen billion year period, develop some souls that you feel are the sort that you approve of, gather them up, rinse, wash, rinse, repeat.

Something that sticks in my mind is the fact that the scientists see and with their mathematics, say that they can explain that we exist in an expanding universe. I would imagine that it would stop expanding at one point in time and then begin a contraction phase. I would think [with my limited intellect] that the contraction phase would be somewhat quicker than the expansion phase and then once everything collected back to the center, a big bang.


----------



## MattB4

watcher said:


> If you read them you see they are almost identical, in each case you have an unknown factor being the causal factor. The only difference is in the second case you put a name on the unknown factor.
> 
> ...


Incorrect. Your second case has both nothing and a creator. If a creator exist than you must establish its boundaries. What existed prior to this creator? If nothing did than how was the creator created? 

I asked the question earlier of a different poster. If you can not prove evolution and you can not prove a creator than what is your hypothesis for how everything came to be? 

I know, it was Aliens!!!


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Are you SURE you want to claim that you studied them all? Take a little time to see when those were debunked. Truth is important here.


Claim? It is not a claim, it is fact that we were taught these things were examples of evolution in the classroom. 

Do you believe in lucy?


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> Claim? It is not a claim, it is fact that we were taught these things were examples of evolution in the classroom.


OK. I just wanted to be fair.

I seriously question that any textbook you might have used presented the Piltdown man. The fraudulent skull was presented in 1912, but later proved to be a lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a modern human. The fraud was revealed in the November 1953 issue of Time Magazine.

What years were you in school studying paleontology?


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> OK. I just wanted to be fair.
> 
> I seriously question that any textbook you might have used presented the Piltdown man. The fraudulent skull was presented in 1912, but later proved to be a lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a modern human. The fraud was revealed in the November 1953 issue of Time Magazine.
> 
> What years were you in school studying paleontology?


1990-1994.

These would have been 1970's textbooks. Dies hard, I guess. I thought it was a pig tooth. That must have been one of the other of many hoaxes though.


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> 1990-1994.
> 
> These would have been 1970's textbooks. Dies hard, I guess. I thought it was a pig tooth. That must have been one of the other of many hoaxes though.


Hard to believe that a 1970's textbook covered something that was debunked 20 years earlier by Time Magazine.


----------



## farmerDale

Nevada said:


> Hard to believe that a 1970's textbook covered something that was debunked 20 years earlier by Time Magazine.


I know, right? I am going by memory that the books were from the 70's. They may have been even in the very early eighties, but I am not sure.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Can you give me an example of something you learned in science class that has since been disproved?


Fishman and Pons, fusion. Stephen Hawkins was wrong too! Many, many examples to choose from that were even peer reviewed.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Fishman and Pons, fusion.


It was Fleischmann and Pons, and it was cold fusion.

While they created a stir 25 years ago, their hypothesis never made it past peer review. That was mostly due to nobody being able to duplicate the results of their described experiment.

Cold fusion is an example of the scientific method working as it was intended, it failed peer review. It would never have been included in a textbook.



JeffreyD said:


> Stephen Hawkins was wrong too! Many, many examples to choose from that were even peer reviewed.


I admit, I'm not familiar with Stephen Hawkins' work. Maybe if you gave me a little more...


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> 7 Billion year old diamonds.


 Where is anyone finding '7 billion year old diamonds'?? Methinks you're getting your science a little confused. You were obviously wrong about the moon recession speed, that took about 30 seconds of google searching to debunk that myth. The 'Answers in Genesis' people have a nice little list of easily-debunked talking points for the creationists that reads like something out of the National Enquirer. Pseudo-science for the bible literalists, it would be funny if it weren't so sad to think people actually believed that nonsense. I still cannot fathom why otherwise reasonable, intelligent adults would have to deny the most basic of scientific observations in order to feel better about their religious views. I encourage you to read the writings of St. Augustine and what he had to say about that, he certainly felt it was a disservice to the religion, and I am inclined to believe that.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> 1990-1994.
> 
> These would have been 1970's textbooks. Dies hard, I guess. I thought it was a pig tooth. That must have been one of the other of many hoaxes though.


 Maybe the fact you were using 20 year old textbooks had something to do with the large amount of erroneous information you claim you found.


----------



## farmerDale

greg273 said:


> Maybe the fact you were using 20 year old textbooks had something to do with the large amount of erroneous information you claim you found.


And it was my fault we were taught from older textbooks? Also, as nevada said, these things were debunked LONG before those books were written. 

Are you prepared to explain step by step how metamorphosis evolved yet?


----------



## Nevada

farmerDale said:


> And it was my fault we were taught from older textbooks? Also, as nevada said, these things were debunked LONG before those books were written.


But I'm skeptical that such a textbook exists. Cold fusion was never accepted by the scientific community.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Why not just teach your children about creationism at home and at church? 

Why is it so important that other people's children be indoctrinated? 

No one likes it when Muslims do it, so why should Christians get a pass?


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> Why not just teach your children about creationism at home and at church?
> 
> Why is it so important that other people's children be indoctrinated?
> 
> No one likes it when Muslims do it, so why should Christians get a pass?


Why should children be taught only what liberals want? Teach all theories or none at all, thats fair isnt it? Christians do not get a pass, not sure where you came up with that!


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> But I'm skeptical that such a textbook exists. Cold fusion was never accepted by the scientific community.


Cold fusion WAS accepted until it was debunked almost a year later.


----------



## Lisa in WA

JeffreyD said:


> Why should children be taught only what liberals want? Teach all theories or none at all, thats fair isnt it? Christians do not get a pass, not sure where you came up with that!


Goodness, so many exclamation points. So exciteable.

Creationism (for the gazillion time) isn't a scientific theory. It's a belief. 
Maybe we should teach the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation story too?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Cold fusion WAS accepted until it was debunked almost a year later.


No, it failed peer review because the experimental results couldn't be duplicated. The scientific method worked the way it was supposed to work. A bogus hypothesis was rejected.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Goodness, so many exclamation points. So exciteable.
> 
> Creationism (for the gazillion time) isn't a scientific theory. It's a belief.
> Maybe we should teach the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation story too?


 I don't have a dog in this fight as I gave up on the government school system, for me and my family, long ago, but, it is my understanding that the creationism theory is not a specific dogmatic creation story, but, rather a theory open to the possibility of a creator being the catalyst for the beginning of the universe, and a director of the evolution of same?

That is a question as I am not sure.


----------



## MattB4

JeffreyD said:


> Why should children be taught only what liberals want? Teach all theories or none at all, thats fair isnt it? Christians do not get a pass, not sure where you came up with that!


I am not a liberal. So you think all theories are equal? If you think Public school should also have a class on comparative religions separate from science class I could see that as having value. But religion is not science and is a not a co-equal. 

Might as well give equal time in science to unicorn studies and proper identification of various fairy types, (maenids, dryads, brownies and the like). After all many people believe in them also.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight as I gave up on the government school system, for me and my family, long ago, but, it is my understanding that the creationism theory is not a specific dogmatic creation story, but, rather a theory open to the possibility of a creator being the catalyst for the beginning of the universe, and a director of the evolution of same?
> 
> That is a question as I am not sure.


For creationism to be even considered, you first have to establish the existence of a creator.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> For creationism to be even considered, you first have to establish the existence of a creator.



Do you? The current theories state that the universe may have resulted from black holes in another universe, or, strings that touched another string, or, simply blinked into existence from nothing. None of these theories are proven, so, why not, when mentioning all of those other theories, say that perhaps there was an intelligent creator?

I mean for string theory to even be considered, would you not have to establish the existence of the strings?


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> Do you? The current theories state that the universe may have resulted from black holes in another universe, or, strings that touched another string, or, simply blinked into existence from nothing. None of these theories are proven, so, why not, when mentioning all of those other theories, say that perhaps there was an intelligent creator?
> 
> I mean for string theory to even be considered, would you not have to establish the existence of the strings?


I'm skeptical of parallel universes.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> No, it failed peer review because the experimental results couldn't be duplicated. The scientific method worked the way it was supposed to work. A bogus hypothesis was rejected.


True, but not until after their "discovery" was trumpeted as the new great source of power. They were idolized by the scientific community. It did work in this case, but not until much later, because scientists really believed it to be true. A belief that was not true. They were scientists that lied, true or not?

Tell me about black holes and why science came up with that "theory".


----------



## JeffreyD

MattB4 said:


> I am not a liberal. So you think all theories are equal? If you think Public school should also have a class on comparative religions separate from science class I could see that as having value. But religion is not science and is a not a co-equal.
> 
> Might as well give equal time in science to unicorn studies and proper identification of various fairy types, (maenids, dryads, brownies and the like). After all many people believe in them also.


So we teach none of that, works for me! Yes, all theories ARE equal, they are theories after all.


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> Goodness, so many exclamation points. So exciteable.
> 
> Creationism (for the gazillion time) isn't a scientific theory. It's a belief.
> Maybe we should teach the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation story too?


One is so many? ound: Sigh. Still have that need to exagerate, why do you do it?
Evolution is just a theory too. A belief.


----------



## MattB4

JeffreyD said:


> So we teach none of that, works for me! Yes, all theories ARE equal, they are theories after all.


No, all theories are not equal. Theories established through scientific principles are not the same as theories of beliefs. You might believe in little gray aliens and say that theory is equal to the theory of gravity, but it simply isn't.


----------



## JeffreyD

MattB4 said:


> No, all theories are not equal. Theories established through scientific principles are not the same as theories of beliefs. You might believe in little gray aliens and say that theory is equal to the theory of gravity, but it simply isn't.


Right, so between evolution and creation which theory is correct and can be proven?


----------



## MattB4

JeffreyD said:


> Right, so between evolution and creation which theory is correct and can be proven?


Evolution has scientific backing. Religion has faith. You decide which is of more weight. Since by your contention neither has sufficient proof.

Personally, after looking at religions, I fail to see anything but the fertile imaginations of people. Thus I choose the science backed theory. It at least attempts a explanation that does not rely on imaginary creatures.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> Evolution has scientific backing. Religion has faith. You decide which is of more weight. Since by your contention neither has sufficient proof.
> 
> Personally, after looking at religions, I fail to see anything but the fertile imaginations of people. Thus I choose the science backed theory. It at least attempts a explanation that does not rely on imaginary creatures.


Science relies solely on faith and impractical thought when it comes to metamorphosis evolution.

Unless it came into being immediately, it would not have worked, first try, would have it? Same for gender, wolves to whales, and so on.


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> Science relies solely on faith and impractical thought when it comes to metamorphosis evolution.
> 
> Unless it came into being immediately, it would not have worked, first try, would have it? Same for gender, wolves to whales, and so on.


Your understanding of the science is flawed. Science does not rely on faith because that is not science. Just because you do not accept the explanation does it make it one based on faith. God has to be on faith since there is no possible proof given. 

Proof for a creator does not consist of disproving a accepted scientific theory. All that does is force a re-evaluation of the science. I have yet to see your proof of a particular god being the creator. Disprove all you like various scientific theories and you will never prove a creator by doing so.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> For creationism to be even considered, you first have to establish the existence of a creator.


For evolution to even be considered, you first have to prove the existence of life, right?


----------



## JeffreyD

MattB4 said:


> Evolution has scientific backing. Religion has faith. You decide which is of more weight. Since by your contention neither has sufficient proof.
> 
> Personally, after looking at religions, I fail to see anything but the fertile imaginations of people. Thus I choose the science backed theory. It at least attempts a explanation that does not rely on imaginary creatures.


What backing is that? Because a scientist said so? When, exactly, did life begin?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> True, but not until after their "discovery" was trumpeted as the new great source of power. They were idolized by the scientific community. It did work in this case, but not until much later, because scientists really believed it to be true. A belief that was not true. They were scientists that lied, true or not?


There was a news stir, yes, and the scientific community was hopeful.

No, they didn't lie. The misinterpreted the results. It happens. By the way, the same guys are still working on it.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> Your understanding of the science is flawed. Science does not rely on faith because that is not science. Just because you do not accept the explanation does it make it one based on faith. God has to be on faith since there is no possible proof given.
> 
> Proof for a creator does not consist of disproving a accepted scientific theory. All that does is force a re-evaluation of the science. I have yet to see your proof of a particular god being the creator. Disprove all you like various scientific theories and you will never prove a creator by doing so.


Ok, here goes. The "science" you use, says that evolution is what causes species to change slowly over millions of years. It also explains how gender came about, how metamorphosis began. I ask, how did the first time ever that gender evolution was put into motion, it was completed in one step. Same for metamorphosis. It HAD to have happened in one, single generation, or it could not have carried on.

So, is it millions of years, or is it the sudden, rapid change theory? Please use science to back it up. Page 22 now, and no evolution believe has even tried to explain or tackle the question.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> True, but not until after their "discovery" was trumpeted as the new great source of power. They were idolized by the scientific community.


 Short-lived media hype does not equal 'idolization by the scientific community'. In fact it was the scientific community that proved they were wrong.


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> I ask, how did the first time ever that gender evolution was put into motion, it was completed in one step. Same for metamorphosis. It HAD to have happened in one, single generation, or it could not have carried on.


 You make some assumptions about metamorphosis that are not necessarily true. Personally I cannot explain the evolution of metamorphosis, I am not a biologist, but there are some plausible theories going around, that make more sense than 'God created the world in a finished state, and nothing changes, ever'. One look around at life should tell you that is not the case. There may indeed be a God, but from all appearances and observations, he's big into CHANGE. It appears to be the only constant. Its hard to see in species because the process is exceedingly slow, taking MILLIONS of generations to make significant changes.
Science isn't about having all the answers, its about finding answers. Just because we don't know 'everything' does not invalidate the observations that show that yes, through genetic changes, animals change and EVOLVE over time. 
And on a slightly related subject, your moon theory was already proven bogus, I notice you have not mentioned that or offered a retraction or acknowledgement of that fact.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> One is so many? ound: Sigh. Still have that need to exagerate, why do you do it?
> Evolution is just a theory too. A belief.


 All of the available evidence supports the idea that the earth is billions of years old, and life evolved from simpler to more complex forms. Whether or not God, or Gods, had anything to do with it does not change that simple fact.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> For evolution to even be considered, you first have to prove the existence of life, right?


Do you doubt the existence of life?


----------



## MattB4

farmerDale said:


> Ok, here goes. The "science" you use, says that evolution is what causes species to change slowly over millions of years. It also explains how gender came about, how metamorphosis began. I ask, how did the first time ever that gender evolution was put into motion, it was completed in one step. Same for metamorphosis. It HAD to have happened in one, single generation, or it could not have carried on.
> 
> So, is it millions of years, or is it the sudden, rapid change theory? Please use science to back it up. Page 22 now, and no evolution believe has even tried to explain or tackle the question.


Once again your understanding of the science is inadequate and your conclusions are wrong. Gender did not come about in one step. Nor did metamorphosis. Study meiosis and mitosis. 

And speaking of gender, what gender is god? None? Than why would a gender-less god want to create a being that had two genders? Seems like a odd thing to do. 

I ask you to back up the "god" you use to explain life. Which one is it among all the creator gods mankind has believed in? Was it Ra? The Annunaki? How about Ormazd? There is literally hundreds of named ones and many more the names have been lost to antiquity. Can you prove it was Odin over a Native American animal spirit god like Coyote?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> For creationism to be even considered, you first have to establish the existence of a creator.



Not exactly, it's the other way around.
The Creator establishes the existence of all things first.
THEN His creations can sit around and debate the theories.
:happy2:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FourDeuce said:


> Do you doubt the existence of life?


I'm starting to doubt the existence of intelligent life


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Not exactly, it's the other way around.
> The Creator establishes the existence of all things first.
> THEN His creations can sit around and debate the theories.
> :happy2:


Who, or what, created the creator? Did the creator come into being from nothingness? Or did something create the creater? And who or what created that? Turtles upon turtles upon turtles.


----------



## MattB4

JeffreyD said:


> For evolution to even be considered, you first have to prove the existence of life, right?


 _Don't talk to me about life. _
-Marvin


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Who, or what, created the creator? Did the creator come into being from nothingness? Or did something create the creater? And who or what created that? Turtles upon turtles upon turtles.


What if the Creator is not restricted by the concept of "Time"? A being that is not restricted or bound by this concept would not need a beginning or end.

Cain't say it's fact but I can enter it into the conversation...


----------



## MattB4

Shine said:


> What if the Creator is not restricted by the concept of "Time"? A being that is not restricted or bound by this concept would not need a beginning or end.
> 
> Cain't say it's fact but I can enter it into the conversation...


You can always create scenarios when you allow the fantastical to be possible. Indeed that is what mankind has done with various religions and fictional stories. This is why after reading them you begin to see the flaws in the logic and where magic is incorporated to move the story along. 

Losing a battle, it must because you are worshiping false gods. Repent and your armies are victorious. Suffer from loss? It must be because the desire of evil spirits to harm you. Propitiate them with ritual. 

At least with some of the old gods and goddesses you could have morality plays about the world, human thinking and behavior. Make your god too remote and incomprehensible, it gives nothing for the human psyche to latch on to.


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> Why not just teach your children about creationism at home and at church?
> 
> Why is it so important that other people's children be indoctrinated?
> 
> No one likes it when Muslims do it, so why should Christians get a pass?


Why should only big bang and evolution be taught? Why is it so important that other people's children be indoctrinated?

Why does 'science' have such a problem with saying that they have absolutely no idea what caused the big bang and therefore there is a possibility that it was caused by being which exist outside our realm of knowledge?


----------



## watcher

basketti said:


> Goodness, so many exclamation points. So exciteable.
> 
> Creationism (for the gazillion time) isn't a scientific theory. It's a belief.
> Maybe we should teach the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation story too?


There is no need to teach any one creation theory. The fact that science can not prove the big bang nor evolution means the possibility of the universe and all life forms were created by some non-scientific method should be taught.

Back when we didn't know about germs should the people who thought it was some unseen 'thing' that caused illness have be refused the chance to bring their views into the debate?

The two vital things that should be taught are: 1) The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and 2) when there is no "proof" then all viewpoints must be considered.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Why does 'science' have such a problem with saying that they have absolutely no idea what caused the big bang and therefore there is a possibility that it was caused by being which exist outside our realm of knowledge?


Because if it's outside our realm of knowledge it's not science.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> I am not a liberal. So you think all theories are equal? If you think Public school should also have a class on comparative religions separate from science class I could see that as having value. But religion is not science and is a not a co-equal.
> 
> Might as well give equal time in science to unicorn studies and proper identification of various fairy types, (maenids, dryads, brownies and the like). After all many people believe in them also.


Can you prove that the big bang is how the universe was created? If not then should it also not be allowed into science class? After all w/o scientific proof isn't it nothing more than a faith based belief like every other religion?


----------



## Abe R Crombie

MattB4 said:


> You can always create scenarios when you allow the fantastical to be possible. Indeed that is what mankind has done with various religions and fictional stories. This is why after reading them you begin to see the flaws in the logic and where magic is incorporated to move the story along.
> 
> Losing a battle, it must because you are worshiping false gods. Repent and your armies are victorious. Suffer from loss? It must be because the desire of evil spirits to harm you. Propitiate them with ritual.
> 
> At least with some of the old gods and goddesses you could have morality plays about the world, human thinking and behavior. Make your god too remote and incomprehensible, it gives nothing for the human psyche to latch on to.


What flaws do you see?Ritual is prohibited by God.The god of this world is satan the devil.All things are proven by scripture and understood by God's true Church.Not Catholic,Protestant and the likes,they are not the true church of God and do not purvey the truth.You should understand fully before you start bashing.


----------



## farmerDale

MattB4 said:


> You can always create scenarios when you allow the fantastical to be possible.


This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do when they are stumped. lol 

How can 70 million year old dino bones still contain blood cells and soft tissue?

Well, make up another theory to "back it up". lol Make up an un-testable theory to feed the farce.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> For creationism to be even considered, you first have to establish the existence of a creator.


What scientifically backed up evidence do you have that the big bang happened?

Seeing as how science does not allow you to support one theory with evidence which is based on other unproven or unprovable theories so you are not allowed to use anything which relies on the unproven theory that light has the same qualities in in a gravityless or near gravityless environment it does in a gravity field.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> No, all theories are not equal. Theories established through scientific principles are not the same as theories of beliefs. You might believe in little gray aliens and say that theory is equal to the theory of gravity, but it simply isn't.


I'll issue you the same challenge as I have others:

What scientifically supported evidence do you have that the big bang happened?

Seeing as how science does not allow you to support one theory with evidence which is based on other unproven or unprovable theories so you are not allowed to use anything which relies on the unproven theory that light has the same qualities in in a gravityless or near gravityless environment it does in a gravity field.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> Evolution has scientific backing. Religion has faith. You decide which is of more weight. Since by your contention neither has sufficient proof.
> 
> Personally, after looking at religions, I fail to see anything but the fertile imaginations of people. Thus I choose the science backed theory. It at least attempts a explanation that does not rely on imaginary creatures.


Ok, show me the scientific backing for macroevolution. That is scientifically acceptable 'proof' that one species can or has mutated from another to the point it has a separate and distinctive DNA.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> Your understanding of the science is flawed. Science does not rely on faith because that is not science. Just because you do not accept the explanation does it make it one based on faith. God has to be on faith since there is no possible proof given.


Sorry but scientist take it on FAITH that light in deep space acts like light near earth. Can you provide any scientific proof of this?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Can you prove that the big bang is how the universe was created? If not then should it also not be allowed into science class? After all w/o scientific proof isn't it nothing more than a faith based belief like every other religion?


We're seeing debris flying by, and we know it must have come from someplace. We know how fast it's moving and how fast it's expanding, so we can calculate when it started. We back-calculate and call the event 'Big Bang.'

So it's not just made up out of thin air. It's an explanation for what we see.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Who, or what, created the creator? Did the creator come into being from nothingness? Or did something create the creater? And who or what created that? Turtles upon turtles upon turtles.


Your questions only have merit if the creator has the same limits as 'natural science'. 

When you think about it, how can you create a more accurate measuring device? After all aren't the measurements used to create it being done with a more inaccurate devices? If I give you a stick and tell you it is EXACTLY three feet long how can you use it to make a device which will measure tolerances to within 0.001 inches?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Because if it's outside our realm of knowledge it's not science.


So the big bang is not science? Its outside our realm of knowledge to know what caused it, correct?

BTW, have you found the scientifically supported data showing the properties of light in deep space?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Sorry but scientist take it on FAITH that light in deep space acts like light near earth. Can you provide any scientific proof of this?


Do you have another explanation?

Assuming that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe is reasonable. We have no reason to suspect that they aren't.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So the big bang is not science? Its outside our realm of knowledge to know what caused it, correct?


The big bang is an explanation for what we observe.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> We're seeing debris flying by, and we know it must have come from someplace. We know how fast it's moving and how fast it's expanding, so we can calculate when it started. We back-calculate and call the event 'Big Bang.'
> 
> So it's not just made up out of thin air. It's an explanation for what we see.


BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Sorry wrong answer. We see stuff flying but we have no scientifically acceptable way to determine its speed. After all guessing is not allowed is science and we are only guessing about the properties of light in deep space. Seeing as how we have had to "discover" dark matter to make the universe fit our math I think there's a good chance the guess about light was wrong, don't you?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Do you have another explanation?
> 
> Assuming that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe is reasonable. We have no reason to suspect that they aren't.


Two words: Dark matter.

Then there's the fact that repeatable and repeated experiments have shown that light does NOT always travel at the speed of light toss in even more doubt.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The big bang is an explanation for what we observe.


And wouldn't "God flung the universe from His hand" also explain what we see?


----------



## greg273

farmerDale said:


> This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do when they are stumped. lol
> 
> How can 70 million year old dino bones still contain blood cells and soft tissue?
> 
> Well, make up another theory to "back it up". lol Make up an un-testable theory to feed the farce.


 The only farce is clinging to partially-understood scientific discoveries to advance the creationist agenda. There was no 'blood' found in the dinosaur bones, there was iron-rich hemeglobin-_breakdown_ residue. In otherwords, the remnants of OLD chemically degraded blood. 

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> So the big bang is not science? Its outside our realm of knowledge to know what caused it, correct?


 I am perfectly comfortable with God saying 'Let there be light' as being the equivalent to the 'Big Bang'... Other ancient scriptures talk about the universe expanding and contracting in an endless cycle. Given the fact no one can be sure what exactly occurred, saying 'God did it' is just as valid as anything else at that point. But I draw the line at much of the other nonsense the creationists toss out there, like the 'young earth' malarky that flies in the face of all scientific knowledge.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> And wouldn't "God flung the universe from His hand" also explain what we see?


That becomes too specific about a God we can't prove exists. It's best to keep it a general "big bang" event.


----------



## MattB4

Abe R Crombie said:


> What flaws do you see?Ritual is prohibited by God.The god of this world is satan the devil.All things are proven by scripture and understood by God's true Church.Not Catholic,Protestant and the likes,they are not the true church of God and do not purvey the truth.You should understand fully before you start bashing.


Unless I have seriously misread the Bible there is no shortage of ritual. From the Old testament sacrifice laws and dietary rules to the New Testament establishment of communion and prayer requirements. All of which were supposedly approved by god. 

What part of keeping Passover is not a ritual?


----------



## MattB4

watcher said:


> Can you prove that the big bang is how the universe was created? If not then should it also not be allowed into science class? After all w/o scientific proof isn't it nothing more than a faith based belief like every other religion?


There is a large difference. The Big Bang might be presented as the leading scientific theory at the moment for how the universe formed. A creator is not a scientific theory and not subject to change as understanding changes. 

Plus which saying it could be a creator tells us nothing. You could use the same bad logic by saying it was a Giant race of Big pink fuzzy rabbits. And demand others prove you wrong. These rabbits have incredible powers beyond our ability to understand.


----------



## Abe R Crombie

MattB4 said:


> Unless I have seriously misread the Bible there is no shortage of ritual. From the Old testament sacrifice laws and dietary rules to the New Testament establishment of communion and prayer requirements. All of which were supposedly approved by god.
> 
> What part of keeping Passover is not a ritual?


Maybe re-read your Bible.Ritual such as communion is a Catholic invention.It happened once in the Gospel but is perpetuated by the Catholic church.Christ did not say to keep giving his body every week.Scripture say that the body of Christ was sacrifice once for all not over and over through transubstantiation,that is a Catholic ritual/dogma.Old testament sacrifice laws are obsolete after Christs ultimate sacrifice,but all had a purpose.The dietary laws,which still hold true today are just that,laws to keep us healthy.
God's seven holy days such as Passover/unleaven bread being the first are a shadow of things to come and point to signs of future events.Same as Sabbaths,we are to study and remember.
You should study your bible and not just read it,this leaves one open to a worldly view of God's word and a murky picture of the truth.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Your questions only have merit if the creator has the same limits as 'natural science'.
> 
> When you think about it, how can you create a more accurate measuring device? After all aren't the measurements used to create it being done with a more inaccurate devices? If I give you a stick and tell you it is EXACTLY three feet long how can you use it to make a device which will measure tolerances to within 0.001 inches?


And your answers only have merit if they answer the question asked. I didn't ask about mystical powers or the measure of time. I asked where your creator came from. It's really no different a question than asked of those espousing the Big Bang theory. If the criticism of them is lack of proof of what came before why should you be immune from answering the same question. To me, I don't know is a much better and more valid answer than magic.


----------



## MattB4

Abe R Crombie said:


> Maybe re-read your Bible.Ritual such as communion is a Catholic invention.It happened once in the Gospel but is perpetuated by the Catholic church.Christ did not say to keep giving his body every week.Scripture say that the body of Christ was sacrifice once for all not over and over through transubstantiation,that is a Catholic ritual/dogma.Old testament sacrifice laws are obsolete after Christs ultimate sacrifice,but all had a purpose.The dietary laws,which still hold true today are just that,laws to keep us healthy.
> God's seven holy days such as Passover/unleaven bread being the first are a shadow of things to come and point to signs of future events.Same as Sabbaths,we are to study and remember.
> You should study your bible and not just read it,this leaves one open to a worldly view of God's word and a murky picture of the truth.


Thanks but I frequently re-read the Bible. When I was a believer a lot of it made no sense. But once I gave up on belief I began to see the real purpose behind the stories and rituals. Very classic human behavior of group identity and control. 

"Shadows of things to come". Now there is a statement of magic if I ever heard one. Plus "signs of future events" is augury or witchcraft. Hardly truth. But let me consult my magic 8-Balll.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I happen to live on both sides of the fence. 
I have Faith, and I also am a fan and student of science.

I view the bible as a compilation of ancient theologians' thoughts on God, and their stories as mostly oral-tradition, written down for the first time, of instructive allegorical value. 

In my belief, the birth of science was described in the bible when Adam and Eve ate from "the tree of knowledge". This was the tipping point of man, as a species, advanced (evolved, whatever you want to call it) from the initial state that He created us in, to something more like our current state as He intended. It was necessary, for us to become the "us" he designed us to become, for us to become self-aware and ponder creation and our Creator. 

To me, science is the study of God's creation. 

There is sin in science that is not necessarily inherent, but is NEARLY inevitable. The danger lies in thinking that, because you "understand" something, you are greater than it and/or its origin. 

Gravity, for example, is fascinating. It is very difficult to explain, and we (collective) don't fully understand it, but, with the partial grasp of it that we have gathered, man has twisted our "understanding" to mean that He obviously didn't create it, therefore we don't need Him. 

Rather, if we look at extra-galactic light from sources millions of light-years away, or fossilized evolutionary snap-shots that are at odds with the allegorical creation story in the bible, and come away with a deeper fascination and reverence of Him AND his creation, then I think we're living according to the perspective He intended for us when He allowed us to find science. 

I think the in-fighting is a fault, in equal-measure, by both of the traditional sides in the argument. One side embraces the allegorical works of their ancient ancestors as the literal truth, dismissing and alienating anyone who puts any stock in their own, contemporary observations of His creation. The other side puts their faith in science, by writ, man, and clings to the view that they are somehow master of anything they "understand".


----------



## MattB4

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I happen to live on both sides of the fence.
> I have Faith, and I also am a fan and student of science.
> 
> ...


That was my position for a long time. I have since given up on faith in gods and fell off the fence. 

I do agree that there is much that is instructive from the Bible in terms of earlier peoples attempts to form cohesive groups and understand why they had intelligence. I commend to you also the other religions and mythology writings and stories. They also are the thoughts of ancient thinkers/theologians attempting to understand their place in the cosmos.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

MattB4 said:


> That was my position for a long time. I have since given up on faith in gods and fell off the fence.


That's OK. He has all the time He needs for you, and will be waiting with forgiving arms when you find your way back.
Your struggles with Faith are part of His plan for you.


----------



## mnn2501

InTownForNow said:


> I watched God's Not Dead the other night. The science behind the evidence for creation was given in a much more succint way than i could ever spell it out.
> I believe in a biblical creation, a young earth, and an infinite God who spoke us into existence. God made apes, and God made humans. I believe the common ancestor we all share is Noah.


And its a free country, you're allowed to believe whatever you want. 

Just don't try claiming its scientific (not that you have but many people do try to make that claim).


----------



## Abe R Crombie

MattB4 said:


> Thanks but I frequently re-read the Bible. When I was a believer a lot of it made no sense. But once I gave up on belief I began to see the real purpose behind the stories and rituals. Very classic human behavior of group identity and control.
> 
> "Shadows of things to come". Now there is a statement of magic if I ever heard one. Plus "signs of future events" is augury or witchcraft. Hardly truth. But let me consult my magic 8-Balll.


I see that you like to ridicule things you do not understand.One can hardly understand the Bible by just reading it and coming up with your own conclusions.Maybe if you let the Bible interpret itself it would make some sense to you.


----------



## MattB4

Abe R Crombie said:


> I see that you like to ridicule things you do not understand.One can hardly understand the Bible by just reading it and coming up with your own conclusions.Maybe if you let the Bible interpret itself it would make some sense to you.


If the bible can't be understood by reading it, and coming up with my own conclusions, than I guess I should toss it out. Through all the decades of having bibles I have never had one interpret itself. Maybe this is one of the new fangled computer driven models you are speaking about. Or does your Plain old Bible whisper insights to you as you are sleeping? If so you might want to schedule a appointment with a therapist or priest. 

Actually, I much more enjoy ridiculing things I do understand. It makes the ridicule actually mean something. :nanner:


----------



## Shine

I would have to go with Abe here, I've been reading the Bible for some time now and things that I have read over and over carried little significance until, through a random selection of chapter and verses helped put the one intended meaning under the spot light where it was now clear as day...

Some don't think that this has any significance but I've found that by asking the good Lord to help you in your searches through the Bible does indeed speed up the process of understanding, if you are sincere.


----------



## FourDeuce

I've been waiting more than 45 years for somebody to prove that THEY know the "intended" or "proper" meaning for anything from the bible. Still waiting.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> I am perfectly comfortable with God saying 'Let there be light' as being the equivalent to the 'Big Bang'... Other ancient scriptures talk about the universe expanding and contracting in an endless cycle. Given the fact no one can be sure what exactly occurred, saying 'God did it' is just as valid as anything else at that point. But I draw the line at much of the other nonsense the creationists toss out there, like the 'young earth' malarky that flies in the face of all scientific knowledge.


The only problem a lot of that scientific knowledge is based on assumptions.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That becomes too specific about a God we can't prove exists. It's best to keep it a general "big bang" event.


Why? Why not allow discussion on all possibilities? And why not admit the "knowledge" we have is based on unproven assumptions?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The only problem a lot of that scientific knowledge is based on assumptions.


And creationism is based entirely on scripture.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Why? Why not allow discussion on all possibilities?


We do. Just so it passes peer review. If it's disproved do you still think it should be presented?


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> There is a large difference. The Big Bang might be presented as the leading scientific theory at the moment for how the universe formed. A creator is not a scientific theory and not subject to change as understanding changes.
> 
> Plus which saying it could be a creator tells us nothing. You could use the same bad logic by saying it was a Giant race of Big pink fuzzy rabbits. And demand others prove you wrong. These rabbits have incredible powers beyond our ability to understand.


As it stands right now the creator could be a giant pink bunny. Why does science demand 'proof' for something they want to ignore but expect us to take there assumptions as fact?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And your answers only have merit if they answer the question asked. I didn't ask about mystical powers or the measure of time. I asked where your creator came from. It's really no different a question than asked of those espousing the Big Bang theory. If the criticism of them is lack of proof of what came before why should you be immune from answering the same question. To me, I don't know is a much better and more valid answer than magic.


The creator came from the other side of the big bang where "normal" space-time rules are not in effect.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> And creationism is based entirely on scripture.


Each is based on believing in what can not be proven, yet you accept one and reject the other?


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> The only problem a lot of that scientific knowledge is based on assumptions.


 Far more of it is based on observations. Creationism is based on a few lines of ancient scripture,which has been translated and altered from the original many times, and based on verses that were quite possibly intended to be allegorical rather than literal. 
As far as teaching that stuff in school, maybe religion class, but thats about it. May as well teach meteorology students that lighting is caused by the anger of Zeus, it would make about as much sense as the creationists and their 'young earth' fantasies.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> We do. Just so it passes peer review. If it's disproved do you still think is should be presented?


Seeing as peer review has allowed of the building of a complete science based unproven assumptions I think there's reasons to question the impartiality of such reviews. Its kinda like an all white, all male jury of "peers" in the deep south 'reviewing' a case where a black male was accused of raping a white woman.

BTW can you disprove that the big bang was started by something outside the known boundaries of our science?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Far more of it is based on observations.


And then assumptions are made, assumptions based on nothing but guesses.

Then other assumptions are made based on the first assumptions. Soon people start taking some of the assumptions as facts. 

Can you tell me just what scientific 'proof' there is on how long it takes for sentiment to change from slime to rock?


----------



## Raeven

watcher said:


> Seeing as peer review has allowed of the building of a complete science based unproven assumptions I think there's reasons to question the impartiality of such reviews. Its kinda like an all white, all male jury of "peers" in the deep south 'reviewing' a case where a black male was accused of raping a white woman.
> 
> BTW can you disprove that the big bang was started by something outside the known boundaries of our science?


Your "understanding" of science is so woefully inadequate and inaccurate that I believe if you ever did learn how it actually works, you would look back on these posts with incredible embarrassment. I mean, they are truly cringeworthy. Sorry, but it's true. You're talking about things you don't begin to understand. I'm a layperson also, but I've studied science all my life, and you don't seem to grasp even the fundamentals of the scientific method.

There is a world of difference between untested assertions and evidence-based understandings of our natural world. You don't even get what 'peer review' means. It doesn't mean your buddies sit around and tell you they think your hypothesis is wrong. It means that rigorous testing has been performed by others in your field who are actively working to disprove your hypothesis.

It's not incumbent upon any scientist to disprove that which cannot be seen or otherwise discerned. It's incumbent upon the individual who makes such an assertion to prove it exists. That's a very basic tenet of science. Your questions don't make sense, because you are simply uneducated about what you are attempting to discuss. I'm not trying to embarrass you, but no meaningful conversation can be had with you about these things until you learn more about them.

That's the difference between scripture-based beliefs, which are rested only upon faith, and evidence-based beliefs, which are based upon ongoing, repeated and rigorous testing to disprove them. Only when every falsifiable method of testing has been exhausted and *failed to disprove the hypothesis* may it stand as scientific theory -- which is for all practical purposes, *a fact*. 

Evolution is a fact. The ongoing study of the whole of evolution is the theory. Can you draw this distinction?


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Each is based on believing in what can not be proven, yet you accept one and reject the other?


"Each is based on believing in what can not be proven, yet you accept one and reject the other?"

Being ignorant of science doesn't make you qualified to discuss it.:idea:


----------



## MattB4

watcher said:


> As it stands right now the creator could be a giant pink bunny. ...


Glad that is settled. Now that the Giant pink bunny theory is on equal footing with all others I demand that we teach it in schools. 

_In the beginning was the rabbit and the rabbit was pink and large. With a twitch of the rabbits nose and the bending of a ear the rabbit said let their be light (and carrots). The carrots were good. Thus was the garden begun. _ Chapter 1, Verse 1 - Creation


----------



## Shine

Many scientists speak of the possibility of a "big crunch" as possibly being the impetus for the "big bang". ...that 15 or 16 billion some years ago another universe met it's end in a severely tragic fashion and then the resulting "Big Bang" put us into the game...

So, is this all just chance occurrence(s) where you and I just happened to be produced by a stellar explosion long long ago? Thinking beings who can perceive the environment around them and then posit about it's source? For one platypus to come into existence and live in a world that suites it is just the results of a set of odds beyond rational thought. 

A loving Creator makes all the sense in the world to me, if you had proof of the Creator, would that change who you are?


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> if you had proof of the Creator, would that change who you are?


Yes, without question. It would change me a lot.


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> Yes, without question. It would change me a lot.


If you had proof, would you still have free will? Would you do good things because they were good things? Would you cry for others when they felt pain because your heart required it? ...or because others are watching...

[not you specifically, just anyone...]


For many people, things of this earth are their "gods", they do what they will to appease these "gods" whatever they may be. I feel that there is little to no "love" in their "gods".


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> If you had proof, would you still have free will? Would you do good things because they were good things? Would you cry for others when they felt pain because your heart required it? ...or because others are watching...
> 
> [not you specifically, just anyone...]
> 
> 
> For many people, things of this earth are their "gods", they do what they will to appease these "gods" whatever they may be. I feel that there is little to no "love" in their "gods".


I don't think any of those things would change for me, but it would change my understanding of how the world works.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> The creator came from the other side of the big bang where "normal" space-time rules are not in effect.


How did the creator get there? Did he magically appear there too? From where? Brought forth by whom? Turtles upon turtles upon turtles.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> How did the creator get there? Did he magically appear there too? From where? Brought forth by whom? Turtles upon turtles upon turtles.


Like sciences parallel universe and black holes, the spiritual relm is beyond our comprehension and understanding. We put a start and finish on everything physical because we have a start and finish. The spiritual has no time line. And we can't begin to even fathom how it works. Many athiest believe in ghost. Yet not s spiritual God. There is alot of unexplained spiritual phenomenon and evidence in the supernatural world when it comes to ghost that folks swear by. Haunting and the such. Yet they deny the existence of our lord.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

And just a side note. I got a call from my aunt last night. She was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer of the kidneys a few weeks ago. That cancer usually spreads. The doctors went in to try to get the largest of the tumors. After much prayer and faith in that same God so many deny, yesterday she was miraculously given a clean bill of health. No cancer cells located anywhere. So what was to be chemo and radiation for months is now a clean bill of health with her needing none of that. Even the doctors were shocked. Prayer works my friends.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Like sciences parallel universe and black holes, the spiritual relm is beyond our comprehension and understanding. We put a start and finish on everything physical because we have a start and finish. The spiritual has no time line. And we can't begin to even fathom how it works. Many athiest believe in ghost. Yet not s spiritual God. There is alot of unexplained spiritual phenomenon and evidence in the supernatural world when it comes to ghost that folks swear by. Haunting and the such. Yet they deny the existence of our lord.


So you can't answer. The difference is that people are looking for the scientific origins of the universe and many other things. They're looking for proof, evidence, quantifiable things to increase our comprehension of those things. They're not just taking them on faith. I simply asked the the same question of your god asked of physicists. What came before? If I asked one of them they would give me their opinion, their theory. I've heard more than a few. Some have even shown me rather complex math which either explains it or doesn't. All have said one thing in one way or another : "I don't know for sure but we're trying to find out." Heck, they may even find out the answer is a god. I do know that if that day comes it will be based on proof, not faith.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> And just a side note. I got a call from my aunt last night. She was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer of the kidneys a few weeks ago. That cancer usually spreads. The doctors went in to try to get the largest of the tumors. After much prayer and faith in that same God so many deny, yesterday she was miraculously given a clean bill of health. No cancer cells located anywhere. So what was to be chemo and radiation for months is now a clean bill of health with her needing none of that. Even the doctors were shocked. Prayer works my friends.


I'm happy for your aunt. But my experience has been that most often it doesn't. Just like the gamblers I know only tell me of their winnings, not their losses, the faithful only speak of the prayers "answered" not the ones unfulfilled.


----------



## HDRider

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiRct4f8UtA[/ame]


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> I'm happy for your aunt. But my experience has been that most often it doesn't. Just like the gamblers I know only tell me of their winnings, not their losses, the faithful only speak of the prayers "answered" not the ones unfulfilled.


If your living and praying in accordance to God's will, no prayer goes unanswered.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> If your living and praying in accordance to God's will, no prayer goes unanswered.


You're right. "No" is an answer. My apologies.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

First, I am not a "young-earther". I believe our planet 's age is closer to the 4.6m year figure postulated by science, than the 4.6k year figure accepted by literal-interpretists. I believe that evolution is God's mode of creating us as the individuals He intends each of us to be. I believe that the bible's creation text is remarkably accurate in its description of the order and nature of events that led to the development of the universe, to arrive at the point where Moses wrote down the stories as told to him. 

BUT...science is in no position to replace Faith, as it seems to endeavor to do. While the scientific method and its body of discovery seems to be rational and assembled in the best interest of seeking the truth, it is too generous with the passes it give itself in regards to things it can't or hasn't yet "explained".

As an example, consider the paradox of time-dilation and black-hole accretion. Time slows in relation to the degree of warping in space-time by gravity. A clock at the top of Mount Everest runs slower than one in death valley. The difference in the speed of time's advance between sea-level and a satellite's orbit is different enough that the clocks on satellites have to be offset by a measurable amount in order for GPS to even work. 

Time in the vicinity of the gravitational distortion of a black hole is warped so strongly that, as a particle or wave NEARLY enters a black hole's event horizon, time is essentially stopped. 

Current science tells us that the universe is ~13b years old. Even assuming that the black hole you're observing was created very near the original "bang" (which it wasn't, according to current understanding of the evolution of the universe), the super-massive black holes at the center of most/all galaxies wouldn't have had "time" to accrete the matter necessary to become a "super-massive" black hole. 

That's all well and fine. Science allows for gaps in its understanding. Where science, in my opinion, fails to earn its claimed place as a replacement for Faith is in what it does with that "acceptance" of its failings. 

Science writes off the above as a lack of understanding of black holes, but it never seems willing to allow that it could actually be because it lacks understanding of time, gravity, space, matter, and all the other foundational concepts that illustrated the paradox to start with. 

Provisional acceptance seems like a rational approach to take when trying to understand something, but it places too much stock in things that have been provisionally accepted previously. There's not enough provision for accepting that things that have been provisionally accepted could be wrong.

If we put aside our faith in science long enough to accept that the issue with black hole accretion could actually be indicating that we lack understanding of gravity, space and time, we see that that "god" has no clothes. 

On the other hand, if we're willing to put aside a literal translation of Moses' oral-tradition written-down, we can't dismiss how remarkable it is that he had the order of the events of creation correct, albeit unsophisticated in detail, in a time when science could not have told him that. He had to get that from Somewhere. 

Sure, that's not proof of God, but I see no other Source of our ancestors' understanding of how we came to be, and I don't believe that God will allow us to prove Him. He will prove Himself to each of us in His time.


----------



## MattB4

Shine said:


> ... if you had proof of the Creator, would that change who you are?


Depends a lot on what would be proof and also just what kind of god the creator is. Is it one that insists I spend all day in slavish worship and self denial, or is it one that gives me goodies for being a good boy and ignores my goofing off? Not all gods are created equal.


----------



## MattB4

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...
> 
> On the other hand, if we're willing to put aside a literal translation of Moses' oral-tradition written-down, we can't dismiss how remarkable it is that he had the order of the events of creation correct, albeit unsophisticated in detail, in a time when science could not have told him that. He had to get that from Somewhere.
> 
> Sure, that's not proof of God, but I see no other Source of our ancestors' understanding of how we came to be, and I don't believe that God will allow us to prove Him. He will prove Himself to each of us in His time.


Actually the idea of going from darkness to light as a means of creation is a simple observation of nature. It requires no sophisticated knowledge of Big Bang theories or revelation from a divinity. Indeed some cultures worshiped the sun as a god since the sun brought warmth and light to the world. Now that we really know the science behind star formation and that the sun is our source of life it does not prove that those cultures had divine wisdom for their Sun religion. 

Much of what early peoples passed off as divine revelation was simply human observation coupled with intelligent deduction. Early science if you would. However some of the deductions were colored by lack of understanding and thus guesses were made that led to spiritual belief.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> You're right. "No" is an answer. My apologies.


Where did the very first life form come from? How about the very first atom or speck of energy? The first star, planet or galaxy? How about the first sparkle of light? What about the universe? What created these things? You have no answer. Because without God there is none. You just have to take it on faith they have just always been there. Sounds familiar doesn't it.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> Where did the very first life form come from? How about the very first atom or speck of energy? The first star, planet or galaxy? How about the first sparkle of light? What about the universe? What created these things? You have no answer. ...


My answer is natural processes caused all those things to happen. No god required.


----------



## Raeven

Vahomesteaders said:


> Where did the very first life form come from? How about the very first atom or speck of energy? The first star, planet or galaxy? How about the first sparkle of light? What about the universe? What created these things? You have no answer. Because without God there is none. You just have to take it on faith they have just always been there. Sounds familiar doesn't it.


No. There is another answer. It is, "We don't know. *Yet*." 

There's nothing about that statement that requires taking anything on faith. It simply means our understanding *today* is inadequate to answer these questions -- just as previously, we had no understanding of the Earth's place in the universe, or how plants convert sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. But we know those things now, thanks to ongoing scientific study. 

For me, it's fine that we don't yet know everything, and "Because God," doesn't cut it.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Where did the very first life form come from? How about the very first atom or speck of energy? The first star, planet or galaxy? How about the first sparkle of light? What about the universe? What created these things? You have no answer. Because without God there is none. You just have to take it on faith they have just always been there. Sounds familiar doesn't it.


No, to seek out those origins requires no faith but faith in the fact that investigation and experimentation and analysis of will lead to answers. Sometimes it leads to more questions which lead to more investigation and more answers. Science doesn't claim to have every answer. Scientists seek answers. As I've said, I don't know the answer to any of your questions about the origins of the universe. I don't claim to so and I can't provide evidence of what I don't claim. You claim your god exists. Where did he come from? It's hard to dismiss science's theory that matter and energy have always existed by claiming that things have always existed.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

MattB4 said:


> My answer is natural processes caused all those things to happen. No god required.


What created the natural process? Even natural process needs an origin. The process itself needs a designer as to guide the process from start to finish. And even the natural process first needs physical things to process into something else . Where did they come from?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> No, to seek out those origins requires no faith but faith in the fact that investigation and experimentation and analysis of will lead to answers. Sometimes it leads to more questions which lead to more investigation and more answers. Science doesn't claim to have every answer. Scientists seek answers. As I've said, I don't know the answer to any of your questions about the origins of the universe. I don't claim to so and I can't provide evidence of what I don't claim. You claim your god exists. Where did he come from? It's hard to dismiss science's theory that matter and energy have always existed by claiming that things have always existed.


So science and man are your gods? Again spiritual works is beyond our understanding. Physical works are not. And they have a dead end. No matter how far back they trace or what they find, it always ends at the same question. What created it? Where did it originate from. And If they find its origins they have to ask where did those origins come from. End never ends until God is the final answer.


----------



## painterswife

If you need to know the origins of the first life form than we need to know the origins of God. 

You can't expect us to have an answer when you don't have one either.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> So science and man are your gods? Again spiritual works is beyond our understanding. Physical works are not. And they have a dead end. No matter how far back they trace or what they find, it always ends at the same question. What created it? Where did it originate from. And If they find its origins they have to ask where did those origins come from. End never ends until God is the final answer.


Still can't answer where your god came from, huh? I don't claim science as a god but as a tool to be used to gain understanding. It doesn't rely on faith in magical powers or beings. It doesn't claim to have every answer. It does sometimes work in mysterious ways but I believe it was Heinlein who postulated that any technology sufficiently advanced might appear to be magic. It could be your god is a very good magician or an advanced technocrat.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> Still can't answer where your god came from, huh? I don't claim science as a god but as a tool to be used to gain understanding. It doesn't rely on faith in magical powers or beings. It doesn't claim to have every answer. It does sometimes work in mysterious ways but I believe it was Heinlein who postulated that any technology sufficiently advanced might appear to be magic. It could be your god is a very good magician or an advanced technocrat.


I have answered it. The spiritual world is beyond our comprehension. There is no time there. My God has always been. And that belief is backed by the fact of the spiritual world has no relation to our own. So nobody will have a full understanding of it. Where as science is the study of the physical. And it still dead ends at many questions and always will.


----------



## MattB4

Vahomesteaders said:


> What created the natural process? Even natural process needs an origin. The process itself needs a designer as to guide the process from start to finish. And even the natural process first needs physical things to process into something else . Where did they come from?


Incorrect reasoning. Nothing needs to have created natural processes. By definition natural processes do not have a designer, that is the "natural" part of the equation. As to needing physical stuff for the process to work on? Energy becomes matter, becomes energy. E=M(C squared).

All of this has always existed in one form or another.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> On the other hand, if we're willing to put aside a literal translation of Moses' oral-tradition written-down, we can't dismiss how remarkable it is that he had the order of the events of creation correct, albeit unsophisticated in detail, in a time when science could not have told him that. He had to get that from Somewhere.
> 
> Sure, that's not proof of God, but I see no other Source of our ancestors' understanding of how we came to be, and I don't believe that God will allow us to prove Him. He will prove Himself to each of us in His time.





MattB4 said:


> Actually the idea of going from darkness to light as a means of creation is a simple observation of nature. It requires no sophisticated knowledge of Big Bang theories or revelation from a divinity. Indeed some cultures worshiped the sun as a god since the sun brought warmth and light to the world. Now that we really know the science behind star formation and that the sun is our source of life it does not prove that those cultures had divine wisdom for their Sun religion.
> 
> Much of what early peoples passed off as divine revelation was simply human observation coupled with intelligent deduction. Early science if you would. However some of the deductions were colored by lack of understanding and thus guesses were made that led to spiritual belief.


But it's not just as simple as darkness into light - neither in the scientific body of theory, or in the oral tradition that Moses relayed for us in Genesis.

The events described by Moses were:

*First:* Light, and the separation of the night and the day. Day and night is something that only exists from the perspective of a rotating body formed/forming near an intense source of light.

*Second:* The firmament / separation of the waters from the waters, or the creation of an atmosphere / realm of separation between the earth and "heaven"(s). 

*Third:* The establishment of seas and continents. The dawn of plant-life.

*Fourth:* Creation of the lights of the heavens which, of course, would have already been there, but would have been invisible in the dense, CO2 heavy atmosphere of pre-oxygen generating plant life.

*Fifth:* Sea life that takes to the land, and the evolution of flying life.

*Sixth:* Land-based life in increasing sophistication, and, then, of course, man.

Considered, free of a literal translation of this all occurring in a six day period, Moses' story, passed down to him as the oral tradition of the children of Abraham, sounds _remarkably_ similar to the history of the earth as described by observational science. 

Now that we have the ability to directly observe planetary accretion around a young star, we can watch the "heavens and the earth" forming as it likely did for earth, and profoundly similar to the way that Abraham told his sons that God told him. 

If we afford Moses just half the benefit of assumption that science allows itself, his story is just as close, or, perhaps, closer than what the last 4,000 years of science has told us. 

I don't believe, currently, that the earth is only 5,000 years old, or whatever the current creationists' view is. But I'm also not willing to completely dismiss it. I believe that figure comes from a literal translation of a document that was re-told and re-translated countless times. Despite its peerless value, I accept the possibility of error in the book. 

However, I also accept that the evidence that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old comes from a canon that _assumes_ its understanding of time is correct, while showing us direct observation that there are places in the universe where the way that time functions shatters our "understanding" of the thing.


----------



## MattB4

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> But it's not just as simple as darkness into light - neither in the scientific body of theory, or in the oral tradition that Moses relayed for us in Genesis.
> 
> ...


It is that simple. You simply are trying to shoehorn your belief into it. Early man was quite capable of looking at nature and making observations based upon it. The sun rose in the morning, the moon rose at night. The oceans, seas, forest and plains were all observable. Watching life begin and grow, as sheep and goat herders could easily do, would lead to more basic observations. Planting seeds, growing, harvesting and observing seasonal changes led to others. 

Just because it was long ago did not make these people stupid. Indeed I suspect that on average they were smarter then our present overly urban crowds. They just lacked the many generations of discoveries to come.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> And just a side note. I got a call from my aunt last night. She was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer of the kidneys a few weeks ago. That cancer usually spreads. The doctors went in to try to get the largest of the tumors. After much prayer and faith in that same God so many deny, yesterday she was miraculously given a clean bill of health. No cancer cells located anywhere. So what was to be chemo and radiation for months is now a clean bill of health with her needing none of that. Even the doctors were shocked. Prayer works my friends.


Anecdotal evidence with no clear connection is the weakest evidence of all. What has lead you to the conclusion that prayer has anything to do with your aunt's condition?


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> I have answered it. The spiritual world is beyond our comprehension. There is no time there. My God has always been. And that belief is backed by the fact of the spiritual world has no relation to our own. So nobody will have a full understanding of it. Where as science is the study of the physical. And it still dead ends at many questions and always will.


If that is how you answer it why are you asking others that don't believe as you to explain themselves?

Why are you held to one standard but expect others to be held to another.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> I have answered it. The spiritual world is beyond our comprehension. There is no time there. My God has always been. And that belief is backed by the fact of the spiritual world has no relation to our own. So nobody will have a full understanding of it. Where as science is the study of the physical. And it still dead ends at many questions and always will.


The only difference is that when you reach a "dead end" you quit asking questions. When science does they ask more. That would be the difference between faith and science. One claims to know all. The other seeks knowledge of that which it doesn't know. I've never trusted the know it all to actually know it all.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

MattB4 said:


> It is that simple. You simply are trying to shoehorn your belief into it.


Explain please.

Neither the Genesis creation story, or the current big-bang theory are as simple as nothing->light->everything. 
A farmer relying entirely on contemporary observation would never know that life started in the sea, or that the earth formed after the sun alighted.

My observation is that the story relayed by Moses contains some remarkable parallels with the way that science explains the creation of the earth. That's not shoe-horning a belief into anything. In fact, I'd say that refusing to even acknowledge the similarities as remarkable is a display of confirmation-bias on your part.

"Aetheist scientist says 'there is no God, and science is supreme'", is no different than "Devout minister says science is bunk and God is supreme."

What I'm saying is that I've come to a place where I don't ANY faith in either side telling me that their body of work proves that their view is truth.

I choose to only accept as immutable truth what I get directly from Him, but I also accept the value found both in the bible and the textbook - and am prepared to accept the failings in both. 

There is balance to be found in moderation and an open mind, and there is Truth to be found in Him.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> "Aetheist scientist says 'there is no God, and science is supreme'"


A belief that there is no God isn't part of science. Science is moot on the topic. Science can't advocate a belief in God because there is no supporting evidence, but it also can't deny the existence of God. It's just not part of science.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> A belief that there is no God isn't part of science. Science is moot on the topic. Science can't advocate a belief in God because there is no supporting evidence, but it also can't deny the existence of God. It's just not part of science.


 
I actually agree with your statement, but, in reality, leading scientists seem to be trying to prove creation without a creator. The latest theories from Stephen Hawking are along those lines.


----------



## Raeven

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> "Aetheist scientist says 'there is no God, and science is supreme'", is no different than "Devout minister says science is bunk and God is supreme."


No. That is the difference.

What would make you accept the concept that there may not be a god? Nothing.

What would make me accept the concept that there may be a god? Evidence. Actual evidence, not the anecdotal stuff that is offered as evidence but isn't evidence of anything except someone's personal experience.


----------



## MattB4

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Explain please.
> 
> Neither the Genesis creation story, or the current big-bang theory are as simple as nothing->light->everything.
> A farmer relying entirely on contemporary observation would never know that life started in the sea, or that the earth formed after the sun alighted.
> 
> My observation is that the story relayed by Moses contains some remarkable parallels with the way that science explains the creation of the earth. That's not shoe-horning a belief into anything. In fact, I'd say that refusing to even acknowledge the similarities as remarkable is a display of *confirmation-bias* on your part.
> 
> ...


To explain. You describe it yourself. Confirmation Bias. You are finding remarkable parallels in the Genesis creations story with modern day Universe beginnings. It feeds your desire to give credence to Moses's religion. The parallels are there, as I explained, because they are simple observations of natural things. They are not any more astounding than the fact early mankind could build pyramids. 

Unfortunately there is a tendency on the part of people to reach for the fantastical and even the supernatural when something exists that they have no common explanation for. Like the pyramids must have been designed and built by Aliens since there was no way that ancient people could have done them. The Aliens believers will go on and on about precise measurements, fit of stone, alignment to celestial objects, the weight of the stones and the lack of modern machines. But it is all explanation that simply misses the facts that indeed ancient people built the durn things. 

Moses's story of the creation, drawing from earlier creation stories and myths, was nothing astounding or divine. it simply was the knowledge of the time. If some of it is still valid today it just means it was exceedingly clever thinking. Something that those people were demonstrably capable of just like the Egyptians were capable of building the pyramids.

ETA: In addition people have to keep in mind that mankind is a pattern seeker. So much so we see the images of the Virgin Mary in streaks on window glass. Or the image of Elvis in burnt toast. Given this predilection to seeing patterns makes us want to establish meanings in random things. Like people hearing Satan worship in a Rock music record played backwards or the weird belief in Numerology. So seeing parallels is a easy extension of that.

Further addition: One interesting example where supposedly remarkable parallels is seen is the belief in Prophecy of the kind of Nostradamus. Since some of his quatrains seem to refer to events after his time there are those that decide he must have some kind of supernatural power. How could he have foreseen Hitler, they claim and point to a passage mentioning Hister. Frankly that is simply reading into something you want to find. Psychic frauds are well versed in the art of Cold Reads. They trick people by supposedly having information a stranger could not have about them.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Raeven said:


> No. That is the difference.
> 
> What would make you accept the concept that there may not be a god? Nothing.
> 
> What would make me accept the concept that there may be a god? Evidence. Actual evidence, not the anecdotal stuff that is offered as evidence but isn't evidence of anything except someone's personal experience.


I think I see what you're saying, but the lack of distinction I was pointing to was subtler than that. I don't equate Faith and religion. To me, the two are not _necessarily_ mutually-inclusive. 

What I was saying is that both the devotee of the church of science, and the devotee of "the church" seem to have a vested interest in protecting their own rice bowls, and discredit the other side to do so. The church of science would have you believe that since God can't be proven, He's not worth considering or discussing, and the "the church" would have you believe that if the bible doesn't say so, it isn't. 

I don't need either of them to tell me what to believe, and neither of them can effect Faith. Science can be righteous, as can a structured fellowship on Faith, but neither are the lone gateholders to either understanding OR enlightenment. 

I enjoy the study of science, and all of my hobbies revolve around scientific exploration in one form or another. I just don't hold it as as faultless as it would have me.

I also don't go to church. I've never found one that would tolerate the questions I have, and God has never been offended to indulge me. He wired me for inquisitiveness, and loves that as part of me, his son. 

But, to answer your statement directly; there are things, though I can't say for sure what they are, that could make me accept the concept of no God. I certainly hope that I don't lose my Faith (again), but there have been times in my life where I did not have it. I've seen others of Faith lose their Faith. So there are things that can change the view. I'm not immune to that.

Science can't ever do anything to prove God, because, I believe, Faith is the "currency" he created between man and Himself, and Faith and proof are mutually exclusive.


----------



## fireweed farm

Vahomesteaders said:


> If your living and praying in accordance to God's will, no prayer goes unanswered.


REALLY?? Please explain extremely religious peoples sick children dying. Were the families not praying hard enough or were they just bad Christians to start with? What kind of God...?

I know, when prayers fail you have another way to explain God's failure to intervene. Like as if God had another plan..... 

But that is not an answered prayer.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

MattB4 said:


> To explain. You describe it yourself. Confirmation Bias. You are finding remarkable parallels in the Genesis creations story with modern day Universe beginnings. It feeds your desire to give credence to Moses's religion...


The parallels I was pointing to are not confirmation bias. I don't have a desire to give credence to Moses' religion. In fact, I reject much of his brother, Aaron's law - which was the body-religion of the time.

God never cared if we eat shell-fish. It's not that it was OK, then he decided it wasn't, and then it became OK again. If, at any time in His creation, He put me in a coastal area, and the only thing I could find to feed my family that day was a lobster, then He wouldn't hold it against me.

God was never the exclusive property of the Jew. The idea that He was only the God of the children of Israel, but the rest of us had to wait for Jesus to open the umbrella is bunk. God has always been the creator of all of us.

God would have never condoned me stoning a homosexual or an adulterer. Both things are sins, but I'm a sinner too. He'd prefer I work on myself, and let Him handle my brothers and sisters.

I don't find the parallels in order to support Moses' religion, and I never said that Moses' untimely understanding was PROOF of God. That is entirely missing the point. 

Consider it this way:
According to science, there are only two ways that Moses would have known that life originated in the sea.

1. Some environmental factor or ambient reality experienced by Moses or one of his ancestors placed a benefit on them knowing this fact, so they had to learn it or die.

2. He guessed. 

It's possible that he guessed, on all points. And, had it just been nothing->light->everything, as you suggest, I'd readily accept that that was just a guess. But the order of details in the creation story are _just_ detailed enough, that I find it, to say the least, intriguing that he would know that. Moses had no biological need to know, and no way of finding out that life originated in the sea, or that the sun came before the earth. 

The only mode of understanding that, that science supports, is that he guessed it. 

That's possible. 

I think he was told.


----------



## MattB4

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The parallels I was pointing to are not confirmation bias. I don't have a desire to give credence to Moses' religion. ...


I would have to disagree humbly. You are insisting that there must be a religious significance to the description of the creation of the universe in Genesis because it seems to parallel present day scientific theory. I see no remarkable parallels. No confirmation of any bias I may have. 

I do understand why faith is important to people and also religions are. We have evolved with religion. It is the underpinnings of much of our literature and entertainment. It helped established our laws and our day to day dealings with other people. It is very difficult to go without faith. To many it would destroy them. This is not a desirable thing to promote. 

Thanks for the discussion. I think I will discontinue this Thread now.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> A belief that there is no God isn't part of science. Science is moot on the topic. Science can't advocate a belief in God because there is no supporting evidence, but it also can't deny the existence of God. It's just not part of science.


I'd agree with you statement, wholly, if there was a "supposed to be" between "isn't" and "science". 

To Farmerga's point, there is a large segment of the scientific community that have taken it upon themselves to try to disprove God, or at least explicitly suggest that their learning discredits His existence and nexus of creation. 

Perhaps it is reparation for the millennia of persecution that the curious faced at the hands of the church, but that is no excuse. Even today, obviously, there is segment within the church that wants to discredit all of science. 

Neither, in my view, are doing their adherents any favors by taking those positions.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> To Farmerga's point, there is a large segment of the scientific community that have taken it upon themselves to try to disprove God, or at least explicitly suggest that their learning discredits His existence and nexus of creation.


The scientist is free to believe or disbelieve in God, and he is also free to express his views. But science is still silent on the issue.


----------



## Raeven

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I think I see what you're saying, but the lack of distinction I was pointing to was subtler than that. I don't equate Faith and religion. To me, the two are not _necessarily_ mutually-inclusive.


I understand your distinction, but it matters not at all to the statement I made. With or without the inclusion of the word, "church," nothing I say could ever convince you there is not a god. I, on the other hand, would be persuaded by actual evidence of a god to recognize there was one.

Here's the thing: I'm not denying there's a god. It's simply that unless or until there is evidence for one, it's a waste of my time to concern my life with it. I have no feelings about it one way or the other. As I pointed out to *watcher* in an earlier post, it's not the work of science to disprove anything for which there is no evidence of its existence. I think that's the part that trips you (and many others) up.

I don't know of a single scientist who is actively trying to disprove there is a god. It's completely contrary to the method. Again, why try to prove or disprove something that hasn't been shown in any substantive way to exist?

What I have heard many scientists say is that, to date, there is no actual evidence of a god. That's a very different thing than trying to disprove the non-existent.

I have no vested interest in thinking one thing or another. I simply accept what the evidence shows. Sometimes it changes, and I'm fine with that, too.

I don't care what others believe. I know many good people who are religious -- with or without a church. Where I draw the line is when others moralize on me and tell me how *I* must live based on *their* beliefs in something wholly unproven.

In the words of Susan B. Anthony: "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."


----------



## farmrbrown

fireweed farm said:


> REALLY?? Please explain extremely religious peoples sick children dying. Were the families not praying hard enough or were they just bad Christians to start with? What kind of God...?
> 
> I know, when prayers fail you have another way to explain God's failure to intervene. Like as if God had another plan.....
> 
> But that is not an answered prayer.


On the contrary, what is hard to accept is, sometimes the answer is, "No".

That is one of a few major reasons people turn from, or don't believe in God.
He disappoints them when their expectations and pleas are not met.
I'm sure we can see the parallels in raising our own children.

In the only way we can be comforted in situations like you described, God DOES provide the ultimate in healing when he takes that child into His arms. There will be no more sickness, no more pain.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The scientist is free to believe or disbelieve in God, and he is also free to express his views. But science is still silent on the issue.


Why?....


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Why?....


 Nevada answered that in his previous post. 




Nevada said:


> A belief that there is no God isn't part of science. Science is moot on the topic. Science can't advocate a belief in God because there is no supporting evidence, but it also can't deny the existence of God. It's just not part of science.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Nevada answered that in his previous post.


Greg, that's not an answer and you know it, it's an excuse.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Greg, that's not an answer and you know it, it's an excuse.


 You asked why science doesn't get into whether 'God' exists or not, and Nevada answered.



> A belief that there is no God isn't part of science.



You may disagree, but you asked, you got an answer. Scientists who delve into that aren't called scientists, they're called theologians.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> You asked why science doesn't get into whether 'God' exists or not, and Nevada answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may disagree, but you asked, you got an answer. Scientists who delve into that aren't called scientists, they're called theologins.




Perhaps a few words from Einstein can show the way to common ground.......

http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/EinsteinMysteryReligion.htm


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Perhaps a few words from Einstein can show the way to common ground.......
> 
> http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/EinsteinMysteryReligion.htm


 Absolutely.



> I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.


 Just PLEASE don't try and tell me the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't buy that for one split second. The evidence shows otherwise.


----------



## greg273

Double post... Sorry bout that!


----------



## Shine

People go on and on, walking their own path... believing that somehow they are the ones that determine their destiny, then something stands up in front of them, things change, it is easy to walk in a different direction and the direction that they are walking in is totally different than the path that they have previously walked but yet, they find happiness therein... Go figure...


----------



## watcher

Raeven said:


> Your "understanding" of science is so woefully inadequate and inaccurate that I believe if you ever did learn how it actually works, you would look back on these posts with incredible embarrassment. I mean, they are truly cringeworthy. Sorry, but it's true. You're talking about things you don't begin to understand. I'm a layperson also, but I've studied science all my life, and you don't seem to grasp even the fundamentals of the scientific method.
> 
> There is a world of difference between untested assertions and evidence-based understandings of our natural world. You don't even get what 'peer review' means. It doesn't mean your buddies sit around and tell you they think your hypothesis is wrong. It means that rigorous testing has been performed by others in your field who are actively working to disprove your hypothesis.
> 
> It's not incumbent upon any scientist to disprove that which cannot be seen or otherwise discerned. It's incumbent upon the individual who makes such an assertion to prove it exists. That's a very basic tenet of science. Your questions don't make sense, because you are simply uneducated about what you are attempting to discuss. I'm not trying to embarrass you, but no meaningful conversation can be had with you about these things until you learn more about them.
> 
> That's the difference between scripture-based beliefs, which are rested only upon faith, and evidence-based beliefs, which are based upon ongoing, repeated and rigorous testing to disprove them. Only when every falsifiable method of testing has been exhausted and *failed to disprove the hypothesis* may it stand as scientific theory -- which is for all practical purposes, *a fact*.
> 
> Evolution is a fact. The ongoing study of the whole of evolution is the theory. Can you draw this distinction?


There are several problems I have. The major one is that when it wishes 'science' allows entire areas of 'science' to be based on unproven assumptions. What we "know" about the universe is based on the unproven 'fact' that the properties of lite are exactly the same in deep space as they are near/on earth. What we "know" about evolution is based on the unproven assumption that somehow nature violated some the very 'laws' it now teaches. On top of that there exactly zero evidence to show that you can change DNA over time to form a different kingdom of organisms. 
We look at the fact that we can selectively breed an animal to have the characteristics we want then we notice that some things in one animal look like another and jump to the conclusion that they must have came from a common ancestor. 

As I have said its ok in science to say POOF something which we can't explain, can't prove and violates the rules of science as we see them today to cause this. But its not ok to say some being which we can't explain, can't prove and has the power to violate the rules of science as we see them today caused this.

The only difference is in the first men put their faith in themselves and in the second men put their faith in a creator.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "Each is based on believing in what can not be proven, yet you accept one and reject the other?"
> 
> Being ignorant of science doesn't make you qualified to discuss it.:idea:


I accept science as long as its not based on unproven assumptions. If you can provide scientifically then I have no problem with it. You show me a design for an aircraft and show the numbers based on scientifically gathered data which 'prove' it will fly then I will believe it will fly when built. But if you bring me a design and tell me that you believe it will fly because the last one you built which was very similar to this one I'm going to doubt you. If you go one step farther and say that when you ran the numbers on you design they said it wouldn't fly so you added some magic pixie dust, or dark matter, to the equations and now they say it will fly and I'm going to really doubt your design.


----------



## watcher

MattB4 said:


> Glad that is settled. Now that the Giant pink bunny theory is on equal footing with all others I demand that we teach it in schools.
> 
> _In the beginning was the rabbit and the rabbit was pink and large. With a twitch of the rabbits nose and the bending of a ear the rabbit said let their be light (and carrots). The carrots were good. Thus was the garden begun. _ Chapter 1, Verse 1 - Creation


Not what I'm saying. You are talking about teaching that there is a specific creator, I'm talking about teaching seeing as how we have no idea how the universe was created there is just as much of a chance it was created by a creator as anything else. If you think it was a giant pink bunny and the guy sitting next to you thinks it was a tiny green frog doesn't come into the equation unless you have scientific evidence to support your theory.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> How did the creator get there? Did he magically appear there too? From where? Brought forth by whom? Turtles upon turtles upon turtles.


What was there before the big bang? How did it get there? From where? Brought there by whom? Are your turtles better than mine just because they are yours?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> What was there before the big bang? How did it get there? From where? Brought there by whom? Are your turtles better than mine just because they are yours?


My answer has remained consistent. I don't know. Yours has remained consistently absent.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> So you can't answer. The difference is that people are looking for the scientific origins of the universe and many other things. They're looking for proof, evidence, quantifiable things to increase our comprehension of those things. They're not just taking them on faith. I simply asked the the same question of your god asked of physicists. What came before? If I asked one of them they would give me their opinion, their theory. I've heard more than a few. Some have even shown me rather complex math which either explains it or doesn't. All have said one thing in one way or another : "I don't know for sure but we're trying to find out." Heck, they may even find out the answer is a god. I do know that if that day comes it will be based on proof, not faith.


Ok, if they don't take it on faith then please provide us with the proof of the properties of light in deep space? If that hasn't been scientifically proven then they are taking it on faith and should it and all the work based on it not be thrown out? 

And if you check there rather complex math they use to show how the universe works based on what they know here on earth you will discover it only works if they add in some magic pixie dust to the mix, oh wait those great and learned scientist call it "Dark Matter". And I'm sure you can provide proof the problem is the invisible pixie dust and not their assumptions, sorry 'known facts', about how things work in deep space.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> Just PLEASE don't try and tell me the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't buy that for one split second. The evidence shows otherwise.


I have to ask what evidence is there and what scientifically proven facts is it based on?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> My answer has remained consistent. I don't know. Yours has remained consistently absent.


I have answered and have been consistent, the creator does not exist in the way we comprehend existence. 

We see ourselves as riding a twig on a river of time, always flowing in one direction. We can't stop the river, hop off the twig onto the bank and stay there nor swim back upstream. This is because we can only see our twig and therefore any assumptions we make about our world are based on only what we can see.

And when someone says that something put us on this twig and placed the twig on the water some refuse to accept it as even being possible even though they have no idea where the twig nor river came from.

If you do not know then why do you feel the need to say it could not have been created by a being which you do not have the ability to understand and demand others not bring this possibility up?

You put your faith in science. That sometime somehow we will discover the answers. If you don't think you faith is in science or your religion is science look how you react when I point out the fact that your most basic knowledge of the universe and its creation is based on an assumption which you must take on faith, because it has not ever be proven.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I accept science as long as its not based on unproven assumptions."

IF you knew anything about science, you would understand that science is NEVER based on unproven assumptions. Science is not based on any assumptions.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> What was there before the big bang? How did it get there? From where? Brought there by whom? Are your turtles better than mine just because they are yours?


None of the turtles are any better than any of the other turtles. That's why "Insufficient Data" is the best answer.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> Just PLEASE don't try and tell me the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't buy that for one split second. The evidence shows otherwise.


I would never tell you that.
It's both unscientific an unbiblical.

I know where and how that idea came about, and I am sorry some of my brothers and sisters were led astray by not reading carefully enough.
But nowhere does God say the earth is only 6,000 years old, in fact he tells a very different story.......


----------



## FourDeuce

You need to prove gods exist before you try to quote them.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> You need to prove gods exist before you try to quote them.


Fortunately, He provided proof to me long ago.

When the time comes for anyone else to see their own "proof", He'll need no help from little ole me.:grin:


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I have answered and have been consistent, the creator does not exist in the way we comprehend existence.
> 
> We see ourselves as riding a twig on a river of time, always flowing in one direction. We can't stop the river, hop off the twig onto the bank and stay there nor swim back upstream. This is because we can only see our twig and therefore any assumptions we make about our world are based on only what we can see.
> 
> And when someone says that something put us on this twig and placed the twig on the water some refuse to accept it as even being possible even though they have no idea where the twig nor river came from.
> 
> If you do not know then why do you feel the need to say it could not have been created by a being which you do not have the ability to understand and demand others not bring this possibility up?
> 
> You put your faith in science. That sometime somehow we will discover the answers. If you don't think you faith is in science or your religion is science look how you react when I point out the fact that your most basic knowledge of the universe and its creation is based on an assumption which you must take on faith, because it has not ever be proven.


Again, you should read my posts. I've never claimed your god couldn't exist. In fact I've repeatedly said the answer to the origin may ultimately be a "god". The interesting thing about scientific " pixie dust" is that there are people working every day to prove its existence. They may ultimately prove it or disprove it. Your "answer" relies only on faith in your pixie dust. You're welcome to it.


----------



## dixiegal62

Science has proven a lot of things... it's proven fat was bad for us, then it was good for us. It's proven sugar wouldn't harm us, then it would. It's proven many things only to disprove the first scientific fact. The list of things they got wrong is long. Many say the Bible is man made to disprove it as fact. Science is also man made.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Science has proven a lot of things... it's proven fat was bad for us, then it was good for us. It's proven sugar wouldn't harm us, then it would. It's proven many things only to disprove the first scientific fact. The list of things they got wrong is long. Many say the Bible is man made to disprove it as fact. Science is also man made.


Science first impressions are often not based in science at all. More often they're wives tales that have scientific acceptance as part of the tale. I remember hearing about the sickly old man in my town who was too weak to leave his house. Then is doctor suggested that he eat the fat off his steak, and now he plays 9 holes of golf every day. But that story was never founded in science. I doubt that any such man existed. But every town seemed to have one, at least according to the tale.

Likewise, not swimming for 30 minutes after eating was never founded in science. The 1950s seemed riddled with that sort of thing. I even remember that (based on anecdotal evidence) smoking a menthol cigarette would ease an asthma attack. Can you imagine a doctor today suggesting that you light-up during an asthma attack?

Of studies actually based on real research, their track record is pretty good.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Science first impressions are often not based in science at all. More often they're wives tales that have scientific acceptance as part of the tale. I remember hearing about the sickly old man in my town who was too weak to leave his house. Then is doctor suggested that he eat the fat off his steak, and now he plays 9 holes of golf every day. But that story was never founded in science. I doubt that any such man existed. But every town seemed to have one, at least according to the tale.
> 
> Likewise, not swimming for 30 minutes after eating was never founded in science. The 1950s seemed riddled with that sort of thing. I even remember that (based on anecdotal evidence) smoking a menthol cigarette would ease an asthma attack. Can you imagine a doctor today suggesting that you light-up during an asthma attack?
> 
> Of studies actually based on science, their track record is pretty good.



Only if you view them with one eye closed.

The 3 "wives tales" you mentioned may have been debunked by a specific experimental analysis, but the fact that old wisdom is misused, misinterpreted and repeated incorrectly is not the fault of the origins, nor is a resounding victory for science - if you keep your eyes and mind open to the world around you.

Is fat good for the elderly?:shrug:
Have you seen the latest scientific studies on the Alzheimer's and the brain?
(Let's see, what is the brain's primary chemical makeup again?):idea:

Is ANY physical activity a good idea immediately after a heavy meal?
You tell me. Have the studies of blood used during digestion yielded any beneficial health information that our grandmothers already knew?

Of course we ALL know a cigarette is the last thing an asthmatic needs to inhale.
But is there scientific proof of the benefits of inhaling aromatics on lung and airway function?

I blew my cool a little this week when one of our engineers who likes to sneer at anything that doesn't come with a documented peer review made one of his smart aleck comments to me, when I told him I "just got lucky" successfully holding a close tolerance bore on a machine that desperately needs a spindle alignment.
It's off center by .05" and I the part had a bore tolerance of .3150 - .3155. (8mm)
I didn't have time to go into all the little tricks of the trade that allowed me to do it, although I had some reject pieces I scrapped when the pilot drill wandered too close to the edge.
Those things are trivial to most people and tedious to explain to someone without the experience and in those cases, you don't really have to!

My point is, old knowledge CAN be wrong at times, but it is more likely the basis of it has foundations on good science.......IF the egos can be put aside for a moment.


----------



## FourDeuce

"it's proven fat was bad for us"
Misrepresenting science like that doesn't help your credibility.

"Many say the Bible is man made to disprove it as fact."
There is no need to "disprove it as fact" until somebody proves it as fact. That's how logic works.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "it's proven fat was bad for us"
> Misrepresenting science like that doesn't help your credibility.


Exactly *who's* credibility is in question here?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/07/fat-not-bad-studies-misleading-scientists-say



FourDeuce said:


> "Many say the Bible is man made to disprove it as fact."
> There is no need to "disprove it as fact" until somebody proves it as fact. That's how logic works.


Why does that statement bring back memories of "chickens and eggs"?
:grin:


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Exactly *who's* credibility is in question here?
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/07/fat-not-bad-studies-misleading-scientists-say
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that statement bring back memories of "chickens and eggs"?
> :grin:


No one can prove with total certainty that something doesn't exist. Unicorns, dragons and Bigfoot are possibilities. So are biblical creation and your god. It's not up to others to disprove them but for you to prove them. Just as it is for scientists to prove what they believe to be fact.


----------



## dixiegal62

FourDeuce said:


> "it's proven fat was bad for us"
> Misrepresenting science like that doesn't help your credibility.
> 
> "Many say the Bible is man made to disprove it as fact."
> There is no need to "disprove it as fact" until somebody proves it as fact. That's how logic works.


No its not proven that fat is bad for us. There has been a lot of proof the last few years that the fat studies where wrong.


----------



## dixiegal62

Creation or evaluation... both take faith. Guess it's up to us as individuals to decide.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> No one can prove with total certainty that something doesn't exist. Unicorns, dragons and Bigfoot are possibilities. So are biblical creation and your god. It's not up to others to disprove them but for you to prove them. Just as it is for scientists to prove what they believe to be fact.


Have to disagree it's not up to anyone to prove thier faith... nobody has to explain themselves or thier beliefs. If you believe your statement why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to prove people of faith wrong?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> No one can prove with total certainty that something doesn't exist.


I agree.
I wonder if I'll get a "like" too?
It's something for all to remember, huh?




> Unicorns, dragons and Bigfoot are possibilities. So are biblical creation and your god. It's not up to others to disprove them but for you to prove them. Just as it is for scientists to prove what they believe to be fact.


This is where you are wrong.
Is is not and never has been up to me to prove anything. I already replied the same thing to 4 deuce.
All your choices are on you and you alone.
(That SHOULD get me another "Pixie like", doncha think?)


----------



## FourDeuce

"both take faith."
When you have to lie to yourself about what other people are doing, that should be a sign that you need a better argument.:grumble:


----------



## FourDeuce

"It's something for all to remember, huh?"
Anybody with a clue how logic works already remembers that.
Nobody needs to prove things don't exist when those things have never been proven to exist.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Have to disagree it's not up to anyone to prove thier faith... nobody has to explain themselves or thier beliefs. If you believe your statement why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to prove people of faith wrong?


Ive never disputed anyone's faith. It's not up to me to prove or disprove your faith. I have no issues with you or anyone else believing what you do. That that faith and those beliefs work for you is enough for me. More than once here I've expressed admiration for those of faith. But if you're going to expect me to believe as you or live under laws based on those beliefs you'll have to provide some proof as to their validity. If you wish to believe in a creator I won't do anything to stop you. If you wish to teach my child about your creator in public schools I simply ask you prove his existance. Not what you believe about his existance. You can have your faith. Allow me to have mine and we'll get along just fine.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Exactly *who's* credibility is in question here?
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/07/fat-not-bad-studies-misleading-scientists-say
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that statement bring back memories of "chickens and eggs"?
> :grin:


 Any time one person tries to build their credibility by pointing at other people, that shows they know nothing about logic.


----------



## FourDeuce

"nobody has to explain themselves or thier beliefs."
One thing children usually learn when they're young is that they need to prove their claims. Anybody who believes they are exempt from the rules of logic loses all credibility.
"If you believe your statement why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to prove people of faith wrong?"
I don't waste any of my time trying to prove anybody wrong. That would be stupid and illogical. There is no NEED to prove anybody wrong until they prove they are right. Basic logic.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I agree.
> I wonder if I'll get a "like" too?
> It's something for all to remember, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are wrong.
> Is is not and never has been up to me to prove anything. I already replied the same thing to 4 deuce.
> All your choices are on you and you alone.
> (That SHOULD get me another "Pixie like", doncha think?)


I expanded on my statement of what conditions proof needs be offered. I hope it suffices.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Exactly *who's* credibility is in question here?"
The person who posted this lie about science:
"it's proven fat was bad for us"
Science has never proven(or even claimed) that. Without fat, human life is not possible.


----------



## dixiegal62

FourDeuce said:


> "Exactly *who's* credibility is in question here?"
> The person who posted this lie about science:
> "it's proven fat was bad for us"
> Science has never proven(or even claimed) that. Without fat, human life is not possible.


Okay so I guess I just imagined the whole anti fat campaign that's been thrown down our throats the last 30 something years...my bad


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Okay so I guess I just imagined the whole anti fat campaign that's been thrown down our throats the last 30 something years...my bad


Like it or don't, you're not going to live long with a lot of artery goo.


----------



## OffGridCooker

My problem with the Big Bang theory is that a bang is a sound, and if there was no one around to hear a bang there could not be a sound. Because sound is a human perception, right?
I know too deep!


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Okay so I guess I just imagined the whole anti fat campaign that's been thrown down our throats the last 30 something years...my bad


Too much fat and the wrong fat is and was always the problem. Some people thought that meant no fat. Fat has always been an essential nutrient.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> Too much fat and the wrong fat is and was always the problem. Some people thought that meant no fat. Fat has always been an essential nutrient.


Good cause we have some really nice slabs of pork ribs coming off the BBQ right about now:bouncy:


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Good cause we have some really nice slabs of pork ribs coming off the BBQ right about now:bouncy:


We just took some nice greasy brats out of the smoker. I love my fat.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> We just took some nice greasy brats out of the smoker. I love my fat.


Life is not worth living without good fatty meat..ig:


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "Exactly *who's* credibility is in question here?"
> The person who posted this lie about science:
> "it's proven fat was bad for us"
> Science has never proven*(or even claimed) that.* Without fat, human life is not possible.


Would you care to look at the link in post #566 and kindly retract your accusation of lying?
If not, I'll understand.
I understood it well at the first doubt of "credibility".
When one denies the truth presented to their face, that also is illogical.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Ive never disputed anyone's faith. It's not up to me to prove or disprove your faith. I have no issues with you or anyone else believing what you do. That that faith and those beliefs work for you is enough for me. More than once here I've expressed admiration for those of faith.
> 
> * But if you're going to expect me to believe as you or live under laws based on those beliefs you'll have to provide some proof as to their validity. If you wish to believe in a creator I won't do anything to stop you.  If you wish to teach my child about your creator in public schools I simply ask you prove his existance.*
> 
> Not what you believe about his existance. You can have your faith. Allow me to have mine and we'll get along just fine.





mmoetc said:


> I expanded on my statement of what conditions proof needs be offered. I hope it suffices.


Yes you did.
I thought the part bolded in red was most interesting. I was going to bring that up as well.
Everyone's free to believe what they want, that's fine by me too.
Where the line is drawn, is what you say or teach to my children and family.
That's where everyone must take a stand and defend their beliefs.
Would you not agree?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes you did.
> I thought the part bolded in red was most interesting. I was going to bring that up as well.
> Everyone's free to believe what they want, that's fine by me too.
> Where the line is drawn, is what you say or teach to my children and family.
> That's where everyone must take a stand and defend their beliefs.
> Would you not agree?


Sure. I don't even have a problem with creation theory being taught in a comparative religions class. I do have an issue with it being taught as science . Show me any scientific proof of your god and his role in the origins of the universe and we can discuss it.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Sure. I don't even have a problem with creation theory being taught in a comparative religions class. I do have an issue with it being taught as science . Show me any scientific proof of your god and his role in the origins of the universe and we can discuss it.



That's a refreshing change from the usual disparaging remarks. :goodjob:

But no thank you, I have many times on this forum offered proof of many things only to be insulted, so the bottom line is, if it ain't important enough for you to seek Him out, nothing I have to say will change your mind.

When Christ walked the earth and performed miracles before the very eyes of the religious leaders at the time, you know what they asked?

Matthew 16:1
*1The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.*




***I had forgotten that part about the sailor's rhyme in there. (Red sky at night, red sky in the morning) Earlier today when I was talking to Nevada about how old "wives tales" are often based in science, that was one I was going to use.***


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> When Christ walked the earth and performed miracles before the very eyes of the religious leaders at the time, you know what they asked?


Other than scripture, how do you know that happened?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Other than scripture, how do you know that happened?


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

(I figured somebody was going to ask that one)

I have no idea Nevada. Most of the things that happened 2,000 years ago I either have to spend the 50 years of my own life thoroughly researching every detail personally, or at some point, start taking other people at THEIR word.
How do I "know" the Nile river flowed northward thru Egypt 2,000 years ago?
How do I "know" that the sun rose in the east and set in the west 2,000 years ago?
Should I take an ancient map's word for it, or an ancient astrologer's word for it?
After all, I still wasn't there to witness it for myself. That's the gold standard of "proof" isn't it?
Maybe if I can get to retire and you're still around, we can take a little expedition to the Holy Land and do some investigating.:goodjob:
I think it would be fun and interesting, but God's funny about stuff like that. If you noticed Jesus' replies to the Pharisees constant taunting, He was a chip off the old block. After a while, the proof is there for those who really want to see it, and those that won't see it, never will, no matter if you piled a mountain as high as Everest in front of them. :shrug:

There ARE sources independent of the scriptures that recount some of the events and document Jesus' existence, like Josephus, but those other sources will also be picked apart, in order to say "Still no proof".
Like I said, an entire mountain could be explained away.......

Have you ever noticed how many times Jesus would answer one of these types of question, with a question?
Here's one for you to think about.

A man with a humble background is executed at age 33 as a criminal today and 2,000 years from now is STILL the most talked about, the most influential person in human history, with little "proof" that he even existed..........
*Can you give me a "scientific explanation" as to how that would even be possible?*


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
> 
> (I figured somebody was going to ask that one)
> 
> I have no idea Nevada. Most of the things that happened 2,000 years ago I either have to spend the 50 years of my own life thoroughly researching every detail personally, or at some point, start taking other people at THEIR word.
> How do I "know" the Nile river flowed northward thru Egypt 2,000 years ago?
> How do I "know" that the sun rose in the east and set in the west 2,000 years ago?
> Should I take an ancient map's word for it, or an ancient astrologer's word for it?
> After all, I still wasn't there to witness it for myself. That's the gold standard of "proof" isn't it?
> Maybe if I can get to retire and you're still around, we can take a little expedition to the Holy Land and do some investigating.:goodjob:
> I think it would be fun and interesting, but God's funny about stuff like that. If you noticed Jesus' replies to the Pharisees constant taunting, He was a chip off the old block. After a while, the proof is there for those who really want to see it, and those that won't see it, never will, no matter if you piled a mountain as high as Everest in front of them. :shrug:
> 
> There ARE sources independent of the scriptures that recount some of the events and document Jesus' existence, like Josephus, but those other sources will also be picked apart, in order to say "Still no proof".
> Like I said, an entire mountain could be explained away.......
> 
> Have you ever noticed how many times Jesus would answer one of these types of question, with a question?
> Here's one for you to think about.
> 
> A man with a humble background is executed at age 33 as a criminal today and 2,000 years from now is STILL the most talked about, the most influential person in human history, with little "proof" that he even existed..........
> *Can you give me a "scientific explanation" as to how that would even be possible?*


I could but you wouldn't like the answers and rather than needlessly antagonizing you and being accused of attacking Christianity I'll just ask how the Buddha, who came long before Jesus, has such influence today and how Hinduism, which also predates Christianity, is dominant in many regions?


----------



## FourDeuce

Yeah, that's the problem with religious apologetics. For thousands of years, religious apologists have been saying they COULD prove their claims, but when it comes to actually doing it, they never do. When anybody makes claims they don't prove, they lose credibility. That's how logic works.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Would you care to look at the link in post #566 and kindly retract your accusation of lying?"
Nope. Like many people who don't understand how science works, you make the mistake of assuming that anything any scientist says(or even what some newspapers says some scientists said) represents what science says. It doesn't. That's why it's important to learn how science works.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Fortunately, He provided proof to me long ago.
> 
> When the time comes for anyone else to see their own "proof", He'll need no help from little ole me.:grin:


IF your opinion ever counts as evidence, that will help your credibility. Since that's not how logic works, it still fails.
Other people don't need "their own" proof of YOUR claims. That's not how logic works.


----------



## FourDeuce

dixiegal62 said:


> Okay so I guess I just imagined the whole anti fat campaign that's been thrown down our throats the last 30 something years...my bad


No, but your ignorance of how science works does not mean science is bad. You just imagined that being ignorant of science was the basis for an argument against science.


----------



## Shine

OK Four Deuce, we understand your stance, and the arrogance used to provide it.


----------



## farmrbrown

I just had to bow out for a bit and chuckle. It's a classic circle game, lol.
Whenever I read the part I posted about the Pharisees asking Jesus for yet another sign, I can never comprehend it.
They had actually watched him heal a lame man get up and walk, and then chided Him for working on the Sabbath!
They STILL had the audacity after that to go back and ask for another sign!
Jesus was no fool. There's no amount of "signs from heaven" to convince one who chooses not to believe.
I know the day WILL come that all doubt in God's existence will be removed, but unfortunately I also know that 1,000 years after that, there will still be some that reject Him..........believe it or not.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "Would you care to look at the link in post #566 and kindly retract your accusation of lying?"
> Nope. Like many people who don't understand how science works, you make the mistake of assuming that anything any scientist says(or even what some newspapers says some scientists said) represents what science says. It doesn't. That's why it's important to learn how science works.


That's pretty funny actually.
I think my academic achievements in math and science would "prove" that to be a very bad assumption on your part.
Be that as it may, the way I've seen "science work", is that it's accepted by most to be correct........until it turns out later, to be wrong.
:spinsmiley:
Does that about sum it up?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK Four Deuce, we understand your stance, and the arrogance used to provide it.


I don't see it as any more arrogant than when asked to *show * proof, some say, "Because I know", or they just quote Bible stories and say "See?"


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't see it as any more arrogant than when asked to *show * proof, some say, "Because I know", or they just quote Bible stories and say "See?"


Well then, I guess you could say that one man's arrogance is another's faith and visa versa if you really want to... You might receive the proof you need one day, then again, you might not but I really hope that you do.

...but I do not ever think that I have knowingly spoken with the perceived intent to harm as we see above.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't see it as any more arrogant than when asked to *show * proof, some say, "Because I know", or they just quote Bible stories and say "See?"


The answer isn't meant to be arrogant, but confusion can sometimes be interpreted that way.

The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply can't be done.
Asking someone to convince you of a personal conviction by reciting personal and intimate experiences doesn't always (maybe never) result in the other person coming to the same conclusion.
This isn't like a demonstration of gravity, where all spectators can view the same event. Even in that specific example, there will always be some in the crowd who missed something, misinterpreted it, or believe otherwise for their own personal reasons.

The best answer to the question posed in the case of God, is always to ask the One *with* the power to prove it, not the ones without.
That's the only way. If it were possible any other way, it would have been done long ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Well then, I guess you could say that one man's arrogance is another's faith and visa versa if you really want to... You might receive the proof you need one day, then again, you might not but I really hope that you do.
> 
> ...but I do not ever think that I have knowingly spoken with the *perceived* intent to harm as we see above.


I didn't see any "intent to harm".
I just saw some simple facts about what is "proof" and what is "opinion"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The answer isn't meant to be arrogant, but confusion can sometimes be interpreted that way.
> 
> The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply can't be done.


If the question can't be answered, then making up answers serves no purpose. Just say there is no proof.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> If the question can't be answered, then making up answers serves no purpose. Just say there is no proof.



I didn't say it can't be answered, I said it is likely that the answers I give will not be accepted by everyone. I don't consider that "making up" an answer, it was thought out to the best of my ability, and the purpose was to honestly engage with another human being.
I can't honestly say, "There is *no proof*", only that MY proof may not be sufficient enough for anyone else, as I said previously........ 



FourDeuce said:


> You need to prove gods exist before you try to quote them.





farmrbrown said:


> Fortunately, He provided proof to me long ago.
> 
> When the time comes for anyone else to see their own "proof", He'll need no help from little ole me.:grin:


If things are truly put under critical examination, what we call "facts" are really opinions that have been accepted by most people, based on other humans' offering of evidence.
The "fact" that there will always be a percentage of those who insist on more proof before they will change their opinion and accept the others' "fact" is proof of my answer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I didn't say it *can't* be answered


You didn't?



> The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply *can't* be done.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfoot, this ain't the subject to start playing the word game "Twist".

When you get honest, clear answers that convict your soul, that's when you pull out the Twist game and start the harassment.
Even your fellow game players see it, and they enjoy the fun too.


*Quote:
I didn't say it can't be answered
You didn't?

Quote:
The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply can't be done.*


My proof was rejected by the asker.
My answers were rejected by the askers.
Repeating more and more reasons why I believe God to be true will be rejected by the askers.


I CAN type the words on the page, if that is what this word game is about, and I already did.
But the reader will NOT accept them.
Therefore, there's nothing more I CAN do, other than tell them to ask the ultimate source.

Since your goal is only humiliation , not discussion, I'll end your silly game by saying "You Win."

This is for the forum to read, please........

*Bearfoot has caught me in another terrible mistake again, folks. I used the word "CAN'T" when I should have said, "I can, and I have, but it didn't do any good."*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nope
Wrong again 

I didn't even address you until you quoted me, so it's disingenuous to claim "my goal is only humiliation"


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> When Christ walked the earth and performed miracles before the very eyes of the religious leaders at the time, you know what they asked?


 Aside from your faith in Jesus and his divine nature, what is your view on the origin and evolution of the universe? Do you subscribe to the 'young earth' theory?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> That's a refreshing change from the usual disparaging remarks. :goodjob:
> 
> But no thank you, I have many times on this forum offered proof of many things only to be insulted, so the bottom line is, if it ain't important enough for you to seek Him out, nothing I have to say will change your mind.
> 
> When Christ walked the earth and performed miracles before the very eyes of the religious leaders at the time, you know what they asked?
> 
> Matthew 16:1
> *1The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***I had forgotten that part about the sailor's rhyme in there. (Red sky at night, red sky in the morning) Earlier today when I was talking to Nevada about how old "wives tales" are often based in science, that was one I was going to use.***


http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/139/

Here's a scientific explanation of red sky at night. No mysticism, divine intervention or message from the gods neccessary. Just early man putting two and two together and coming up with four. Simple science. Observation and analysis.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If the question can't be answered, then making up answers serves no purpose. Just say there is no proof.


I'll go you one further: There is no proof that I can provide that you will accept. The "proof" is not within my control.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/139/
> 
> Here's a scientific explanation of red sky at night. No mysticism, divine intervention or message from the gods neccessary. Just early man putting two and two together and coming up with four. Simple science. Observation and analysis.


The Red Sky observations was not the subject of those verses, it was the discernment of the Pharisees and the Sadducees and their desire to submit Jesus to their tests.


----------



## FourDeuce

Bearfootfarm said:


> If the question can't be answered, then making up answers serves no purpose. Just say there is no proof.


When there is no proof, many people find that fact uncomfortable, so they feel the need to make up answers.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> I didn't say it can't be answered, I said it is likely that the answers I give will not be accepted by everyone. I don't consider that "making up" an answer, it was thought out to the best of my ability, and the purpose was to honestly engage with another human being.
> I can't honestly say, "There is *no proof*", only that MY proof may not be sufficient enough for anyone else, as I said previously........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If things are truly put under critical examination, what we call "facts" are really opinions that have been accepted by most people, based on other humans' offering of evidence.
> The "fact" that there will always be a percentage of those who insist on more proof before they will change their opinion and accept the others' "fact" is proof of my answer.


The fact that some people consider themselves exempt from logic is proof that their credibility is lacking.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I can't honestly say, "There is *no proof*", only that MY proof may not be sufficient enough for anyone else, as I said previously........ "
That's why rational people don't ask for "your proof". They ask for ANY proof. Presenting what you consider proof doesn't count when it isn't proof.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> The Red Sky observations was not the subject of those verses, it was the discernment of the Pharisees and the Sadducees and their desire to submit Jesus to their tests.


I understand what was said. I also understand that early man likely saw these as omens and portents from the gods and some likely gained power from being able to predict tomorrow's weather from these messages from the gods. Some will still look at those clouds and see god's will. Others will see light shining through the atmosphere doing what light does. I can prove light's role in this phenomena. None can prove god's role and can only claim that those who don't see it are blind. I, personally, can see quite well.


----------



## fireweed farm

FourDeuce said:


> The fact that some people consider themselves exempt from logic is proof that their credibility is lacking.


They failed the Gullibility Test.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I'll go you one further: There is no proof that I can provide that you will accept. The "proof" is not within my control.


If you could offer some actual proof I'd gladly accept it.
You've offered nothing of that nature, but continue to claim it exists


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you could offer some actual proof I'd gladly accept it.
> You've offered nothing of that nature, but continue to claim it exists



When one has seen it with their own two eyes you can only lie or tell the truth. However, this too would not be your proof, only mine...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> When one has seen it with their own two eyes you can only lie or tell the truth. However, this too would not be *your proof*, only mine...


Real proof is proof, independent of who is observing.
What you keep referring to exists only in your mind


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you could offer some actual proof I'd gladly accept it.
> You've offered nothing of that nature, but continue to claim it exists


Show me *one post* in 37,000+ where you've done that.
I don't mean a thread where you agreed with what was posted, I mean a thread where you asked for someone to show you proof of something you didn't believe, they showed it and you "gladly accepted it".


----------



## FourDeuce

"Show me *one post* in 37,000+ where you've done that."
Show some proof and you could see one post where it was done.:hysterical:

"The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply can't be done."
It can if you actually HAVE any proof.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> Just PLEASE don't try and tell me the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't buy that for one split second. The evidence shows otherwise.





farmrbrown said:


> I would never tell you that.
> It's both unscientific an unbiblical.
> 
> I know where and how that idea came about, and I am sorry some of my brothers and sisters were led astray by not reading carefully enough.
> But nowhere does God say the earth is only 6,000 years old, in fact he tells a very different story.......





greg273 said:


> Aside from your faith in Jesus and his divine nature, what is your view on the origin and evolution of the universe? Do you subscribe to the 'young earth' theory?



As you can see from the quotes from a few pages ago, I already answered you once.
The answer is the same.
No, I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
I do believe it was created by God billions of years ago.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> When there is no proof, many people find that fact uncomfortable, so they feel the need to make up answers.





FourDeuce said:


> The fact that some people consider themselves exempt from logic is proof that their credibility is lacking.


I wasn't "making anything up" and the fact that you remain unconvinced does NOT mean "I am exempt from logic".
I apologize if I mistook your questions as an attempt at sincere dialogue.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable trading insults with other members.
There are several here that will gladly accommodate you.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "Show me *one post* in 37,000+ where you've done that."
> Show some proof and you could see one post where it was done.:hysterical:
> 
> "The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply can't be done."
> It can if you actually HAVE any proof.


I posted some of mine already.
They are called scriptures from the Holy Bible.
If I thought this wasn't an attempt at further ridicule, I might have shared personal experiences with God, but you have made it clear you will not consider anything I tell you as "proof".
So what would you have me say?

The best proof in the world has already been shown on this earth, and as I posted there were eyewitnesses who yet did not accept it.
So, again I say, there's none that will come from me that will satisfy you.
If you REALLY want proof, ask Him yourself.


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> "Show me *one post* in 37,000+ where you've done that."
> Show some proof and you could see one post where it was done.:hysterical:
> 
> "The question asked, "Show me your proof" simply can't be done."
> It can if you actually HAVE any proof.


Do you have proof that we are here because of evolution? It is a yes or no question.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> I do believe it was created by God billions of years ago.


 So where is the argument?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Show me *one post* in 37,000+ where you've done that.
> I don't mean a thread where you agreed with what was posted, I mean a thread where you asked for someone to show you proof of something you didn't believe, they showed it and you "gladly accepted it".


Nope
The thread's not about me


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> Do you have proof that we are here because of evolution? It is a yes or no question.


Asking me to prove something I didn't claim is disingenuous, dishonest, and not very smart. Is that your way of trying to distract attention from your failure to prove any gods exist? That's a yes or no question too.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> I posted some of mine already.
> They are called scriptures from the Holy Bible."
> 
> Those are only called "proof" by people who don't have a clue what proof is.
> 
> "If I thought this wasn't an attempt at further ridicule, I might have shared personal experiences with God, but you have made it clear you will not consider anything I tell you as "proof"."
> Since I never said that, exactly how have I "made that clear? I will accept any proof you present. As long as you continue to try to substitute your opinions for proof, you will continue to fail.
> 
> "So what would you have me say?"
> 
> Something rational would be a nice change.
> 
> The best proof in the world has already been shown on this earth, and as I posted there were eyewitnesses who yet did not accept it.
> So, again I say, there's none that will come from me that will satisfy you.
> If you REALLY want proof, ask Him yourself.


 I never ask imaginary beings any questions. Since you don't seem to know anything about logic, I'll explain some of the basics for you.
I don't want proof. YOU make the claim, so you need to provide proof. If you continue to fail at that(as you have been doing), you lose credibility. That's how logic works. If you don't understand that, you will continue to lose credibility.


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> I never ask imaginary beings any questions. Since you don't seem to know anything about logic, I'll explain some of the basics for you.
> I don't want proof. YOU make the claim, so you need to provide proof. If you continue to fail at that(as you have been doing), you lose credibility. That's how logic works. If you don't understand that, you will continue to lose credibility.


You appear to have no understanding of "Faith" - Faith is the expectation of those things unseen. It is a primary necessity of our tenets. If you read the Bible, you will understand that necessity. 

Your demand for proof will never happen unless it is He that convinces you that He is who He is, as happened with me. I cannot prove it to you for it is not within my capabilities, that is what you will receive from Christians, an acceptance that God is in control of who gets drawn to Him, for once that occurs, you will have your "proof".

There is absolutely no way around that maxim.

For Christians, it is to us to answer to those that come to us with questions, it is up to us to live the life that outwardly reveals His love, His kindness, His Glory in which all of us sadly fail time and time again, because we are sinners, we are unable to be the perfect mirror to Him, we can shine but not anywhere as bright as He does...


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> You appear to have no understanding of "Faith" - Faith is the expectation of those things unseen. It is a primary necessity of our tenets. If you read the Bible, you will understand that necessity.
> 
> Your demand for proof will never happen unless it is He that convinces you that He is who He is, as happened with me. I cannot prove it to you for it is not within my capabilities, that is what you will receive from Christians, an acceptance that God is in control of who gets drawn to Him, for once that occurs, you will have your "proof".
> 
> There is absolutely no way around that maxim.
> 
> For Christians, it is to us to answer to those that come to us with questions, it is up to us to live the life that outwardly reveals His love, His kindness, His Glory in which all of us sadly fail time and time again, because we are sinners, we are unable to be the perfect mirror to Him, we can shine but not anywhere as bright as He does...


 All well and good, more power to you. Still not buying the 6000 year old earth deal and the rest of the creationist nonsense.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> All well and good, more power to you. Still not buying the 6000 year old earth deal and the rest of the creationist nonsense.


I have had nothing to do with the Young Earth movement. I know that this earth is as old as the rocks test to be. That is a distraction by quoting me and then suggesting that I subscribe to that portion of the Mystery of God.

I am comfortable believing that He is much older than the 14 some billion years that this universe has been in operation... 

...you know, the eternity clause? 

Which, by the way, is just life that is not constrained by time.


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> You appear to have no understanding of "Faith" - Faith is the expectation of those things unseen. It is a primary necessity of our tenets.


We all have faith. In fact, if someone had no faith at all he would be dead. After all, without faith that our water supply, food supply, or medicine is safe we would have to be crazy to consume any of those things. Without faith that a bridge was safe you would never take the chance of crossing it, so you couldn't ride in a car -- let alone drive.

Some HT members have a severe lack of faith in people who devote their lives to understanding the various aspects of our surroundings. But the truth is that people don't generally devote their lives to science just to defraud the public with false or unreliable information.

Faith isn't just about religion. If you think about it, most of your faith has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> I am comfortable believing that He is much older than the 14 some billion years that this universe has been in operation...


The universe is probably much older than 14 billion years. The universe as we know it consists of a debris field launched by the big bang 14 billion years ago, but that's not to say that it all began 14 billion years ago. It's just that we can't see anything beyond the big bang debris field.


----------



## Shine

I have been, ever since at 5 years old when my father sat his tool box beside our old non-working lawn mower and told me to take it apart without him explaining how the tools worked, one who delights in taking things apart, it lead me through a medical career and then through technology, my degree is in robotics, I delight in taking things apart and successfully putting them back together. 

My faith is not in myself, I had run from Jesus as fast as I could only to find Him where ever I ran to... He had chosen me regardless of what I wanted...

Now He changes me for His use.


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> You appear to have no understanding of "Faith" - Faith is the expectation of those things unseen. It is a primary necessity of our tenets. If you read the Bible, you will understand that necessity.
> 
> Your demand for proof will never happen unless it is He that convinces you that He is who He is, as happened with me. I cannot prove it to you for it is not within my capabilities, that is what you will receive from Christians, an acceptance that God is in control of who gets drawn to Him, for once that occurs, you will have your "proof".
> 
> There is absolutely no way around that maxim.
> 
> For Christians, it is to us to answer to those that come to us with questions, it is up to us to live the life that outwardly reveals His love, His kindness, His Glory in which all of us sadly fail time and time again, because we are sinners, we are unable to be the perfect mirror to Him, we can shine but not anywhere as bright as He does...


"You appear to have no understanding of "Faith""
You keep demonstrating that you have no understanding of logic. I don't NEED to understand faith. Rational adults don't need any faith.
Like most religious apologists, your lack of understanding of logic keeps interfering with communication. Statements like this: "Your demand for proof" show why you shouldn't try to discuss philosophy. Atheists don't demand proof from you. Logic does that. When you make a claim, logic says prove it. If you can't prove it, you are foolish to make the claim.
"If you read the Bible, you will understand that necessity."
BTW, you keep mistaking "having no use for faith" with "having no understanding of faith". 
I read your bible about 40 years ago. It wasn't convincing then, and it hasn't changed.
IF you learn some logic, you will understand why your continuous unproven claims keep destroying your credibility.


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> Asking me to prove something I didn't claim is disingenuous, dishonest, and not very smart. Is that your way of trying to distract attention from your failure to prove any gods exist? That's a yes or no question too.


Asking me to prove something I didn't claim is disingenuous, dishonest, and not very smart. Is this your way of trying to distract attention from your failure to prove that evolution is scientifically sound? This too is a yes or no question.

I never claimed what your attributing to me did i? Please post my exact comment that led your to this absurd conclusion. I've never attempted to prove any God exists, anywhere, anytime. 

And you still couldn't answer that simple question could you? :hysterical:


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> "You appear to have no understanding of "Faith""
> You keep demonstrating that you have no understanding of logic. I don't NEED to understand faith. Rational adults don't need any faith.
> Like most religious apologists, your lack of understanding of logic keeps interfering with communication. Statements like this: "Your demand for proof" show why you shouldn't try to discuss philosophy. Atheists don't demand proof from you. Logic does that. When you make a claim, logic says prove it. If you can't prove it, you are foolish to make the claim.
> "If you read the Bible, you will understand that necessity."
> BTW, you keep mistaking "having no use for faith" with "having no understanding of faith".
> I read your bible about 40 years ago. It wasn't convincing then, and it hasn't changed.
> IF you learn some logic, you will understand why your continuous unproven claims keep destroying your credibility.


Talk about a rant. I employed logic to examine my faith and found the proofs that I had been given sufficient to validate it. 

You have not seen what I have.

You have not felt what I have.

You do not know what my thought process is but you seem to want to convince others that you are superior. 

I will allow you to go on thinking that way and wish you well.

P.S. you've made it far though in the one snippet: "your Bible" - that's right. I have a Bible that was written specifically for me and me alone. I can only apply what is learned within its teachings to bettering myself and attempting to change the things that I can. The only one that I can beat on the head with it is me. When and if you receive the call, then you will understand. And no, I am not special in any other way than I am just me...


----------



## FourDeuce

"Talk about a rant."
Actually we were talking about the fairy tale you believe in and your claim that you have evidence for it.
"I employed logic to examine my faith and found the proofs that I had been given sufficient to validate it."
And yet you still can't produce ANY proof. :hysterical:

"You have not seen what I have."
You have not learned critical thinking skills.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> Asking me to prove something I didn't claim is disingenuous, dishonest, and not very smart. Is this your way of trying to distract attention from your failure to prove that evolution is scientifically sound? This too is a yes or no question.
> Since I made no claim about evolution, your dishonest question is still just as dishonest as it was the first time you asked it.
> 
> I never claimed what your attributing to me did i? Please post my exact comment that led your to this absurd conclusion. I've never attempted to prove any God exists, anywhere, anytime.
> 
> And you still couldn't answer that simple question could you? :hysterical:


I did, but you couldn't handle the answer. Growing up will help you learn to deal with answers you don't like, IF you ever do it.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> I never ask imaginary beings any questions. Since you don't seem to know anything about logic, I'll explain some of the basics for you.
> I don't want proof. YOU make the claim, so you need to provide proof. If you continue to fail at that(as you have been doing), you lose credibility. That's how logic works. If you don't understand that, you will continue to lose credibility.





FourDeuce said:


> "Talk about a rant."
> Actually we were talking about the fairy tale you believe in and your claim that you have evidence for it.
> "I employed logic to examine my faith and found the proofs that I had been given sufficient to validate it."
> And yet you still can't produce ANY proof. :hysterical:
> 
> "You have not seen what I have."
> You have not learned critical thinking skills.





FourDeuce said:


> I did, but you couldn't handle the answer. Growing up will help you learn to deal with answers you don't like, IF you ever do it.




I mentioned Einstein earlier in this thread, in a conciliatory gesture, when the debate was getting a little disrespectful - on both sides.
His personal views are not well known but he did have sense and humility to express his awe for the universe and some doubts about the certainty of its origin and workings.
There is little doubt that he was a giant among scientists and critical thinkers.

And while I'm sure that there are many scientists today who share your view of the Bible and God, I'd like to remind you that does not mean everyone who doesn't think the way you do, is a bumbling idiot devoid of all logic and ignorant of science.

Is it possible to be in the Science Hall of Fame and still believe in God, the Creator of the universe?

Oh yeah........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> I did, but you couldn't handle the answer. Growing up will help you learn to deal with answers you don't like, IF you ever do it.


Insults instead of facts and answers is childish, i expect that from you now. It's so sad and pathetic that you just can't answer a very simple question without playing games.


----------



## FourDeuce

"And while I'm sure that there are many scientists today who share your view of the Bible and God, I'd like to remind you that does not mean everyone who doesn't think the way you do, is a bumbling idiot devoid of all logic and ignorant of science."
I don't know if anybody said that, but I know I didn't say it. That makes your Straw Man as worthless as all logical fallacies.
BTW, Einstein's opinion on imaginary beings is not important to any rational person. That Appeal to Authority Fallacy has been failing for centuries, and it will continue to fail as long as some people understand logic.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Is it possible to be in the Science Hall of Fame and still believe in God, the Creator of the universe?"

It's also possible to be a scientist and an idiot, but that has nothing to do with whether fairy tales are true. IF you had any logical arguments, there would be no need for you to try lame logical fallacies like that one.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> Insults instead of facts and answers is childish, i expect that from you now. It's so sad and pathetic that you just can't answer a very simple question without playing games.


Not as sad and pathetic as the fact that you keep lying about what I posted. :hohum:


----------



## farmrbrown

I personally don't consider either man foolish and think a rational person might do well to at least consider their opinions rather than dismissing them outright.
Of course, opinions will vary.........


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> "Talk about a rant."
> Actually we were talking about the fairy tale you believe in and your claim that you have evidence for it.
> "I employed logic to examine my faith and found the proofs that I had been given sufficient to validate it."
> And yet you still can't produce ANY proof. :hysterical:
> 
> "You have not seen what I have."
> You have not learned critical thinking skills.


Another slight without true understanding of who the person you are slighting is, I endeavor to take it in stride.

Please continue, it only makes me stronger in that I understand and have been told that I would be attacked.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> I personally don't consider either man foolish and think a rational person might do well to at least consider their opinions rather than dismissing them outright.
> Of course, opinions will vary.........


Rational people don't usually take advice from irrational people. Anybody who tries to use logical fallacies as arguments is an irrational person.
Informed opinions are usually valued more than uninformed opinions.


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> Another slight without true understanding of who the person you are slighting is, I endeavor to take it in stride.
> 
> Please continue, it only makes me stronger in that I understand and have been told that I would be attacked.


Yeah, every con artists tells his suckers things like that. People who are foolish enough to believe the con will also believe the other lies they are fed to "support" those cons. :hysterical:


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> A man with a humble background is executed at age 33 as a criminal today and 2,000 years from now is STILL the most talked about, the most influential person in human history, with little "proof" that he even existed..........
> *Can you give me a "scientific explanation" as to how that would even be possible?*





FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, every con artists tells his suckers things like that. People who are foolish enough to believe the con will also believe the other lies they are fed to "support" those cons. :hysterical:


That one, we are familiar with, "He was the greatest con artist to ever live!"

Sure......that's one of two options.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> I personally don't consider either man foolish and think a rational person might do well to at least consider their opinions rather than dismissing them outright.
> Of course, opinions will vary.........





FourDeuce said:


> Rational people don't usually take advice from irrational people. Anybody who tries to use logical fallacies as arguments is an irrational person.
> Informed opinions are usually valued more than uninformed opinions.


For someone who relies so heavily on logic and reason, you sure have a pretty low opinion of Newton, Einstein and other giants in the field of science.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the men who discovered the foundations of modern physics were "irrational" or "uninformed"?


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "I accept science as long as its not based on unproven assumptions."
> 
> IF you knew anything about science, you would understand that science is NEVER based on unproven assumptions. Science is not based on any assumptions.


And what scientifically based 'proof' is there for the assumption that the properties of light are the same in deep space as they are on earth?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> And what scientifically based 'proof' is there for the assumption that the properties of light are the same in deep space as they are on earth?


Didn't you do about 5 pages on this one time before?

Wouldn't it be easier to link to that thread?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't you do about 5 pages on this one time before?
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to link to that thread?


Seeing as how no one has offered any proof to back up their assumptions I have to assume they haven't read it.

If you don't have proof of something you have to assume it correct? So the theories on the universe are all based on assumptions which means its based on FAITH not science. Right?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Seeing as how no one has offered any proof to back up their assumptions I have to assume they haven't read it.
> 
> If you don't have proof of something you have to assume it correct? So the theories on the universe are all based on assumptions which means its based on FAITH not science. Right?


A few hundred years of scientific observation, analysis and confirmation seem to indicate scientists know what their talking about when they refer to the speed of light in a vacuum( ie. deep space).http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

I don't really have time to link thousands of papers and treatises but we keep learning as our tools for studying and measuring such things become more sophisticated and accurate that the "assumptions" made by those early pioneers hold up. As much effort is made to disprove things as to prove them yet more and more they are proven.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> And what scientifically based 'proof' is there for the assumption that the properties of light are the same in deep space as they are on earth?


The thing is is that if tomorrow a discovery was made that proved everything we think we know about light and it's properties to be wrong science will rewrite what it knows, develop new theories and continue to examine and question things. Science can make mistakes and discover and correct them. Faith leaves no such option.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Seeing as how no one has offered any proof to back up their assumptions I have to assume they haven't read it.
> 
> If you don't have proof of something you have to assume it correct? So the theories on the universe are all based on assumptions which means its based on FAITH not science. Right?


Assumptions can be based on science when there's evidence to support them.

The basic laws of physics say things don't change without an outside force affecting them, so until there is further evidence seen to the contrary, there's no reason to think the speed of light changes by any easily measurable degree.

There does seem to be some new evidence supporting the theory of "gravitational waves" that Einstein ASSUMED would exist.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...cientists-await-word-gravitational-waves.html

None of that relates to religions though, since that is all theory and assumptions


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> A few hundred years of scientific observation, analysis and confirmation seem to indicate scientists know what their talking about when they refer to the speed of light in a vacuum( ie. deep space).http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
> 
> I don't really have time to link thousands of papers and treatises but we keep learning as our tools for studying and measuring such things become more sophisticated and accurate that the "assumptions" made by those early pioneers hold up. As much effort is made to disprove things as to prove them yet more and more they are proven.


Science has shown that light is affected by gravity, "proven" by black holes and the like, therefore it is just an assumption taken on faith that when there is no gravity, as in deep space, its properties are the same as it is on and near earth.

The universe doesn't act as the scientist's math, based on their assumptions on the properties of light, says it should be acting. Now because of this they make another assumption or two. They assume their first assumption is correct and assume there must be something out there which they can not detect in any way that is causing the universe to not fit their equations. They must do this as not to counter one of the writs/gods of their religion; the all mighty properties of light are, were and will always be.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The thing is is that if tomorrow a discovery was made that proved everything we think we know about light and it's properties to be wrong science will rewrite what it knows, develop new theories and continue to examine and question things. Science can make mistakes and discover and correct them. Faith leaves no such option.


So you admit science is just assuming the properties of light are the same in deep space and all the theories on the size and age of the universe are based on nothing but the faith that assumption?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Assumptions can be based on science when there's evidence to support them.
> 
> The basic laws of physics say things don't change without an outside force affecting them, so until there is further evidence seen to the contrary, there's no reason to think the speed of light changes by any easily measurable degree.
> 
> There does seem to be some new evidence supporting the theory of "gravitational waves" that Einstein ASSUMED would exist.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...cientists-await-word-gravitational-waves.html
> 
> None of that relates to religions though, since that is all theory and assumptions


 So. . . when there an assumption which you like and it can't be proven its science but an assumption which you don't like and can't prove its religion.

Assumption one. There is something out there which we can detect in any way that is causing the universe to not follow our mathematical model and its dark matter. Science.

Assumption two. There is something out there which we can detect in any way that is causing the universe to not follow our mathematical model and its space turtles. Religion.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So you admit science is just assuming the properties of light are the same in deep space and all the theories on the size and age of the universe are based on nothing but the faith that assumption?


Sure, I'll admit it. It doesn't invalidate the science or make it a religion.
It's a rather simplistic way of putting things but the basis of science is putting forth an assumption and then seeking information that confirms or denies that assumption. Every bit of information, positive or negative , is taken into account and used to support or disprove those assumptions. Its not taken on faith the assumptions are true.


----------



## Shine

Some will allow assumptions to build science and then turn around and disallow assumptions with actual backup that others use to build faith. It is somewhat disconcerting...


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Sure, I'll admit it. It doesn't invalidate the science or make it a religion.
> It's a rather simplistic way of putting things but the basis of science is putting forth an assumption and then seeking information that confirms or denies that assumption. Every bit of information, positive or negative , is taken into account and used to support or disprove those assumptions. Its not taken on faith the assumptions are true.


 
If you were buying a pig based on weight and the you assume it weighed 400# but when you put it on the scales and it weights 390#. Would you think your assumption was wrong or that the scales are wrong?

Now you assume the properties of light are constant across the universe but when you look at the universe it doesn't act the way it 'should'. Why do you not think that your assumption is wrong? Could it be because if that one assumption is wrong it means everything you believe about the universe is wrong as well because the entire science is based on it?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> If you were buying a pig based on weight and the you assume it weighed 400# but when you put it on the scales and it weights 390#. Would you think your assumption was wrong or that the scales are wrong?
> 
> Now you assume the properties of light are constant across the universe but when you look at the universe it doesn't act the way it 'should'. Why do you not think that your assumption is wrong? Could it be because if that one assumption is wrong it means everything you believe about the universe is wrong as well because the entire science is based on it?


I could also do what science does. Check the scales accuracy and determine whether my assumption was wrong. Thats what science does.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So. . . when there an assumption which you like and it can't be proven its science but an assumption which you don't like and can't prove its religion.
> 
> Assumption one. There is something out there which we can detect in any way that is causing the universe to not follow our mathematical model and its dark matter. Science.
> 
> Assumption two. There is something out there which we can detect in any way that is causing the universe to not follow our mathematical model and its space turtles. Religion.


My belief in science allows for the assumption that there is a god. Your faith has no room for the possibility there isn't.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Could it be because if that one assumption is wrong it means everything you believe about the universe is wrong as well because the entire science is based on it?


In huge scientific news today, gravitational waves have finally been confirmed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/gravitational-waves-feat/index.html

Seems that assumptions made back in 1915 were pretty good.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So. . . when there an assumption which you like and it can't be proven its science but *an assumption which you don't like and can't prove its religion.*
> 
> Assumption one. There is something out there which we can detect in any way that is causing the universe to not follow our mathematical model and its dark matter. Science.
> 
> Assumption two. There is something out there which we can detect in any way that is causing the universe to not follow our mathematical model and its space turtles. Religion.


I don't "like or dislike" religion.

I've just never seen any evidence that really supports it, unlike scientific evidence.

"Dark Matter" isn't an assumption.
It's a *theory* that could explain observations based on proven facts.

Religion is an assumption based on an assumption, and no one can agree which is the "correct" assumption, even though they are assured it's only theirs and not any others. 

If you're going to start rambling about space turtles again I'm done, since we've had this conversation already and it was boring that time too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Some will allow assumptions to build science and then turn around and disallow assumptions *with actual backup* that others use to build faith. It is somewhat* disconcerting*...


It shouldn't be disconcerting when most of "science" can be shown through repeatable experiments, and most of religion relies on nothing more than "I believe". 

You haven't *shown* any "actual backup". You just keep talking about it.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> And what scientifically based 'proof' is there for the assumption that the properties of light are the same in deep space as they are on earth?


Another request for me to prove something I never claimed? You really need to learn some critical thinking skills if you want to discuss philosophy.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Seeing as how no one has offered any proof to back up their assumptions I have to assume they haven't read it.
> 
> If you don't have proof of something you have to assume it correct? So the theories on the universe are all based on assumptions which means its based on FAITH not science. Right?


The problem is that you are not asking other people to back up their assumption. You are asking them to prove YOUR lies about their assumptions.
No, I don't have to assume anything. That's another of those lessons rational people learn during the growing-up process.
The fact that you are desperate to lie about science doesn't change science. It also doesn't help you prove your imaginary friends exist. In fact, it has nothing to do with proving your imaginary friends exist. That's why the Red Herring fallacy fails.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> For someone who relies so heavily on logic and reason, you sure have a pretty low opinion of Newton, Einstein and other giants in the field of science.
> Surely you aren't suggesting that the men who discovered the foundations of modern physics were "irrational" or "uninformed"?


Actually I don't have a low opinion of them. I just understand that they were human, and ALL humans are fallible.
ALL humans have the ability to be irrational and uninformed. Anybody who ignores that fact is irrational and uninformed.:hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> Not as sad and pathetic as the fact that you keep lying about what I posted. :hohum:


What lie would that be exactly? Why can't you answer a simple question? Your sounding just like your friends.


----------



## Elevenpoint

17 days...nearly 700 posts...over 10,000 views...Gods perfect design still in first...God has it all just right so there never will be the answer for humans...too many dead end roads for science...barely scratched the surface considering the unknown...makes life very interesting...none of us will ever know because the wisest man on earth can not understand what goes on under the sun.:goodjob:


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> What lie would that be exactly?"
> 
> That would be the lie you keep posting that I didn't answer your question.
> 
> "Why can't you answer a simple question?"
> 
> I already did. You're not rational enough or honest enough to realize I did, though.
> Your sounding just like your friends.


You're sounding just like the rest of the people who believe in fairy tales and spend all their time lying about other subjects instead of proving those fairy tales are true.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> 17 days...nearly 700 posts...over 10,000 views...Gods perfect design still in first...God has it all just right so there never will be the answer for humans...too many dead end roads for science...barely scratched the surface considering the unknown...makes life very interesting...none of us will ever know because the wisest man on earth can not understand what goes on under the sun.:goodjob:


Oh, the irony of preaching against science using the tools of science. IF you really have faith, why don't you pray your posts online? It's pretty hypocritical to try to insult science using things science gave you.:kung:


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Oh, the irony of preaching against science using the tools of science. IF you really have faith, why don't you pray your posts online? It's pretty hypocritical to try to insult science using things science gave you.:kung:


Although I have too many questions that have no answer..at all...I will let you have a crack at one. There is a creek in the Ozarks that has a specific specie of crawfish...or crawdad if you wish...that specie is not found in any body of water anywhere worldwide...only in that creek on the face of the earth. How did that happen? Explain in detail how that happened? When you are finished solving that we will move on to blind cavefish. Enjoy.


----------



## poppy

I find it rather interesting that we have a thread about the big bang and another on the laws of math. From my reading the threads, it appears those supporting the big bang theory (which I have no problem with BTW) somehow believe the laws of mathematics more or less happened by chance rather than by creation. The big bang would have been total chaos and that would mean order came out of disorder merely by chance.


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> You're sounding just like the rest of the people who believe in fairy tales and spend all their time lying about other subjects instead of proving those fairy tales are true.


Or, you could use all that intellect and answer the questions asked of you instead of playing stupid games. Be an adult. Repost the answer here, or give me a post number if you want to be taken seriously. Your choice.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> In huge scientific news today, gravitational waves have finally been confirmed.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/gravitational-waves-feat/index.html
> 
> Seems that assumptions made back in 1915 were pretty good.


Yes. This is at least the second time in a about a year that one of Einstein's controversial and seemingly far-fetched theories have been shown to be very accurate.
This after 100 years of debate and conflicting alternative explanations, ALL of which were extremely difficult to prove and even then, the "proof" will be questioned and critically examined.
Einstein's "assumptions" as you put it were more like observations and calculations that showed *something* was missing.......
He wasn't sure exactly what is was or if he could find it and prove it by calculations - but he was smart enough to know that we hadn't figured out everything yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Einstein's "assumptions" as you put it were more like *observations and calculations *that showed something was missing...


Correct....they weren't based on "faith" alone, and have been *shown* with science


----------



## greg273

poppy said:


> The big bang would have been total chaos and that would mean order came out of disorder merely by chance.


 The 'big bang' gets popularized as an 'explosion', but its more like an EXPANSION, according to the observations.
Order comes from chaos all the time... look at mineral crystals, the rings of Saturn, hurricanes, etc. Things forming and reforming, endlessly. Maybe thats God, maybe thats just the way it is. Probably both.


----------



## FourDeuce

poppy said:


> I find it rather interesting that we have a thread about the big bang and another on the laws of math. From my reading the threads, it appears those supporting the big bang theory (which I have no problem with BTW) somehow believe the laws of mathematics more or less happened by chance rather than by creation. The big bang would have been total chaos and that would mean order came out of disorder merely by chance.


The rational(and adult) choice when you wonder about what other people believe is to ask them. Assuming you know what they believe is disingenuous unless you can demonstrate your psychic abilities.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> Although I have too many questions that have no answer..at all...I will let you have a crack at one. There is a creek in the Ozarks that has a specific specie of crawfish...or crawdad if you wish...that specie is not found in any body of water anywhere worldwide...only in that creek on the face of the earth. How did that happen? Explain in detail how that happened? When you are finished solving that we will move on to blind cavefish. Enjoy.


If you want other people to answer your questions, you should answer their questions. Asking people other questions does not help you prove your imaginary friends exist. That's just a dishonest tactic used by people who CAN'T answer questions. They try to ask questions so nobody notices that they never delivered on their burden of proof. It doesn't work(logically), but it does sometimes distract attention from the subject being discussed.:hysterical:


----------



## Shine

Some evidence is here:

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe 
Parameter --------------------------------------Max. Deviation 
Ratio of Electronsrotons --------------------1:10 to the 37th 
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity ------1:10 to the 40th
Expansion Rate of Universe -------------------1:10 to the 55th
Mass Density of Universe1 --------------------1:10 to the 59th
Cosmological Constant ------------------------1:10 to the 120th
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, 
that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, 
or be unsuitable for any form of life.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

More from the above site:
The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, _The Creator and the Cosmos_







, which is reproduced here:One part in 10 to the 37th is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)​


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> If you want other people to answer your questions, you should answer their questions. Asking people other questions does not help you prove your imaginary friends exist. That's just a dishonest tactic used by people who CAN'T answer questions. They try to ask questions so nobody notices that they never delivered on their burden of proof. It doesn't work(logically), but it does sometimes distract attention from the subject being discussed.:hysterical:


Just answer that simple question...it only a lowly crawdad...go ahead. No nonsense. Go for it. None of your goofy answers just the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Some *evidence* is here:


Evidence of *what*?



> These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values,
> that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter,
> *or be unsuitable for any form of life*.


That's another unproven theory

Most of the known universe IS "unsuitable for any form of life"


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidence of *what*?
> 
> 
> 
> That's another unproven theory
> 
> Most of the known universe IS "unsuitable for any form of life"


lol, I guess I'm not going to be able to help you if you cannot put it together on your own. Unproven theory eh? Oh well... 

It is interesting the things that you accept and deny.

You must be smarter than the Scientists that made these measurements, you might want to call them and correct their findings... you could change the face of science and we will all live in paradise forever and ever...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> lol, I guess I'm not going to be able to help you if you cannot put it together on your own. Unproven theory eh? Oh well...
> 
> It is interesting the things that you accept and deny.
> 
> You must be smarter than the Scientists that made these measurements, you might want to call them and correct their findings... you could change the face of science and we will all live in paradise forever and ever...


I don't claim to be smarter than them.

I asked you what you think this "evidence" proves that has any meaning in the context of this thread.



> Quote:
> Some evidence is here:


Evidence of *what*?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I could also do what science does. Check the scales accuracy and determine whether my assumption was wrong. Thats what science does.


Nice way to not answer the question. But I'll play your game, how are you going to check the accuracy of the scales?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> In huge scientific news today, gravitational waves have finally been confirmed.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/gravitational-waves-feat/index.html
> 
> Seems that assumptions made back in 1915 were pretty good.


I read about that and two things. One, it in no way sheds any light (pun intended) on the question if light always acts the same.

Two, I know the articles aren't meant to go into great detail but I have to wonder how they made sure there wasn't some local (i.e. near earth) disturbance that caused the action.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't "like or dislike" religion.
> 
> I've just never seen any evidence that really supports it, unlike scientific evidence.
> 
> "Dark Matter" isn't an assumption.
> It's a *theory* that could explain observations based on proven facts.
> 
> Religion is an assumption based on an assumption, and no one can agree which is the "correct" assumption, even though they are assured it's only theirs and not any others.
> 
> If you're going to start rambling about space turtles again I'm done, since we've had this conversation already and it was boring that time too.


Its a theory that had to be put forth to allow other theories to be 'correct'. 

Its like you can't get an equation to fit with what you observe so you just multiply by zero and add in the number you need to fit your observations.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> The problem is that you are not asking other people to back up their assumption. You are asking them to prove YOUR lies about their assumptions.
> No, I don't have to assume anything. That's another of those lessons rational people learn during the growing-up process.
> The fact that you are desperate to lie about science doesn't change science. It also doesn't help you prove your imaginary friends exist. In fact, it has nothing to do with proving your imaginary friends exist. That's why the Red Herring fallacy fails.


So you have seen ANY scientific 'proof' that the properties of light never change? If not then you ARE assuming.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> Yes. This is at least the second time in a about a year that one of Einstein's controversial and seemingly far-fetched theories have been shown to be very accurate.
> This after 100 years of debate and conflicting alternative explanations, ALL of which were extremely difficult to prove and even then, the "proof" will be questioned and critically examined.
> Einstein's "assumptions" as you put it were more like observations and calculations that showed *something* was missing.......
> He wasn't sure exactly what is was or if he could find it and prove it by calculations - but he was smart enough to know that we hadn't figured out everything yet.


From what I have read he wasn't even sure. IIRC, he retracted then restated his theory twice.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> So you have seen ANY scientific 'proof' that the properties of light never change? If not then you ARE assuming.


Ah, there's those psychic abilities again. If you can read my mind(as you are pretending), then you should be able to post the number I'm thinking of. Once you do that, I'll accept your claim about what I am assuming(since I don't know I'm assuming things). Go ahead. Post the number so I can know you understand my mind better than I do.:spinsmiley:


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So you have seen ANY scientific 'proof' that the properties of light never change? If not then you ARE assuming.


The assumption that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe is reasonable. Without a compelling reason to believe otherwise, it's unreasonable to assume anything else.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't claim to be smarter than them.
> 
> I asked you what you think this "evidence" proves that has any meaning in the context of this thread.
> 
> 
> Evidence of *what*?


Well, I post a URL that has as it's domain name GodandScience, so - what the heck, I kinda' was thinking that this contained evidence that would support the existence of a "Creator" - then I read some of the info, read some more, browsed here and there and found that what was there does provide some evidence of a paranormal entity and some exploration of intelligent design which might suggest a need for His existence. 

But hey... that's just me...


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The assumption that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe is reasonable. Without a compelling reason to believe otherwise, it's unreasonable to assume anything else.


How about this for a compelling reason; The observed universe does not act the way the equations based on that law says it should and the only way to make it match up is to add in some unknown, unseen, undetectable something. 

But I'm glad to see you admit that your science is based on assumption, just as I have been saying.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Well, I post a URL that has as it's domain name GodandScience, so - what the heck, I kinda' was thinking that this contained *evidence that would support the existence of a "Creator" *- then I read some of the info, read some more, browsed here and there and found that what was there does provide some evidence of a paranormal entity and some exploration of intelligent design which might suggest a need for His existence.
> 
> But hey... that's just me...


I still don't see how you think all his math* theories* are "evidence" of some "creator" since there's no way to prove anything about his *theories *through experimentation.

You *want* to believe it, so you assume he's correct even when you still have to use uncertain terms like: "might suggest a need for"

Why not just admit there is no concrete evidence to be shown?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But I'm glad to see you admit that your science is based on assumption, just as I have been saying.


And you assume that the Bible is reliable and correct.


----------



## farmrbrown

How 'bout that?
There ARE no guarantees, in life, lol.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I still don't see how you think all his math* theories* are "evidence" of some "creator" since there's no way to prove anything about his *theories *through experimentation.
> 
> You *want* to believe it, so you assume he's correct even when you still have to use uncertain terms like: "might suggest a need for"
> 
> Why not just admit there is no concrete evidence to be shown?


Why not suggest that you cannot prove that He does not exist? I have enough legitimate experience that shows me that He does, so of course I can see the value of what that website shows.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Why not suggest that you cannot prove that He does not exist? I have enough legitimate experience that shows me that He does, so of course I can see the value of what that website shows.


Of course I can't prove a negative. I made no claims that I could

You are the one claiming to *have* proof but never showing anything

You're just doing what you always do, which is to dodge giving answers by asking another question


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course I can't prove a negative. I made no claims that I could
> 
> You are the one claiming to *have* proof but never showing anything
> 
> You're just doing what you always do, which is to dodge giving answers by asking another question


I have done my best to answer, genuinely, all of the legitimate questions that have been asked of me, unlike others. The foolish ones I have taken a pass on. You seem to have some sort of certainty that God does not exist and I have told you that He has revealed to me His existence. What was shown to me cannot be "shown" to anyone else except via a verbal explanation. I have provided that more than once only to be ridiculed by others including yourself.

I am convinced, I do not need additional confirmation but it is nice to see correlations that support His existence.

This is a subject that I do not need to "stick my neck out" or "go out on a limb", it has been proven to me. ...simple as that.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Why not suggest that you cannot prove that He does not exist?"

Because anybody foolish enough to try that argument also must believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Harry Potter, Middle Earth, Spiderman, and anything else which has never been disproven. One of the most basic concepts in logic is the burden of proof. That's why children usually learn about it when they are young.


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> Well, I post a URL that has as it's domain name GodandScience, so - what the heck, I kinda' was thinking that this contained evidence that would support the existence of a "Creator" - then I read some of the info, read some more, browsed here and there and found that what was there does provide some evidence of a paranormal entity and some exploration of intelligent design which might suggest a need for His existence.
> 
> But hey... that's just me...


Yes, it is. Rational people understand the difference between wishful thinking and providing evidence.:hysterical:
IF that site actually contained any evidence that any gods exist, it would be simple to just quote that evidence. Since nobody can quote any evidence, that should tell rational people that the site does not have any evidence to quote.


----------



## farmrbrown

Shine said:


> I have done my best to answer, genuinely, all of the legitimate questions that have been asked of me, unlike others. The foolish ones I have taken a pass on. You seem to have some sort of certainty that God does not exist and I have told you that He has revealed to me His existence. What was shown to me cannot be "shown" to anyone else except via a verbal explanation. I have provided that more than once only to be ridiculed by others including yourself.
> 
> I am convinced, I do not need additional confirmation but it is nice to see correlations that support His existence.
> 
> This is a subject that I do not need to "stick my neck out" or "go out on a limb", it has been proven to me. ...simple as that.


Some people "get it"........
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7644395
....... and some don't.

4deuce is an example of the latter.


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> "Why not suggest that you cannot prove that He does not exist?"
> 
> Because anybody foolish enough to try that argument also must believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Harry Potter, Middle Earth, Spiderman, and anything else which has never been disproven. One of the most basic concepts in logic is the burden of proof. That's why children usually learn about it when they are young.


Funny. I do not believe that the entities that you listed above exist in our reality except as folklore and movie characters. Any other conclusions that you might be able legitimately accuse those that you intend to malign of?

You do not have the proof that I have and you would not accept it until it is revealed to you and that will not happen until He chooses to do so.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> Yes, it is. Rational people understand the difference between wishful thinking and providing evidence.:hysterical:
> IF that site actually contained any evidence that any gods exist, it would be simple to just quote that evidence. Since nobody can quote any evidence, that should tell rational people that the site does not have any evidence to quote.


Yet when evidence IS quoted, you reject it.
???
What is the point in asking for more?


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> Yes, it is. Rational people understand the difference between wishful thinking and providing evidence.:hysterical:
> IF that site actually contained any evidence that any gods exist, it would be simple to just quote that evidence. Since nobody can quote any evidence, that should tell rational people that the site does not have any evidence to quote.


The site speaks loudly towards intelligent design. You have passed it by without anything other than "sorry, I do not accept your conclusions" - so there is no sense in continuing this discussion with you.


----------



## farmrbrown

Shine said:


> The site speaks loudly towards intelligent design. You have passed it by without anything other than "sorry, I do not accept your conclusions" - so there is no sense in continuing this discussion with you.


Shine, you can only show them the well.
No one can force them to drink the water.


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> You seem to have some sort of certainty that God does not exist and I have told you that He has revealed to me His existence.


Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some but not others? He must do it in an undeniable way to make you so certain, so why do so many people not have that experience?

Do you think those people are just stubborn and are rejecting obvious evidence of God? Maybe you think God needs a certain number of pragmatic scientists to make earth work properly, so he just doesn't reveal himself to them?

Seriously, why do you think that happens?


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> The site speaks loudly towards intelligent design. You have passed it by without anything other than "sorry, I do not accept your conclusions" - so there is no sense in continuing this discussion with you.


Yeah, the site speaks loudly, but loud speaking isn't what it needs to do. What it needs to do is present any evidence for gods if it has any. 
I do agree there is no sense in continuing this discussion if you have no evidence for any gods.:sob:


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Shine, you can only show them the well.
> No one can force them to drink the water.


And no one can force them to drink imaginary Kool Aid. :hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> And no one can force them to drink imaginary Kool Aid. :hysterical:


And some refuse to answer simple questions posed to them. Why do you suppose that is? Fear?


----------



## Lisa in WA

JeffreyD said:


> And some refuse to answer simple questions posed to them. Why do you suppose that is? Fear?


Perhaps the key word there is "simple". And they just don't want to hurt your feelings about it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FourDeuce said:


> And no one can force them to drink imaginary Kool Aid. :hysterical:


Spot on! :bow:


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> Perhaps the key word there is "simple". And they just don't want to hurt your feelings about it.


Sigh, such anger there. Excited again by my post I see. Na, their confused by any type of questions that cause them to have to think about reality. None of you are concerned with hurting anyone's feelings anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I have done my best to answer, genuinely, all of the legitimate questions that have been asked of me, unlike others. The foolish ones I have taken a pass on. *You seem to have some sort of certainty that God does not exist* and I have told you that He has revealed to me His existence. What was shown to me cannot be "shown" to anyone else except via a verbal explanation. I have provided that more than once only to be ridiculed by others including yourself.
> 
> I am convinced, I do not need additional confirmation but it is nice to see correlations that support His existence.
> 
> This is a subject that I do not need to "stick my neck out" or "go out on a limb", it has been proven to me. ...simple as that.


I said there is no proof that I've ever seen.
Any other conclusions you make from that are yours, not mine

You claimed there is "proof" but can't show it, which "proves" what I said is true


----------



## Lisa in WA

JeffreyD said:


> Sigh, such anger there. Excited again by my post I see. Na, their confused by any type of questions that cause them to have to think about reality. None of you are concerned with hurting anyone's feelings anyway.


.....


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> .....


I can see that you are by your posts. But now we're drifting, and you guys don't like that, so I'll refrain from further interaction. Have a very nice day, and I hope someday, your sadness will become joy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yet when evidence IS quoted, you reject it.
> ???
> What is the point in asking for more?


You haven't "quoted" nor shown any real "evidence"
If someone asks you "What proof do you have the Bible is real?", saying "I read it in the Bible" isn't evidence

But you already know that


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You haven't "quoted" nor shown any real "evidence"
> If someone asks you "What proof do you have the Bible is real?", saying "I read it in the Bible" isn't evidence
> 
> But you already know that


What proof of evolution do you have? I mean real evidence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> *Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some but not others?* He must do it in an undeniable way to make you so certain, so why do so many people not have that experience?
> 
> Do you think those people are just stubborn and are rejecting obvious evidence of God? Maybe you think God needs a certain number of pragmatic scientists to make earth work properly, so he just doesn't reveal himself to them?
> 
> Seriously, why do you think that happens?


There's a thread that has some theories as to that question

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a thread that has some theories as to that question
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html


Except it's not very scientific at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> What proof of evolution do you have? I mean real evidence.


Evolution is a theory with lots of physical evidence that supports it.

Religion is faith alone, based solely on feelings and beliefs

Why is that so hard to admit?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Except it's not very scientific at all.


Complain to the author


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evolution is a theory with lots of physical evidence that supports it.
> 
> Religion is faith alone, based solely on feelings and beliefs
> 
> Why is that so hard to admit?


It's not, I just want to see the evidence. That's all. Religion makes as much sense as the scientific community, since even they can't prove the "theory" of evolution. If you can, you'll be famous. Do you think I'm a diehard Christian? If you do, why?


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some but not others? He must do it in an undeniable way to make you so certain, so why do so many people not have that experience?
> 
> Do you think those people are just stubborn and are rejecting obvious evidence of God? Maybe you think God needs a certain number of pragmatic scientists to make earth work properly, so he just doesn't reveal himself to them?
> 
> Seriously, why do you think that happens?


That is kind of simple. Many people think that God revolves around us when it is the opposite. God knew before time who and which are His, and when He would bring them into the fold.

God doesn't need much of anything from us or this universe. When we start trying to pull God from Heaven to put Him under the Spot Light we can understand about as much of Him as a bacterium might understand about us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> It's not, *I just want to see the evidence*. That's all. Religion makes as much sense as the scientific community, since even they can't prove the "theory" of evolution. If you can, you'll be famous. Do you think I'm a diehard Christian? If you do, why?


You can google up lots of evidence of evolution.

I don't think that's what you want at all. I'd suggest you start your research by looking up the meaning of the word "theory". That should help with your confusion

I also have no clue if you're a "diehard Christian", certainly can't tell from your actions, and don't care either way since that's up to you to decide.



> *diehard Christian*


Does that mean you think Bruce Willis is God?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can google up lots of evidence of evolution.
> 
> I don't think that's what you want at all. I'd suggest you start your research by looking up the meaning of the word "theory". That should help with your confusion
> 
> I also have no clue if you're a "diehard Christian", certainly can't tell from your actions, and don't care either way since that's up to you to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> *Does that mean you think Bruce Willis is God?*


I've had too much cold medicine cuz I laughed way too hard at this. :hysterical:


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> And some refuse to answer simple questions posed to them. Why do you suppose that is? Fear?


I never try to figure out why other people do what they do. That's why I don't know why some people keep lying about what other people do. Lying doesn't make sense to me, but then I value the truth.
If a young child asks you what Santa does the rest of the year, do you answer the question or do you explain why it's a silly question?


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> That is kind of simple. Many people think that God revolves around us when it is the opposite. God knew before time who and which are His, and when He would bring them into the fold.
> 
> God doesn't need much of anything from us or this universe. When we start trying to pull God from Heaven to put Him under the Spot Light we can understand about as much of Him as a bacterium might understand about us.


According to your bible, your gods don't need you to speak for them either. In fact, that's one thing you can be sent to hell for.:hysterical:


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> According to your bible, your gods don't need you to speak for them either. In fact, that's one thing you can be sent to hell for.:hysterical:


You are certainly correct. To change the meaning of any portion of God's Word is blasphemy. So, at this point, are you clarifying what is in the Bible or just typing something to use the roflmbo emoticon???


----------



## Elevenpoint

Shine said:


> That is kind of simple. Many people think that God revolves around us when it is the opposite. God knew before time who and which are His, and when He would bring them into the fold.
> 
> God doesn't need much of anything from us or this universe. When we start trying to pull God from Heaven to put Him under the Spot Light we can understand about as much of Him as a bacterium might understand about us.


Best post of the thread.


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> You are certainly correct. To change the meaning of any portion of God's Word is blasphemy. So, at this point, are you clarifying what is in the Bible or just typing something to use the roflmbo emoticon???


 Do you realize how many times the bible has been translated, changed, edited and re-translated? There are some good moral lessons contained within, but as far as a description of the Creator of all, I don't know about that. Sounds more like some desert tribes wanted the backup of some higher power, and so invented one. Not saying there is no God, but the one from the Old Testament acts more like an angry, vengeful person than the all knowing creator. Nice how God declared the Jews the proper owners of the 'Holy Land'. Pretty convenient since they also authored the book. 
Perhaps there is more allegory in the Old Testament than some are willing to admit, and perchance the Universe was not created in '7 days', literally.


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> You are certainly correct. To change the meaning of any portion of God's Word is blasphemy. So, at this point, are you clarifying what is in the Bible or just typing something to use the roflmbo emoticon???


I was pointing out something you seem to have missed- the fact that you pick some parts of your bible to obey and ignore the rest. Kind of makes your "holy gospel" a bit worthless(to rational people). If you can't prove any gods exist, quoting your book won't help you do that, and it definitely doesn't help your credibility.
"To change the meaning of any portion of God's Word is blasphemy."
And "doing ought presumptuously" can get you sent to hell. Trying to speak for your gods is very presumptuous.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some but not others? He must do it in an undeniable way to make you so certain, so why do so many people not have that experience?
> 
> Do you think those people are just stubborn and are rejecting obvious evidence of God? Maybe you think God needs a certain number of pragmatic scientists to make earth work properly, so he just doesn't reveal himself to them?
> 
> Seriously, why do you think that happens?



There are a few reasons, one of which you just stated.
Another one given in scripture is a compassionate form of protection. They are not yet ready to take the responsibility that comes with that knowledge.
If you study the Bible, the answers are there, you don't have to guess.



FourDeuce said:


> And no one can force them to drink imaginary Kool Aid. :hysterical:


Yeah, that's funny to some.........but I once got an infraction for that.
I don't think the comment deserves that, but then again, my option isn't worth much.




Bearfootfarm said:


> You haven't "quoted" nor shown any real "evidence"
> If someone asks you "What proof do you have the Bible is real?", saying "I read it in the Bible" isn't evidence
> 
> But you already know that



"Real evidence"?
What exactly is that?
I read your link in the first post, and read even further on the lead scientist and several foundations he works with.
I considered it worthy of "evidence" as any other material I might read, using my own intelligence of course to determine if it is or is not "proof".

Like a courtroom trial, anything said or presented IS "evidence".
Whether or not that evidence proves anything is determined by a judge or jury.

Fortunately the Judge hasn't ruled on anything yet, and from what I know about Him, He's quite fair and merciful.




Bearfootfarm said:


> I said there is no proof that I've ever seen.
> Any other conclusions you make from that are yours, not mine
> 
> You claimed there is "proof" but can't show it, which "proves" what I said is true


See above post on the explanation between evidence and proof.
If it doesn't prove it to you, that's for you to decide.
But you don't get to make that claim for anyone else.
There are many references in the Bible to those who can't see.
Not to worry though, the condition is NOT incurable.


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> That is kind of simple. Many people think that God revolves around us when it is the opposite. God knew before time who and which are His, and when He would bring them into the fold.
> 
> God doesn't need much of anything from us or this universe. When we start trying to pull God from Heaven to put Him under the Spot Light we can understand about as much of Him as a bacterium might understand about us.


OK, maybe he has better things to do than reveal himself to me, but why did he reveal himself to you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> "Real evidence"?
> What exactly is that?
> *I read your link in the first post*, and read even further on the lead scientist and several foundations he works with.
> I considered it worthy of "evidence" as any other material I might read, using my own intelligence of course to determine if it is or is not "proof".


I have no idea what you're talking about.



> See above post on the explanation between evidence and proof.
> If it doesn't prove it to you, that's for you to decide.
> But you don't get to make that claim for anyone else.
> *There are many references in the Bible to those who can't see.*
> Not to worry though, the condition is NOT incurable.


There are references in the Bible to most anything one wants to believe.
If you can't find it in one version, there are plenty of translations to search through until you discover one to match what you want to say.

It still doesn't prove anything, and isn't even "evidence" of anything, since this isn't a courtroom.

You're starting to repeat yourself too much now


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.




I'm sorry, I didn't realize one of my multi-quotes got dropped.
It was in the thread you mentioned here........



Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a thread that has some theories as to that question
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html


In that thread you posted a link to read.
I read it.
It was your evidence that you presented and it was accepted as such.
What was it you intended to prove with it?
(And yes, I already have a pretty good idea, but humor me with your opinion.)




Bearfootfarm said:


> There are references in the Bible to most anything one wants to believe.
> If you can't find it in one version, there are plenty of translations to search through until you discover one to match what you want to say.
> 
> It still doesn't prove anything, and isn't even "evidence" of anything, since this isn't a courtroom.
> 
> You're starting to repeat yourself too much now



I never said this was a courtroom. As far as I know, it's the HT forum.
But evidence comes in all facets of life, does it not?


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> I was pointing out something you seem to have missed- the fact that you pick some parts of your bible to obey and ignore the rest. Kind of makes your "holy gospel" a bit worthless(to rational people). If you can't prove any gods exist, quoting your book won't help you do that, and it definitely doesn't help your credibility.
> "To change the meaning of any portion of God's Word is blasphemy."
> And "doing ought presumptuously" can get you sent to hell. Trying to speak for your gods is very presumptuous.


That would be your understanding. I am trying to do what Jesus taught, not hitting a home run every time, but I am in the batter's box...

I do not understand your suggestion that I am trying to use the Bible as proof, as a matter of fact I have tried to stay away from doing just that. He's running this show and He has said that He will send others to me and that I must truthfully share when asked.


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> OK, maybe he has better things to do than reveal himself to me, but why did he reveal himself to you?


That is a question that I cannot answer, I have know of Him all of my life, for a portion, I did not want Him, wanted to do it my own way, that did not turn out well. In hindsight, I can see where He has been with me all along.

I have no idea what He sees in me... I would have kicked me to the curb long ago...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> In that thread you posted a link to read.
> I read it.
> *It was your evidence* that you presented and it was accepted as such.
> *What was it you intended to prove with it?*
> (And yes, I already have a pretty good idea, but humor me with your opinion.)


It was an article that I saw on another site, and posted without making any comments at all. It's not "my evidence" because I didn't author the piece.

I didn't intend to "prove" nor disprove anything. I made no claims about it at all.



> I never said this was a courtroom. As far as I know, it's the HT forum.
> But evidence comes in all facets of life, does it not?


You mentioned "courts" in regards to "evidence" and even spun that into a religious reference:



> Like a courtroom trial, anything said or presented IS "evidence".
> Whether or not that evidence proves anything is determined by a judge or jury.
> 
> Fortunately the Judge hasn't ruled on anything yet, and from what I know about Him, He's quite fair and merciful.




Evidence can come in all facets of life.

I'm waiting to see some real evidence in this thread that doesn't rely on preconceived notions for it's existence


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was an article that I saw on another site, and posted without making any comments at all. It's not "my evidence" because I didn't author the piece.
> 
> I didn't intend to "prove" nor disprove anything. I made no claims about it at all.


You may not be the author, but you DID present the evidence, correct?
It certainly didn't come from another member.:shrug:

I already noted that you offered no comment or opinion, that was the reason I asked for yours.
Since others have commented on the piece, I thought you might share yours.
As an opinionated man, it seems only natural for you to have one.




Bearfootfarm said:


> You mentioned "courts" in regards to "evidence" and even spun that into a religious reference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence can come in all facets of life.
> 
> I'm waiting to see some real evidence in this thread that doesn't rely on preconceived notions for it's existence



Maybe you didn't realize this, but quite a few who now believe in God did so WITHOUT preconceived notions.
Many can testify, but if you don't acknowledge that as evidence, then there is little else that can be offered by your fellow man.
That is why I have repeatedly said, "Ask Him, instead".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Many can testify, but if you don't acknowledge that as evidence, then there is little else that can be offered by your fellow man.


And yet so many keep claiming there is proof.



> That is why I have *repeatedly* said, "Ask Him, instead".


Yes, you do love to run in circles.
I don't


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes, I used that word especially for you.
Now, about your opinion on the thread you referenced earlier.........?

I hate to bring it up again, but did you forget I asked?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I hate to bring it up again but did you forget I asked?


No, I didn't forget


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I didn't forget




And.........???
(This may explain some of the repetition you may have noticed)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> And.........???
> (This may explain some of the repetition you may have noticed)


And I'm still waiting for some evidence that has to do with *this* thread.
(That *hasn't* already been said)

I'm not too optimistic though


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> And I'm still waiting for some evidence that has to do with *this* thread.
> (That *hasn't* already been said)
> 
> I'm not too optimistic though


I'll quote you every scripture I can find, if that's what you want.
I was under the impression that was an *unacceptable* answer for you.
However in my case, any opinion you'd like to state for an answer to my question will be accepted.
What I find hard to accept is people who want everything explained in great detail, but refuse to give others the same level of respect.
You _hinted_ at it in your reply to Nevada, but when I asked you for a simple espousing of your thread, you have so far, avoided an answer.
Does that mean you will give no answer.......at all.......ever?
If so, the statement, "I refuse to answer your question" would at least show a minimum of respect.
BTW, I've never been much of an optimist, either.


----------



## farmrbrown

But, since you asked the question.......


> And I'm still waiting for some evidence that has to do with this thread.
> (That hasn't already been said)


I will try my best to give you an acceptable answer.
This was rather interesting.
http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/do-we-have-the-big-bang-theory-all-wrong

(That wasn't so hard. Now YOU try)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'll quote you every scripture I can find, if that's what you want.


That would be pointless since it's not evidence of anything other than a book that no one claims wasn't written



> This was rather interesting.
> http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence...eory-all-wrong


He has some interesting theories and predictions, but had no real evidence to back them up that was presented in the article

The last line was the most interesting to me:



> &#8220;Science makes progress only because we disagree from time to time with the ancient ideas. So it is good to keep trying.&#8221;


Science is always disagreeing with the "ancient ideas", while religion lives by them


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That would be pointless since it's not evidence of anything other than a book that no one claims wasn't written
> 
> 
> He has some interesting theories and predictions, but had no real evidence to back them up that was presented in the article
> 
> The last line was the most interesting to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is always disagreeing with the "ancient ideas", while religion lives by them


Yes, yes, and yes.

All right, you won't answer a question that I've asked at least 5 times, and won't even acknowledge that I've asked it.

The answer that you don't have there courage to say in print and likely never say to my face is, you think people who believe in God are brain damaged and intellectually inferior.


Well, you're talking to one right now who is neither, and wouldn't hide like a scared rabbit behind a computer screen if he had something to say about it.

If you believe this so firmly, why are you scared to say it plainly when asked instead of running in circles like a frightened animal?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Nice way to not answer the question. But I'll play your game, how are you going to check the accuracy of the scales?


Of course it answers the question. Just not in a watcher approved way. I have no desire to play the endless watcher game of what ifs offering narrowing constructed scenarios and answers only you get to approve. Science doesn't work that way. It seeks answers where ever they lead. You complain that science creates theories to fill gaps. Faith does the same. Science seeks to prove those theories. Faith takes them as incontrovertible fact. Only one is intellectually honest.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes. 
And the continuing attack on believers in God is still in full force, on display, with full approval of this board for the world to see.
You guy are if nothing else, consistent in your bias.
Of course by deleting the comments that point this out and leaving the insults intact, you not only violate your own rules, but attempt to show that no one really cares enough to call you out on it.

I do, I have, and will continue to do so in spite of the prejudice practiced here.


----------



## Shine

Where the disconnect is I believe is that there is this spiritual nudging going on when one is called. Things change, some things that you love are cast to the side, some things that you dislike become OK and then pleasurable to you, after a period you find that you have gone on a path that your would not have willingly trod but there you are.

There are those that will emulate the Word of God for their own purposes Matt 7:21-23 but the Lord knows them for who they are. These are the ones that most people that hate "religion" or "Christianity" choose to use as punching bags which in turn imply that those good Christians are the same as the former.

There is no way that I can prove the existence of God to anyone. Think about it, if there was one person on the planet that had proof of God's existence then the Bible would then be invalidated through a number of verses about the holiness of God. God forced Moses to face away from Him when Moses asked to see Him, God replied "But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"" and proceeded to show him His hinder parts [His back after passing by]

There is something else, no Christian can take credit for being a Christian for the effort is completely God's effort, toil and idea. This is why those that say that they are Christians in an effort do "one up" others are readily identifiable as such, none of the Glory goes to us.

You have to admit, even if you are a non-believer, that it is a good story. God creates the world, makes a being to live on it, walks and talks with that being because the new being is without sin, creates another being for the original because God doesn't remain in the Garden all of the time, somehow a fallen angel finds the garden, throws a monkey wrench into the works, Adam and Eve get an eviction notice and are forced to leave the garden. God nudges those that He chooses to, finds that it is good then constructs a set of Laws so that all can attempt to make themselves righteous. People find that they cannot follow every single law every single moment of their lives. The Law then gets turned into rituals when the original purpose is waxed over and the people no longer Glorify God through the reverent following of the Law. Then God sends Jesus to fulfill the Law thereby releasing everyone from the Law and thereby changing it into a personal relationship for each individual to be open to the calling of God's plan through Jesus Christ and Him alone. God will give a person to Christ, Christ will speak to God your innermost thoughts, the Holy Spirit will further guide you in your growth. [everyone realizes that the Holy Ghost came to us only after Christ left, right?]

My understanding [again]


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> [everyone realizes that the Holy Ghost came to us only after Christ left, right?]


How do we know that?


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> You have to admit, even if you are a non-believer, that it is a good story. God creates the world, makes a being to live on it, walks and talks with that being because the new being is without sin, creates another being for the original because God doesn't remain in the Garden all of the time, somehow a fallen angel finds the garden, throws a monkey wrench into the works, Adam and Eve get an eviction notice and are forced to leave the garden. God nudges those that He chooses to, finds that it is good then constructs a set of Laws so that all can attempt to make themselves righteous. People find that they cannot follow every single law every single moment of their lives. The Law then gets turned into rituals when the original purpose is waxed over and the people no longer Glorify God through the reverent following of the Law. Then God sends Jesus to fulfill the Law thereby releasing everyone from the Law and thereby changing it into a personal relationship for each individual to be open to the calling of God's plan through Jesus Christ and Him alone. God will give a person to Christ, Christ will speak to God your innermost thoughts, the Holy Spirit will further guide you in your growth. [everyone realizes that the Holy Ghost came to us only after Christ left, right?]
> 
> My understanding [again]


 It may be a 'good story', but as far as a scientific treatise on the origins of life, it falls short. I do not for one minute believe some diety willed all this into existence in its present form, unchanging and finished.
More likely, the story of Adam and Eve harkens back to a common human longing, the longing for the 'good old days', that may or may not have ever existed.


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> How do we know that?


That was poorly worded, sorry. It should have said that "most Christians that have been called by God understand..."

The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit [Ghost] alighted upon the shoulder of Christ upon His Baptism by John the Baptist and then on the day of Pentecost [forty days after He rose from the dead] that the Holy Spirit alighted upon the shoulders of the disciples like tongues of fire. 

As far as historical documents that are complimentary to this event, I am finding nothing to support the above statement.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> It may be a 'good story', but as far as a scientific treatise on the origins of life, it falls short. I do not for one minute believe some diety willed all this into existence in its present form, unchanging and finished.
> More likely, the story of Adam and Eve harkens back to a common human longing, the longing for the 'good old days', that may or may not have ever existed.


We then stand in alignment, you have an understanding and I have an understanding, in that point alone, we are aligned. Our understandings are different, but we both understand what we understand. [learned that from Rumsfeld]


----------



## farmrbrown

Why is it that the ones that keep asking the questions about God, are the same ones that DON'T want to really know anything and wouldn't believe if they came face to face with Him?
After a while the condescension and humiliation gets tedious.
If you want to do YOUR father's work, fine.
I have my own work of my Father's to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, yes, and yes.
> 
> All right, you won't answer a question that I've asked at least 5 times, and won't even acknowledge that I've asked it.
> 
> The answer that you don't have there courage to say in print and likely never say to my face is, you think people who believe in God are brain damaged and intellectually inferior.
> 
> 
> Well, you're talking to one right now who is neither, and wouldn't hide like a scared rabbit behind a computer screen if he had something to say about it.
> 
> If you believe this so firmly, why are you scared to say it plainly when asked instead of running in circles like a frightened animal?


I never said any such thing.

I posted a link to a research study that showed brain damage allows scientists to predict who would make claims of "spiritual experiences"

If you want to act all macho, send them an E mail. 

I don't really care, and it's not about you even though that appears to be your favorite topic


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.
> And the *continuing attack on believers in God* is still in full force, on display, with full approval of this board for the world to see.
> You guy are if nothing else, consistent in your bias.
> Of course by deleting the comments that point this out and leaving the insults intact, you not only violate your own rules, but attempt to show that no one really cares enough to call you out on it.
> 
> *I do, I have, and will continue to do so* in spite of the prejudice practiced here.


You've been saying the same thing for years now, and it's still all in your mind because you think everything is about you.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Why is it that the ones that keep asking the questions about God, are the same ones that DON'T want to really know anything and wouldn't believe if they came face to face with Him?


I would love to come face to face with a deity.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> I would love to come face to face with a deity.


I would too, there are so many questions I'd like to ask.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I would too, there are so many questions I'd like to ask.


You will. Except you get to answer not question.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> You will. Except you get to answer not question.


Nope. Why must you do this when I've told you I don't believe in your fairy tales?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> You will. Except you get to answer not question.


That may be what you think but it doesn't mean it's real


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Why must you do this when I've told you I don't believe in your fairy tales?


It's a public form. No one is forcing you to read posts here, you do it because you choose to. Suck it up buttercup.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> That may be what you think but it doesn't mean it's real


What if it is?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> *What if* it is?


What if?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> What if?


...lots of gnashing of teeth, that's what.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...lots of gnashing of teeth, that's what.


Again, that's your "belief" and nothing more.
"What if" is guesswork and imagination


----------



## Elevenpoint

Shine said:


> ...lots of gnashing of teeth, that's what.


And weeping.....


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> It's a public form. No one is forcing you to read posts here, you do it because you choose to. Suck it up buttercup.


Why do you insist on being personal? What do you get out of it? 

Those that have faith- fine and dandy, I don't. If _your_ faith is strong enough you shouldn't have to annoy me with it.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Why do you insist on being personal? What do you get out of it?
> 
> Those that have faith- fine and dandy, I don't. If _your_ faith is strong enough you shouldn't have to annoy me with it.


Because you do. What do YOU get out of it? I'm a mirror and reflect the attitude that comes in my direction. Your annoyed by many things, should be used to it by now, and as I've been told, you can always block my posts or just choose to not read or respond to them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Because you do. What do YOU get out of it? I'm a mirror and reflect the attitude that comes in my direction. Your annoyed by many things, should be used to it by now, and as I've been told, you can always block my posts or just choose to not read or respond to them.


What if?


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> You will. Except you get to answer not question.


Not according the the Bible I'm familiar with. As I recall, we were going to be asked a few simple questions to gain entrance to the kingdom.

1. When I was hungry did you feed me?
2. When I was thirsty did you give me something to drink?
3. When I was a stranger did you invite me in?
4. When I was naked did you clothe me?
5. When I was sick did you visit me?
6. When I was in prison did you come to me?
And what you do for them, you do for me.

Any of those questions sound familiar?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> What if?


Truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Truth.


So you say
It's still just a belief that you really don't seem to follow


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, that's your "belief" and nothing more.
> "What if" is guesswork and imagination


You know, that is pretty foolish, you pose a question asking "What if?" when we are talking about the existence of God, I reply with what is said in the Bible and you take that as an opportunity to berate me and that which I hold dear. 

I am aware of a bunch of parallels in this life where people do that kind of thing...


----------



## Shine

JeffreyD said:


> Because you do. What do YOU get out of it? I'm a mirror and reflect the attitude that comes in my direction. Your annoyed by many things, should be used to it by now, and as I've been told, you can always block my posts or just choose to not read or respond to them.





Bearfootfarm said:


> What if?


Might I ask what the "What if?" is referring to in your reply because it makes no sense. What portion are you inquiring about?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Not according the the Bible I'm familiar with. As I recall, we were going to be asked a few simple questions to gain entrance to the kingdom.
> 
> 1. When I was hungry did you feed me?
> 2. When I was thirsty did you give me something to drink?
> 3. When I was a stranger did you invite me in?
> 4. When I was naked did you clothe me?
> 5. When I was sick did you visit me?
> 6. When I was in prison did you come to me?
> And what you do for them, you do for me.
> 
> Any of those questions sound familiar?


That's a red letter quote, and I'm sure you know what that means.
Those questions have two answers, yes or no.
Same as entrance to the kingdom. Not everyone will get a "yes".


----------



## greg273

This thread should have gone extinct about 20 pages ago. Been just a bunch of pointless bickering for awhile now. 

To those who believe in God, good for you. You still can't prove it. 

To those who don't believe in God, good for you, you can't prove it either. 

That about cover it?


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> That's a red letter quote, and I'm sure you know what that means.
> Those questions have two answers, yes or no.
> Same as entrance to the kingdom. Not everyone will get a "yes".


I know that the "goodie two shoes" New Testament stuff isn't nearly as much fun as the bloodthirsty Old Testament stuff, but I wonder how conservatives reconcile that red letter quote...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You know, that is pretty foolish, you pose a question asking "What if?" when we are talking about the existence of God, *I reply with what is said in the Bible* and you take that as an opportunity to berate me and that which I hold dear.
> 
> I am aware of a bunch of parallels in this life where people do that kind of thing...


This was discussed many posts back as to how quoting the Bible can't be used as proof it's real.

It has nothing to do with you personally, but you always want to play the victim when someone disagrees with a premise.

You cannot prove "the existence of God" by quoting the Bible.
You cannot prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible.

The first "what if" wasn't mine to begin with, and all "what if's" are imagination alone. Why is that confusing you?



> Might I ask what the "What if?" is referring to in your reply because *it makes no sense*. What portion are you inquiring about?


That "what if" is referring to the attitude being displayed in that post which seems to be in direct opposition with stated "Christian" values and the implication that one will be required to answer for their actions in the end.

It makes perfect sense if you follow the entire conversation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> This thread should have gone extinct about 20 pages ago. Been just a bunch of pointless bickering for awhile now.
> 
> To those who believe in God, good for you. You still can't prove it.
> 
> To those who don't believe in God, good for you, you can't prove it either.
> 
> *That about cover it*?


Yes, but I suspect most won't get it


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> This was discussed many posts back as to how quoting the Bible can't be used as proof it's real.
> 
> It has nothing to do with you personally, but you always want to play the victim when someone disagrees with a premise.
> 
> You cannot prove "the existence of God" by quoting the Bible.
> You cannot prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible.
> 
> The first "what if" wasn't mine to begin with, and all "what if's" are imagination alone. Why is that confusing you?
> 
> 
> 
> That "what if" is referring to the attitude being displayed in that post which seems to be in direct opposition with stated "Christian" values and the implication that one will be required to answer for their actions in the end.
> 
> It makes perfect sense if you follow the entire conversation.



Really? This is your reply? Has JeffreyD identified himself as a Christian, if he has I certainly missed it, I recall that he is in touch with Christianity but that that was about it. 

Again, I'll just leave it again, you asked what if? and then attacked the answerer in a manner that was not only rude but it was the same as a shifty trick. I have come to understand that you find this manner useful.

My apology Jeffrey if I have mis-characterized or missed your stance in this matter.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> This thread should have gone extinct about 20 pages ago. Been just a bunch of pointless bickering for awhile now.
> 
> To those who believe in God, good for you. You still can't prove it.
> 
> To those who don't believe in God, good for you, you can't prove it either.
> 
> That about cover it?


We are not the only ones that read it, check the lower portion of the page and notice how many guests that there are from time to time... It is a wonderful opportunity to share...

Right now - 3 members and 3 guests


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Really? This is your reply? Has JeffreyD identified himself as a Christian, if he has I certainly missed it, I recall that he is in touch with Christianity but that that was about it.
> 
> Again, I'll just leave it again, you asked what if? and then *attacked the answerer in a manner that was not only rude but it was the same as a shifty trick.* I have come to understand that you find this manner useful.
> 
> My apology Jeffrey if I have mis-characterized or missed your stance in this matter.


You claim "attack" so often it's like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

If you don't like my responses you should refrain from quoting me, which only invokes more that you will undoubtedly also consider "attacks" if I don't agree with everything you say. 

You once told me "If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> I know that the "goodie two shoes" New Testament stuff isn't nearly as much fun as the bloodthirsty Old Testament stuff, but I wonder how conservatives reconcile that red letter quote...


Some would say that Christianity operates within the realm of socialism wherein the possessions of one should be given to others but I counsel differently. Jesus said these things to everyone. I recount the old woman that gave two mites[sp]. Jesus was obviously thrilled at this act.

The act of giving to others is also something that falls within the same realm that the old Law fell within, it has the probability that those who are not really called will do this will do so in an effort to be seen, it is those that hide their acts of goodness from others that are the ones that are seeking to see a smile on His face, not on those of us that they would seek a judgement from...

A Christian seeks daily to do things that would make Him happy, we are counseled by the Word to stand when evil stands before us, we know evil by the information provided in the New Testament, the Laws of the Old Testament are written upon our hearts.

Just to reiterate, the only time that Jesus used violence to make His point was among the Money Changers. Do we have money changers in our current world and are they doing things that are inline with good, or with evil? The fact that this was the only time speaks volumes...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You claim "attack" so often it's like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
> 
> If you don't like my responses you should refrain from quoting me, which only invokes more that you will undoubtedly also consider "attacks" if I don't agree with everything you say.
> 
> You once told me "If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


OK, I'll walk away from your manners of operation, I've told you what I see you to be doing, this is a fact in my world, you like to ridicule people, I do not. 

I am not in control of you as with many others, I do what I understand to be right, I try to correct others that do wrong by suggestion, on some that does not work.

You may continue as you see fit.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You claim "attack" so often it's like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
> 
> If you don't like my responses you should refrain from quoting me, which only invokes more that you will undoubtedly also consider "attacks" if I don't agree with everything you say.
> 
> You once told me "If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


You know what? I really do not know what you really think, your deflection and evasion do not reveal you. I only know you to not answer questions from your heart, you do try to get away without letting people really understand where you are coming from.

I practice just the opposite, I am willing to throw my understanding out there in it's raw form and let people explain what is wrong with my understanding, in turn, I evaluate that which is revealed and then, with the parts that I see to be correct, reevaluate my understanding.

I do not get this from you, Painters Wife nor Irish Pixie. Basketti, others and I have had small discussions via PM where I better understand the points made and some have been more correct than what I understood. In this manner I have become better.

I offer nothing more than an olive branch, wanting to only share understanding.

I hope that you respond in kind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK, *I'll walk away* from your manners of operation, I've told you what I see you to be doing, this is a fact in my world, you like to ridicule people, I do not.
> 
> I am not in control of you as with many others, I do what I understand to be right, *I try to correct others that do wrong* by suggestion, on some that does not work.
> 
> You may continue as you see fit.


I've heard all that before, especially the judgmental parts



> You know what? *I really do not know what you really think*, your deflection and evasion do not reveal you. I only know you to not answer questions from your heart, you do try to get away without letting people really understand where you are coming from.


I tell you all the time, but you ignore it and search for some deep hidden meanings, and then complain about "deflection and evasion".



> I practice just the opposite, I am willing to throw my understanding out there in it's raw form and *let people explain what is wrong with my understanding*, in turn, I evaluate that which is revealed and then, with the parts that I see to be correct, reevaluate my understanding.


As soon as one tries to explain what they think is wrong about your position, you go into the exact routine you're running now. 

(I was attacked...I'm misunderstood...I just want everything to be better)

It's no longer believable because you say one thing and do something else, as evidenced by your first words above, which if true would have been the only words

I've seen this game before


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard all that before, especially the judgmental parts


You omitted the "by suggestion" from your bolding of my statement. This is what I refer to in my previous posts.

I judge for myself and suggest to others, it is required by my belief.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard all that before, especially the judgmental parts
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you all the time, but you ignore it and search for some deep hidden meanings, and then complain about "deflection and evasion".
> 
> 
> As soon as one tries to explain what they think is wrong about your position, you go into the exact routine you're running now.
> 
> (I was attacked...I'm misunderstood...I just want everything to be better)
> 
> It's no longer believable because you say one thing and do something else, as evidenced by your first words above, which if true would have been the only words
> 
> I've seen this game before


OK... I see the olive branch resting upon the ground. I understand. I had hoped for a different outcome.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You omitted the "by suggestion" from your bolding of my statement. This is what I refer to in my previous posts.
> 
> *I judge* for myself and suggest to others, it is required by my belief.


These two words say more than the two I didn't highlight before.
I thought your belief said something about not doing that


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> These two words say more than the two I didn't highlight before.
> I thought your belief said something about not doing that


Yes, my belief tells me that I am to look to my own sin before judging others, it also says that we are to confront others who are sinning according to the Word, then we are to lovingly attempt to discuss, at length what we have observed. Once we have done that then we have done that which is required.

We are further compelled to judge using "Right Judgement" meaning that for everything that we would rail against, it must be Biblical in nature. This is our charter, these are our tasks.

If you wish, I can provide the verses for your review.

It also says that I should not worry about those that vehemently oppose the Gospel but I find something within you that speaks strongly to me, I do not know what it is, I do not know why it is you.

I just know that I feel it in my heart.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> I know that the "goodie two shoes" New Testament stuff isn't nearly as much fun as the bloodthirsty Old Testament stuff, but I wonder how conservatives reconcile that red letter quote...


The same way anyone else would.:shrug:

The point of listening to THE rabbi, isn't to look for self justification, it is for learning, even if it is self convicting.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Yes, my belief tells me that I am to look to my own sin before judging others, it also says that *we are to confront others who are sinning according to the Word*, then we are to lovingly attempt to discuss, at length what we have observed. Once we have done that then we have done that which is required.


You sound like ISIS, trying to force your views on people who haven't asked for your opinion nor advice on how to live.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> You sound like ISIS, trying to force your views on people who haven't asked for your opinion nor advice on how to live.


If the religious right had their way America would have a judeo-christian version of sharia law so fast our heads would spin.


----------



## dixiegal62

These arguments are nothing new they are as old as man. We where given the good advice, do not cast your pearls among swine for a reason.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> These arguments are nothing new they are as old as man. We where given the good advice, do not cast your pearls among swine for a reason.


Right on cue. :hysterical:


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Right on cue. :hysterical:


Yes it is... it's also the wrong bait. It's old and rotten and I have ever no desire to bite it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes it is... it's also the wrong bait. It's old and rotten and I have ever no desire to bite it.


That's wonderful! Well, except I wasn't trolling nor was it bait. It was simply a statement that needed no reply. Yet you did...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> These arguments are nothing new they are as old as man. We where given the good advice, do not cast your pearls among swine for a reason.


Name calling through scripture again? 
That's not very original


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Name calling through scripture again?
> That's not very original


Of course it's not original, it's very old advice... been around for years


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Of course it's not original, *it's very old advice*... been around for years


Can you quote chapter and verse for "Thou shalt troll the internet"?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you quote chapter and verse for "Thou shalt troll the internet"?


Oh yeah not THAT'S original... thank you for pointing out the difference LMBO


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You sound like ISIS, trying to force your views on people who haven't asked for your opinion nor advice on how to live.


I do not "force" anyone to do anything so you can just give up on this line of attack. Also, our government does not provide me with logistics, weapons and other support so I am not sure why you think that I am in any way similar to "ISIS" - can you explain further?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> If the religious right had their way America would have a judeo-christian version of sharia law so fast our heads would spin.


Exaggerate much?


lol


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you quote chapter and verse for "Thou shalt troll the internet"?


I can, want a link?


----------



## JeffreyD

Shine said:


> Really? This is your reply? Has JeffreyD identified himself as a Christian, if he has I certainly missed it, I recall that he is in touch with Christianity but that that was about it.
> 
> Again, I'll just leave it again, you asked what if? and then attacked the answerer in a manner that was not only rude but it was the same as a shifty trick. I have come to understand that you find this manner useful.
> 
> My apology Jeffrey if I have mis-characterized or missed your stance in this matter.


No sir, you are correct!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I do not "force" anyone to do anything so you can just give up on this line of *attack*. Also, our government does not provide me with logistics, weapons and other support so I am not sure why you think that I am in any way similar to "ISIS" - can you explain further?


Expecting others live according to your beliefs is the same no matter what methods are used. Declaring them "sinners" based on your religion is exactly what they do

Weapons and Govt have nothing to do with it.

I've explained it several times in several threads
I quoted and highlighted the precise words I referred to.
You're on your own if you can't follow the line of thought

And now you're claiming another "attack".
Your replies are all the same, saying you're being attacked, and repeating the same questions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I can, want a link?


Nothing is preventing you other than reality


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Expecting others live according to your beliefs is the same no matter what methods are used. Declaring them "sinners" based on your religion is exactly what they do


Exactly! So why do you expect others to live by yours? I never understood why unbelievers get so upset by the word sinner since they don't believe it anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Exactly! *So why do you expect others to live by yours?*
> I never understood why unbelievers get so upset by the word sinner since they don't believe it anyway.


You've never seen me try to tell anyone what they should do aside from minding their *own* business.

"Sinner" is a religious concept that only applies to those who choose to follow a particular set of rules. 

Most everything humans do is a "sin" according to some religion somewhere, but no one wants others dictating or "preaching" to them if they don't choose to follow

All I "expect" is for folks to tend to their own business and not try to tell me how I should live.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've never seen me try to tell anyone what they should do aside from minding their *own* business.
> 
> "Sinner" is a religious concept that only applies to those who choose to follow a particular set of rules.
> 
> Most everything humans do is a "sin" according to some religion somewhere, but no one wants others dictating or "preaching" to them if they don't choose to follow
> 
> All I "expect" is for folks to tend to their own business and not try to tell me how I should live.


Yet you try and tell folks how wrong they are all the time. Do you or don't you?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've never seen me try to tell anyone what they should do aside from minding their *own* business.
> 
> "Sinner" is a religious concept that only applies to those who choose to follow a particular set of rules.
> 
> Most everything humans do is a "sin" according to some religion somewhere, but no one wants others dictating or "preaching" to them if they don't choose to follow
> 
> All I "expect" is for folks to tend to their own business and not try to tell me how I should live.


You seem to be going around in circles. I agree live and let live. Reading some of your posts I'm finding it hard to believe you practice what you preach. Of course that's just my opinion and the way I see it.


----------



## JoePa

Save your breath folks - you are just wasting your time trying to reason with a person who think that this world all came about by accident - the latest attempt by that crowd to find an explanation for what exists on this earth - is a space ship from someplace can here and started it - 

Basically they think that everything came from nothing - let them live in their dream world - someday they will find out - surprise - surprise - there is a God after all - and He created the world just like the Bible says - the Bible is the most published book in the world and it states - "a fool says that there is no God" -


----------



## ceresone

Amen!


----------



## keenataz

JoePa said:


> Save your breath folks - you are just wasting your time trying to reason with a person who think that this world all came about by accident - the latest attempt by that crowd to find an explanation for what exists on this earth - is a space ship from someplace can here and started it -
> 
> Basically they think that everything came from nothing - let them live in their dream world - someday they will find out - surprise - surprise - there is a God after all - and He created the world just like the Bible says - the Bible is the most published book in the world and it states - "a fool says that there is no God" -


So you believing that some magic guy in the sky created everything is no more absurd than a space ship? Actually both are to me.

And you too can enjoy your dream world, I prefer the factually proven world.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Yet you try and tell folks how wrong they are all the time. Do you or don't you?


People can have facts wrong.
Pointing that out isn't the same as telling them what rules they have to follow or that they will be punished eternally after they die if they don't 

Where's that link you said you could show?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Expecting others live according to your beliefs is the same no matter what methods are used. Declaring them "sinners" based on your religion is exactly what they do
> 
> Weapons and Govt have nothing to do with it.
> 
> I've explained it several times in several threads
> I quoted and highlighted the precise words I referred to.
> You're on your own if you can't follow the line of thought
> 
> And now you're claiming another "attack".
> Your replies are all the same, saying you're being attacked, and repeating the same questions.


Ah calls 'em how I sees 'em.

Yeah, right, accusing someone of being the same as a terrorist group is not an attack, I get it.

:spinsmiley:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> You seem to be going around in circles. I agree live and let live. Reading some of your posts I'm finding it hard to believe you practice what you preach. Of course that's just my opinion and the way I see it.


You're entitled to your opinion.

Show some examples where I told someone they had to do as I said or they were "perverts", "murderers", "sinners", "swine", "dogs", etc.

I can find several examples of those names being used against people who didn't agree with all the religious beliefs

Here's one now calling us "fools" and using the Bible to do so:



> Basically they think that everything came from nothing - let them live in their dream world - someday they will find out - surprise - surprise - there is a God after all - and He created the world just like the Bible says - the Bible is the most published book in the world and it states - "a fool says that there is no God" -


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Show some examples where I told someone they had to do as I said or they were "perverts", "murderers", "sinners", "swine", "dogs", etc.
> 
> I can find several examples of those names being used against people who didn't agree with all the religious beliefs
> 
> Here's one now calling us "fools" and using the Bible to do so:


You did call me a troll this morning but I don't mind


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> People can have facts wrong.
> Pointing that out isn't the same as telling them what rules they have to follow or that they will be punished eternally after they die if they don't
> 
> Where's that link you said you could show?


Show me any single post of mine where I say that all/any of humanity HAS to do anything and your accusation of me wanting to force anyone to do anything carries merit. Not doing so would show that you embellish the facts.

I am replying to your reply to Jeffrey's post but all in all, you have repeatedly stated on more than one thread that I intend to force my wishes upon someone else. I have supplied my opinion on many subjects, it is just that, my opinion. What part about people having opinions do you not understand?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Ah calls 'em how I sees 'em.
> 
> Yeah, right, accusing someone of being the same as a terrorist group is not an attack, I get it.
> 
> :spinsmiley:


You do act the same, as I clearly pointed out
You said so yourself

Post # 799:



> Yes, my belief tells me that I am to look to my own sin before judging others, it also says that *we are to confront others who are sinning according to the Word*, then we are to lovingly attempt to discuss, at length what we have observed. Once we have done that then we have done that which is required.


ISIS confronts those they say are "sinning according to the Word"

They just use a different book, and you "lovingly" tell them they will go to Hell if they don't accept your beliefs whereas ISIS kills them


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Show me any single post of mine where I say that all/any of humanity HAS to do anything and your accusation of me wanting to force anyone to do anything carries merit.
> 
> Not doing so would show that you embellish the facts.
> 
> I am replying to your reply to Jeffrey's post but all in all, you have repeatedly stated on more than one thread that I intend to force my wishes upon someone else. I have supplied my opinion on many subjects, it is just that, my opinion. What part about people having opinions do you not understand?


No, I'm not showing you anything else, since you want to now carefully reword things to totally change what I already said.

I don't see any point in repeating things 100 times just because you are in denial, and I'm not falling for your "not doing so" game either

I have no need to embellish when your own posts are still there to see


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> You did call me a troll this morning but I don't mind


That was based solely on the reality of your action and not my religious beliefs.
I don't care if you troll. It breaks the monotony sometimes

Just don't pretend you're not if it's pointed out!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Exaggerate much?
> 
> 
> lol


Nope. Gay marriage would be gone, homosexuality would be a illegal, abortion would be illegal, some types of birth control would be outlawed, in vitro fertilization would be a grey area and/or outlawed, and controlling/abusing women would be a grey area again. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

So no, not an exaggeration at all.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> People can have facts wrong.
> Pointing that out isn't the same as telling them what rules they have to follow or that they will be punished eternally after they die if they don't
> 
> Where's that link you said you could show?


It's exactly where it was the last time I looked.

I have never said anything about what rules have to be followed, nor have I said anyone would be punished for whatever they did.

Why would you say that I have said these things when I have not?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> It's exactly where it was the last time I looked.
> 
> I have never said anything about what rules have to be followed, nor have I said anyone would be punished for whatever they did.
> 
> Why would you say that I have said these things when I have not?


No more answers for you until you provide the link you said you could show, or until you admit you just lied about it.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Show some examples where I told someone they had to do as I said or they were "perverts", "murderers", "sinners", "swine", "dogs", etc.
> 
> I can find several examples of those names being used against people who didn't agree with all the religious beliefs
> 
> Here's one now calling us "fools" and using the Bible to do so:


Calling someone a name is far different than telling someone what to do as you guys do constantly. Remember sticks and stones? 

I'll clarify something just for you...I don't care what religion you believe in(atheism is a religion, a belief), if you kill another human no matter the age, gender, race, its murder. Pretty clear on that position I am. No confusion for you now.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Gay marriage would be gone, homosexuality would be a illegal, abortion would be illegal, some types of birth control would be outlawed, in vitro fertilization would be a grey area and/or outlawed, and controlling/abusing women would be a grey area again. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> So no, not an exaggeration at all.


Hysterically funny. :hysterical:


----------



## FourDeuce

Atheism is neither a religion nor a belief. You should at least try to learn something about a subject before you try to discuss it. That's the difference between an opinion and an informed opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Hysterically funny. :hysterical:


We've had the discussion about how you want to control women, but you don't agree that the religious right would do the other things? It's not a stretch, they want all of it now and are quite vocal about it.


----------



## FourDeuce

"you are just wasting your time trying to reason with a person who think that this world all came about by accident"

You are definitely wasting your time when your entire argument is based on lying about what other people think.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Calling someone a name is far different than telling someone what to do *as you guys do constantly*. Remember sticks and stones?


Another fantasy
Why make things up?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> No more answers for you until you provide the link you said you could show, or until you admit you just lied about it.


I didn't lie about anything, its exactly where I saw it last. You've not asked to see it. You said nothing is preventing me, your right, nothing is. :shrug: 

If you decide not to respond to my posts, I'm good with that.:goodjob:


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was based solely on the reality of your action and not my religious beliefs.
> I don't care if you troll. It breaks the monotony sometimes
> 
> Just don't pretend you're not if it's pointed out!


Okay so let me make sure I have it right...it's ok as long as religion isn't involved or you say it. You don't find that hypocritical at all?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Okay so let me make sure I have it right...it's ok as long as religion isn't involved or you say it. You don't find that hypocritical at all?


You're going to have to show some specific examples of what you're talking about.
These vague references aren't giving me anything real to go on


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're going to have to show some specific examples of what you're talking about.
> These vague references aren't giving me anything real to go on


The example was your response I quoted. Why would you consider your own words not real?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You do act the same, as I clearly pointed out
> You said so yourself
> 
> Post # 799:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS confronts those they say are "sinning according to the Word"
> 
> They just use a different book, and you "lovingly" tell them they will go to Hell if they don't accept your beliefs whereas ISIS kills them


what a foolish reply... 

conÂ·front
k&#601;n&#712;fr&#601;nt/
_verb_ compel (someone) to face or consider something, especially by way of accusation.


"Tricia *confronted* him *with* her suspicions"
You do go to great lengths to change the intent of what someone says into your hateful meanings. I do wonder how you can be happy with yourself. Show me where I have used "you are going to hell" in any one of my posts. 

You are continuing in your deceitfulness trying to change what I have said to mean what you want it to mean. It does not work that way. I wish you would stop doing that and let me be in control of what what I say means. If you have a problem understanding, you may ask me "What do you mean?" You may not explain what I mean any more than I get to explain what you mean. 

Get it?

I consider your accusations and/or suggestions that I am the same as ISIS to be very insulting and am at a loss as to why they have been allowed to remain.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Gay marriage would be gone, homosexuality would be a illegal, abortion would be illegal, some types of birth control would be outlawed, in vitro fertilization would be a grey area and/or outlawed, and controlling/abusing women would be a grey area again. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> So no, not an exaggeration at all.



Thanks for making my day! Exaggerated exaggerations... Too much.

Can't wait for the next one...


----------



## FarmboyBill

Did enny u see where AMY flashed Piers Morgan?? Wish Ida been there lol


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Another fantasy
> Why make things up?


He didn't make anything up. He was spot on.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Thanks for making my day! Exaggerated exaggerations... Too much.
> 
> Can't wait for the next one...


You're welcome! Can you explain the exaggerated exaggerations, or are all of my examples exaggerated exaggerations? Are you sure they are are exaggerated, or could they just be exaggerations? Too much?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> If the religious right had their way America would have a judeo-christian version of sharia law so fast our heads would spin.





Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Gay marriage would be gone, homosexuality would be a illegal, abortion would be illegal, some types of birth control would be outlawed, in vitro fertilization would be a grey area and/or outlawed, and controlling/abusing women would be a grey area again. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> So no, not an exaggeration at all.


Now that's entertainment...you really think like that?:hysterical:


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Now that's entertainment...you really think like that?:hysterical:


 Where is the exaggeration? Its a fact there is a subset of people who think gays are going to suffer eternal damnation because of their desires, based on no more than a few lines of Old Testament fire and brimstone bigotry. We've seen time and again those same folks often harbor secret homosexual feelings themselves, and are so full of self-loathing they project it onto others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> The example was your response I quoted. Why would you consider your own words not real?


That wasn't telling you how to live or trying to make you adhere to my beliefs.
It was pointing out a fact


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> what a foolish reply...
> 
> conÂ·front
> k&#601;n&#712;fr&#601;nt/
> _verb_ compel (someone) to face or consider something, especially by way of accusation.
> 
> 
> "Tricia *confronted* him *with* her suspicions"
> You do go to great lengths to change the intent of what someone says into your hateful meanings. I do wonder how you can be happy with yourself. Show me where I have used "you are going to hell" in any one of my posts.
> 
> *You are continuing in your deceitfulness trying to change what I have said to mean what you want it to mean*. It does not work that way. I wish you would stop doing that and let me be in control of what what I say means. If you have a problem understanding, you may ask me "What do you mean?" You may not explain what I mean any more than I get to explain what you mean.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> I consider your accusations and/or suggestions that I am the same as ISIS to be very insulting and am at a loss as to why they have been allowed to remain.


I didn't change anything you said
Those are your words alone, and I explained how the actions are the same

Did you ever stop to think people consider your calling them "sinners" is also an insult?



> Show me where I have used "you are going to hell" in any one of my posts


Here's where you *alluded *to it without using the exact words. Still got your dictionary handy? 

If that's not what you were referring to, feel free to explain precisely what this means:



Shine said:


> ...lots of gnashing of teeth, that's what.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> Where is the exaggeration? Its a fact there is a subset of people who think gays are going to suffer eternal damnation because of their desires, based on no more than a few lines of Old Testament fire and brimstone bigotry. We've seen time and again those same folks often harbor secret homosexual feelings themselves, and are so full of self-loathing they project it onto others.


Well now, I'm sure that you and pixie are taking it to the extreme a tad but - hey... have at it...


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Where is the exaggeration? Its a fact there is a subset of people who think gays are going to suffer eternal damnation because of their desires, based on no more than a few lines of Old Testament fire and brimstone bigotry. We've seen time and again those same folks often harbor secret homosexual feelings themselves, and are so full of self-loathing they project it onto others.


Why would a homosexual that has no belief in God worry for one second about eternal damnation? They are free to act on all their desires knowing this is all about them and there is nothing else. I'm not God so I don't know what the end result will be but I would not expect anything good. Sorry...I view it perverted and that's my personal belief...and no..I do not harbor secret homosexual feelings...you make that sound normal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by greg273 View Post
> Where is the exaggeration? Its a fact there is a subset of people who think gays are going to suffer eternal damnation because of their desires, based on no more than a few lines of Old Testament fire and brimstone bigotry. We've seen time and again those same folks often harbor secret homosexual feelings themselves, and are so full of self-loathing they project it onto others.





elevenpoint said:


> Why would a homosexual that has no belief in God worry for one second about eternal damnation? They are free to act on all their desires knowing this is all about them and there is nothing else. I'm not God so I don't know what the end result will be but I would not expect anything good. Sorry...I view it perverted and that's my personal belief...and no..I do not harbor secret homosexual feelings...you make that sound normal.


There's nothing in anything he said that pertains to what gays think.

You totally misunderstood


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing in anything he said that pertains to what gays think.
> 
> You totally misunderstood


No I understand...you don't. That was my answer based upon his statement. That's my opinion and X amount won't like it because it does not fit in their agenda...beliefs..or their opinion. Too bad.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't change anything you said
> Those are your words alone, and I explained how the actions are the same
> 
> Did you ever stop to think people consider your calling them "sinners" is also an insult?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where you *alluded *to it without using the exact words. Still got your dictionary handy?
> 
> If that's not what you were referring to, feel free to explain precisely what this means:


This is really tiring. OK you want to pin something on me, SHOW ME WHERE I SPECIFICALLY CALLED ANYONE HERE A SINNER. Other than that I am relating to you and others what the Bible says - See that's YOU putting words in my mouth.

That is not "alluding to", that is me calling you out for your dishonest behavior exactly the same as in your above reply. wow.

No way - you either get my meaning or you get to ask what I meant if you didn't understand what I MEANT, you do not get to assign your meanings to my words. That is DISHONEST.

Luke 13, if you really want to know.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> And you assume that the Bible is reliable and correct.


 So now are you admitting that science is a religion because it, like Christianity, is based on assumptions which are believed only on the faith of the assumer.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some but not others? He must do it in an undeniable way to make you so certain, so why do so many people not have that experience?
> 
> Do you think those people are just stubborn and are rejecting obvious evidence of God? Maybe you think God needs a certain number of pragmatic scientists to make earth work properly, so he just doesn't reveal himself to them?
> 
> Seriously, why do you think that happens?


God isn't hiding nor do you need a special secret decoder ring to understand Him. 

Men set themselves up as gods so they can make their own rules which allow them to live as they wish. When you have no firm foundation of right and wrong you can 'adjust' what's right and what is wrong to fit what you want. Cults are a good example of this.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Not according the the Bible I'm familiar with. As I recall, we were going to be asked a few simple questions to gain entrance to the kingdom.
> 
> 1. When I was hungry did you feed me?
> 2. When I was thirsty did you give me something to drink?
> 3. When I was a stranger did you invite me in?
> 4. When I was naked did you clothe me?
> 5. When I was sick did you visit me?
> 6. When I was in prison did you come to me?
> And what you do for them, you do for me.
> 
> Any of those questions sound familiar?


Your memory is faulty so you might want to read a bit more. Do you think the thief who was crucified next to Christ did any of that? After all he was a thief. Yet Christ said He would see him in Paradise. You won't be asked any questions before you are allowed into Heaven, your chance to answer questions will be gone. You will have to answer for your actions.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You sound like ISIS, trying to force your views on people who haven't asked for your opinion nor advice on how to live.


Giving your views is not forcing them upon someone. No one on this board can force you to read anything they post. 

Look at it this way, if someone about to dive off a 15 foot ledge into water you knew was only 4 foot deep would you be "forcing" your view on them if you try to tell what they were about to do was dangerous?

One other thing, anyone who claims to the a Christian and tries to force you to listen to, read or in any other way learn about Christ if you do not want is not following the teachings of Christ. Christ tells His followers if someone doesn't want to hear the Word they are to just walk away.


----------



## watcher

keenataz said:


> So you believing that some magic guy in the sky created everything is no more absurd than a space ship? Actually both are to me.
> 
> And you too can enjoy your dream world, I prefer the factually proven world.


Then you have a problem. As I have pointed out almost all of science is based as much on faith as any religion you pick.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *Giving your views is not forcing them upon someone.* No one on this board can force you to read anything they post.
> 
> Look at it this way, if someone about to dive off a 15 foot ledge into water you knew was only 4 foot deep would you be "forcing" your view on them if you try to tell what they were about to do was dangerous?
> 
> One other thing, *anyone who claims to the a Christian and tries to force you to listen to, read or in any other way learn about Christ if you do not want is not following the teachings of Christ*. Christ tells His followers if someone doesn't want to hear the Word they are to just walk away.


"Confronting sinners" isn't "giving your views"
It's making a judgement and irritating people who never asked

We do agree on that second part

Shine *said* it's "*forcing*" and says he's always honest so I must take him at his word:



> *conÂ·front*
> k&#601;n&#712;fr&#601;nt/
> verb *compel* (someone) to face or consider something, especially by way of accusation.





> comÂ·pel
> [k&#601;m&#712;pel]
> VERB
> *force* or oblige (someone) to do something:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> No I understand...you don't. That was my answer based upon his statement. That's my opinion and X amount won't like it because it does not fit in their agenda...beliefs..or their opinion. Too bad.


If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you did


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *This is really tiring.* OK you want to pin something on me, SHOW ME WHERE I SPECIFICALLY CALLED ANYONE HERE A SINNER. Other than that I am relating to you and others what the Bible says - See that's YOU putting words in my mouth.
> 
> That is not "alluding to", that is me calling you out for your dishonest behavior exactly the same as in your above reply. wow.
> 
> No way - you either get my meaning or you get to ask what I meant if you didn't understand what I MEANT, you do not get to assign your meanings to my words. That is DISHONEST.
> 
> Luke 13, if you really want to know.


Yes it is tiring having to repeat everything for you


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> Where is the exaggeration? Its a fact there is a subset of people who think gays are going to suffer eternal damnation because of their desires, based on no more than a few lines of Old Testament fire and brimstone bigotry. We've seen time and again those same folks often harbor secret homosexual feelings themselves, and are so full of self-loathing they project it onto others.


True. People that think homosexuality is perverted are often suppressed homosexuals. They lash out because of those feelings. It has to be difficult to long for what you've been told to hate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Confronting sinners" isn't "giving your views"
> It's making a judgement and irritating people who never asked
> 
> We do agree on that second part
> 
> Shine *said* it's "*forcing*" and says he's always honest so I must take him at his word:


This. I simply don't care if you believe that a purple spotted dragon is the basis of your faith. What I do care is that I'm told over and over, a person that doesn't believe in purple spotted dragons, that I'm going to suffer eternal damnation for my non belief simply because _you_ do.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Confronting sinners" isn't "giving your views"
> It's making a judgement and irritating people who never asked
> 
> We do agree on that second part
> 
> Shine *said* it's "*forcing*" and says he's always honest so I must take him at his word:



See, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Good catch on the meaning of "Compel". The intention of what I meant is more easily understood by considering the information below. As words sometimes have many meanings you will see that it is possible that my intent was not to force but to do "something as a favor". The definition used "Compel" and as we find that the Synonym for "Compel" is "to oblige" then it is obvious that 1. you intend to assign your meanings to my words and/or 2. you just did not take the time to understand my intent.

So, here we have an effort on your part to try to explain my meaning by using one definition of one word. Does a single word explain an entire content or do you have to consider the context to try to achieve a genuine understanding? I am compelled to leave you with that.
*Synonym Discussion of compel*

force, compel, coerce, constrain, *oblige *
* Full Definition of oblige *

*obliged, **obligÂ·ing*
*transitive verb*

*1 : to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance <obliged to find a job>*

*2 a : to put in one's debt by a favor or service <we are much obliged for your help> b : to do a favor for <always ready to oblige a friend>*

*intransitive verb*

*: to do something as or as if as a favor*

May it be that this day turns out wonderfully for you.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> This. I simply don't care if you believe that a purple spotted dragon is the basis of your faith. What I do care is that I'm told over and over, a person that doesn't believe in purple spotted dragons, that I'm going to suffer eternal damnation for my non belief simply because _you_ do.


I understand, but in this great nation you cannot tell someone that they have to "shut up" about this subject or that subject just because you're within earshot of their words. Sure, you can politely ask a person that broaches the subject in your presence to not discuss this particular subject, and if the person is a considerate person and not having a conversation with another, religion being the subject of that conversation then I would expect them to oblige you in your request. 

In turn, it would seem to compel you to accept a discussion between others, of which you are not a part of to be conducted in earshot of your hearing without barging into that discussion to insult the believers of whatever LEGAL conversation or to just walk away.

Now this is a discussion board so the words are more of a permanent nature, there should be a limit as to what one is willing to do to discredit this or that way of thinking. The rules of the forum seem to do that to a degree, we should, as civilized beings, take it upon ourselves to conduct ourselves accordingly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I understand, but in this great nation you cannot tell someone that they have to "shut up" about this subject or that subject just because you're within earshot of their words. Sure, you can politely ask a person that broaches the subject in your presence to not discuss this particular subject, and if the person is a considerate person and not having a conversation with another, religion being the subject of that conversation then I would expect them to oblige you in your request.
> 
> In turn, it would seem to compel you to accept a discussion between others, of which you are not a part of to be conducted in earshot of your hearing without barging into that discussion to insult the believers of whatever LEGAL conversation or to just walk away.
> 
> Now this is a discussion board so the words are more of a permanent nature, there should be a limit as to what one is willing to do to discredit this or that way of thinking. The rules of the forum seem to do that to a degree, we should, as civilized beings, take it upon ourselves to conduct ourselves accordingly.


If you are speaking directly to me and start with the religious BS I will tell you to shut up and probably a lot more. I have the right to freedom _from_ religion as much as you do. 

On this forum I won't tell you to shut up, but if posters insist on directing their religious BS at me I will tell them exactly why I don't believe it. Fair enough? After all, I do have the option of responding and disagreeing.


----------



## Nevada

The problem I have with religion offering explanations for the origin of the earth, the creation of man, or anything else that science doesn't explain is that religious explanations don't offer a lot of insight into how things happened. Mostly it's just blankly stating that "God did it."


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> True. People that think homosexuality is perverted are often suppressed homosexuals. They lash out because of those feelings. It has to be difficult to long for what you've been told to hate.


No such thing as a suppressed homosexual...and they do think it is perverted because that's what works for them. Thank God there are normal healthy men and women that don't think like that. Remember...absolutely nothing wrong with being heterosexual.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> No such thing as a suppressed homosexual...and they do think it is perverted because that's what works for them. Thank God there are normal healthy men and women that don't think like that. Remember...absolutely nothing wrong with being heterosexual.


It must be difficult...


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> It must be difficult...


Why would living a life of normal man woman relationships be difficult? Don't get any better.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Not worth it.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> If you are speaking directly to me and start with the religious BS I will tell you to shut up and probably a lot more. I have the right to freedom _from_ religion as much as you do.
> 
> On this forum I won't tell you to shut up, but if posters insist on directing their religious BS at me I will tell them exactly why I don't believe it. Fair enough? After all, I do have the option of responding and disagreeing.


Fair enough.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Then you have a problem. As I have pointed out almost all of science is based as much on faith as any religion you pick.


There is a BIG difference between pointing something out and proving it. Lying about science only proves that you don't understand hiw science works.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> True. People that think homosexuality is perverted are often suppressed homosexuals. They lash out because of those feelings. It has to be difficult to long for what you've been told to hate.


Sigh..And proponents feel that longing to be something of their dreams, but have been to afraid of what their family, friends, and coworkers would think because society was repulsed by the idea. Now they yell the loudest about rights so they now can fulfill their little dreams. Got it! It does have to be difficult to live a lie.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Sigh..And proponents feel that longing to be something of their dreams, but have been to afraid of what their family, friends, and coworkers would think because society was repulsed by the idea. Now they yell the loudest about rights so they now can fulfill their little dreams. Got it! It does have to be difficult to live a lie.


:hysterical: Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> See, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Good catch on the meaning of "Compel". The intention of what I meant is more easily understood by considering the information below. As words sometimes have many meanings you will see that it is possible that my intent was not to force but to do "something as a favor". The definition used "Compel" and as we find that the Synonym for "Compel" is "to oblige" then it is obvious that 1. you intend to assign your meanings to my words and/or 2. you just did not take the time to understand my intent.
> 
> So, here we have an effort on your part to try to explain my meaning by using one definition of one word. Does a single word explain an entire content or *do you have to consider the context* to try to achieve a genuine understanding? I am compelled to leave you with that.
> *Synonym Discussion of compel*
> 
> force, compel, coerce, constrain, *oblige *
> * Full Definition of oblige *
> 
> *obliged, **obligÂ·ing*
> *transitive verb*
> 
> *1 : to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance <obliged to find a job>*
> 
> *2 a : to put in one's debt by a favor or service <we are much obliged for your help> b : to do a favor for <always ready to oblige a friend>*
> 
> *intransitive verb*
> 
> *: to do something as or as if as a favor*
> 
> May it be that this day turns out wonderfully for you.


Spin and backpedalling. I consider the context of all I've seen you say.

The first difinition in those lists is the most commonly used, and it still says "force":



> *1 : to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force* or by the exigencies of circumstance _<obliged to find a job>_


Here's what you said:



> conÂ·strain
> [k&#601;n&#712;str&#257;n]
> VERB
> severely restrict the scope, extent, or activity of:





> reÂ·strict
> [r&#601;&#712;strikt]
> VERB
> put a limit on; keep under control:





> oÂ·blige
> [&#601;&#712;bl&#299;j]
> VERB
> make (someone) legally or morally bound to an action or course of action:


It keeps coming back to force and control, still using nothing but your own (now) carefully chosen words

The more you talk, the deeper you dig the hole


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> :hysterical: Thank you.


If the shoe fits...:goodjob:


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Confronting sinners" isn't "giving your views"
> It's making a judgement and irritating people who never asked
> 
> We do agree on that second part
> 
> Shine *said* it's "*forcing*" and says he's always honest so I must take him at his word:


And you don't judge people? 

Life is full of irritations, part of being an adult is learning how to deal with them. Whining about them and demanding that someone do something to is childish.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> True. People that think homosexuality is perverted are often suppressed homosexuals. They lash out because of those feelings. It has to be difficult to long for what you've been told to hate.


Life is full of all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs. Do you think the government should be in the business of saying which beliefs are 'correct'?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> This. I simply don't care if you believe that a purple spotted dragon is the basis of your faith. What I do care is that I'm told over and over, a person that doesn't believe in purple spotted dragons, that I'm going to suffer eternal damnation for my non belief simply because _you_ do.


If you TRULY believe that someone is facing danger would you not warn them? Say you see someone standing at the edge of what looks to you to be an unstable cliff. Would you not feel you should point out the condition of the cliff and how what they are doing is dangerous?

Also what's the big deal about someone telling you their belief if you don't believe it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> And you don't judge people?
> 
> Life is full of irritations, part of being an adult is learning how to deal with them. Whining about them and demanding that someone do something to is childish.


I haven't made any demands.
I think you have me confused with someone else



> Also what's the big deal about someone telling you their belief if you don't believe it?


Scroll back.
That's been answered


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with religion offering explanations for the origin of the earth, the creation of man, or anything else that science doesn't explain is that religious explanations don't offer a lot of insight into how things happened. Mostly it's just blankly stating that "God did it."


You get the same type of reply when you ask scientist questions as well. Ask one how did something as complex as a neuron come to be? Or how something as "simple" as a cell evolved. You get "Well it just happened."


----------



## FourDeuce

If you TRULY believe Harry Potter is the greatest wizard to ever attend Hogwarts, wouldn't you want to make laws pointing that fact out to everybody?


----------



## Irish Pixie

FourDeuce said:


> If you TRULY believe Harry Potter is the greatest wizard to ever attend Hogwarts, wouldn't you want to make laws pointing that fact out to everybody?


Well, he is but I don't think we need law to point it out.


----------



## roadless

I asked my daughter why she feels compelled to talk of her faith with others. (She totally backs off if they don't express an interest)

She said "Mom, if I knew of a great deal ,one that brought me such pleasure, how could I not share that information with others?"

While we don't have the same perspective, I am very proud of her and how she lives according to her beliefs.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> There is a BIG difference between pointing something out and proving it. Lying about science only proves that you don't understand hiw science works.


Let's try this one more time. What is a religion? In its most basic form is a belief system based on something which you assume but you can't prove and therefore you believe because of your faith.

According to many in science to believe something you must have "proof" to support it. That proof must be something which can be repeatedly shown experimentally or is observed to be correct 100% of the time. 

That means in science you can not just guess, assume or take on faith something happened to provide 'proof' for you theory.

Yet it seems that all the 'scientist' here are perfectly willing to ignore their own rules when it comes to the origin of the universe because 1) their observations have been proven to be incorrect and must be 'corrected' by add in some unknown, unseen and undetectable matter; 2) it is known that gravity changes the properties of light and 3) the speed of light has been proven by repeated experiments to not be constant.

That means their belief is based on assumptions and the faith that their assumptions are correct. Which is the same way followers of most religions support their view of how the universe was made.

Think about it. Say I told you I had mathematical proof based on my assumptions that your car would do 200 mph but when I took it to a track the radar showed it maxed out at 112 mph. Then I told you that your car was really doing 200 mph but there was something we couldn't see nor detect interfering with the radar would you accept as 'fact' that you have a 200 mph car? If not why do you accept as 'fact' all the things science tells you about the universe based on math which has been proven to not match the real world results?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Let's try this one more time. What is a religion? In its most basic form is a belief system based on something which you assume but you can't prove and therefore you believe because of your faith.
> 
> According to many in science to believe something you must have "proof" to support it. That proof must be something which can be repeatedly shown experimentally or is observed to be correct 100% of the time.
> 
> That means in science you can not just guess, assume or take on faith something happened to provide 'proof' for you theory.


In religion, there is nothing *but* faith. It's very likely there will never be anything other than faith

In science, there are proven facts, and predictions or theories *based on* those facts which may or may not yet be proven.

It was over 100 years ago that Einstein predicted "gravity waves" which were just proven last week. Science *can* have portions based on "faith" or "guesses" but those are based on proven knowledge. 

Scientists are quick to admit they don't know everything and willing to change if new evidence comes along

It's *some* of the religious who often proclaim their way is the *only* way, simply because they say so, and because that's what someone else said a long time ago.

They aren't open to any disagreement at all.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Spin and backpedalling. I consider the context of all I've seen you say.
> 
> The first difinition in those lists is the most commonly used, and it still says "force":
> 
> Here's what you said:
> 
> It keeps coming back to force and control, still using nothing but your own (now) carefully chosen words
> 
> The more you talk, the deeper you dig the hole



I used the transitive verb, you really work hard so that you get to say what someone means, I'm impressed.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> You get the same type of reply when you ask scientist questions as well. Ask one how did something as complex as a neuron come to be? Or how something as "simple" as a cell evolved. You get "Well it just happened."


 If you were to truly ask someone who makes it their life to study such things, you'd get a lot more than 'it just happened'. 

And to your other points,
You've brought up the speed of light numerous times, as if it proves something. What would that be? 

Are you one of the 'young earthers', watcher?


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Let's try this one more time. What is a religion? In its most basic form is a belief system based on something which you assume but you can't prove and therefore you believe because of your faith.
> 
> According to many in science to believe something you must have "proof" to support it. That proof must be something which can be repeatedly shown experimentally or is observed to be correct 100% of the time.
> 
> That means in science you can not just guess, assume or take on faith something happened to provide 'proof' for you theory.
> 
> Yet it seems that all the 'scientist' here are perfectly willing to ignore their own rules when it comes to the origin of the universe because 1) their observations have been proven to be incorrect and must be 'corrected' by add in some unknown, unseen and undetectable matter; 2) it is known that gravity changes the properties of light and 3) the speed of light has been proven by repeated experiments to not be constant.
> 
> That means their belief is based on assumptions and the faith that their assumptions are correct. Which is the same way followers of most religions support their view of how the universe was made.
> 
> Think about it. Say I told you I had mathematical proof based on my assumptions that your car would do 200 mph but when I took it to a track the radar showed it maxed out at 112 mph. Then I told you that your car was really doing 200 mph but there was something we couldn't see nor detect interfering with the radar would you accept as 'fact' that you have a 200 mph car? If not why do you accept as 'fact' all the things science tells you about the universe based on math which has been proven to not match the real world results?


Who told you what I accept? I didn't.
I've been thinking about it for about 50 years so far. Lying about science will never help your credibility. One thing rational people learn is the difference between science and "what some scientists do". IF you ever learn that, you'll be well on the way to understanding the error in your argument.

"Say I told you I had mathematical proof based on my assumptions that your car would do 200 mph"
That would show me that you don't understand basic logic. Anything based on assumptions is not proof.

"That means their belief is based on assumptions and the faith that their assumptions are correct."
Science requires no belief or assumptions. Not everything scientists do is science. Not even Einstein.


----------



## FourDeuce

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, he is but I don't think we need law to point it out.


I don't think we need any laws about imaginary friends.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> You get the same type of reply when you ask scientist questions as well. Ask one how did something as complex as a neuron come to be? Or how something as "simple" as a cell evolved. You get "Well it just happened."


Not if you're talking to a rational scientist. A rational scientist will tell you we don't have all the answers. That's why it's important to learn the difference between science and "the things some scientists do". Blaming science for the mistakes some scientists make is like blaming medical science when doctors make mistakes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FourDeuce said:


> I don't think we need any laws about imaginary friends.


Harry's not real? Bite your tongue! You muggle, you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I used the transitive verb, you really work hard so that you get to say *what someone means*, I'm impressed.


You said "confront"
That means "force"
Every other term you used meant the same thing.
Argue with the dictionary if you disagree


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You said "confront"
> That means "force"
> Every other term you used meant the same thing.
> Argue with the dictionary if you disagree


Nope, you do not get to define what I mean.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Nope, you do not get to define what I mean.


I didn't.
You posted your own definitions from the dictionary, as did I.
Confront, compel, oblige, force, make.........all the same meanings, and all words you chose.

I'm not running in circles with you over this anymore.

Deny it if you like. I still see what you *said*


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't.
> You posted your own definitions from the dictionary, as did I.
> Confront, compel, oblige, force, make.........all the same meanings, and all words you chose.
> 
> I'm not running in circles with you over this anymore.
> 
> Deny it if you like. I still see what you *said*


You picked my posts apart word by word, evidently looking up the definitions for each and because words can have different meanings depending upon how they are used, you chose which of those definitions that could be used to support what you wanted it to support. 

You do not get to do that. I control what I mean.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

See my previous post


----------



## Shine

...no thanks.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> If you were to truly ask someone who makes it their life to study such things, you'd get a lot more than 'it just happened'.
> 
> And to your other points,
> You've brought up the speed of light numerous times, as if it proves something. What would that be?


The fact that everything those who claim to have 'proof' of the big bang have no scientific proof at all. As I have pointed out in science we are told, repeatedly, that you can not just say something is happening you have to have proof. That proof can be repeatable experiments or it can be a massive amount of observed data with ZERO evidence countering. Yet we are told that the universe is X years old and is expanding at Y speed and many other things all based on the assumption that the properties of light are the same in deep space. There are no experiments showing this, the real world observations do not show this (hence there MUST BE dark matter) and there are repeated experiments showing light is effected by gravity and some showing the speed of light can be changed.

Therefore those who make any claims on 'knowing' anything about the age of the universe or its origins are doing so based on assumptions and taking things on faith. 




greg273 said:


> Are you one of the 'young earthers', watcher?


Nope, there's no way to prove how old the earth is; neither Bibilically nor scientifically. I don't know how old the earth and if you apply the same scientific requirements on the data used by scientist to 'prove' the age of the earth you will find the same flaws. Tell me this, can you give me a link to any experiment which shows how long it takes for sediment to become rock? If not then how can you tell me how old it is?


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "Say I told you I had mathematical proof based on my assumptions that your car would do 200 mph"
> That would show me that you don't understand basic logic. Anything based on assumptions is not proof.


So you now admit that we have no 'proof' about the size, the speed of expansion, age nor creation of the universe? After all there is no scientific proof that supports any of the data we are given because its all based on assumptions.

The same thing can be said about macroevolution and most of geology. None of it has anything which can be scientifically 'proven'.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> Not if you're talking to a rational scientist. A rational scientist will tell you we don't have all the answers. That's why it's important to learn the difference between science and "the things some scientists do". Blaming science for the mistakes some scientists make is like blaming medical science when doctors make mistakes.


Which is just another way of "Well it just happened."


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Nope, there's no way to prove how old the earth is; neither Bibilically nor scientifically.





watcher said:


> So you now admit that we have no 'proof' about the size, the speed of expansion, age nor creation of the universe?


These are things we know. There is absolutely a way to tell how old the earth is. We can also demonstrate the big bang event through the measurable expansion of the universe and back-calculating from there.

You evidently have a hypothesis that the laws of physics change from one place in the universe to another, but I don't know of a reasonable explanation for why that might be.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Tell me this, can you give me a link to any experiment which shows how long it takes for sediment to become rock? If not then how can you tell me how old it is?


It varies, depending on a few factors, and the age of the earth has been determined using many different techniques. While none of them are 100% accurate, they give a good enough picture that we KNOW for a fact the earth is BILLIONS of years old, not the 'thousands' that some would have us believe. 
You are free to look these things up yourself. It does not appear you spent much time studying these things in any depth. You do however seem to repeat the same often-used (and thoroughly debunked) talking points used by the creationists. I don't have time to go into each one point by point, but others have already done so. Do yourself a favor and look into them, they might answer some of these questions you keep asking. Scroll back about 30 pages or so, I provided some links that go into the creationist talking points one by one.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Which is just another way of "Well it just happened."


 Not even close watcher. Amazing you disrespect 'science' while communicating via the internet, possibly using satellites to bounce the data back and forth. All that stuff you claim is based on 'assumptions' allows you to send messages around the world at the speed of light. The good news is science works, even if you don't fully understand it.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> its all based on assumptions.
> 
> The same thing can be said about macroevolution and most of geology. None of it has anything which can be scientifically 'proven'.


 You are 100% wrong on that. Perhaps if you spent some time studying these things yourself you'd understand the hard work, meticulous observation, experimentation, and lifetimes of dedication that went into expanding the human base of knowledge. None of it was easy, and for you to come along and say ' its all BS' is the height of arrogance, and lets face it, ignorance.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> In religion, there is nothing *but* faith. It's very likely there will never be anything other than faith
> 
> In science, there are proven facts, and predictions or theories *based on* those facts which may or may not yet be proven.
> 
> It was over 100 years ago that Einstein predicted "gravity waves" which were just proven last week. Science *can* have portions based on "faith" or "guesses" but those are based on proven knowledge.
> 
> Scientists are quick to admit they don't know everything and willing to change if new evidence comes along
> 
> It's *some* of the religious who often proclaim their way is the *only* way, simply because they say so, and because that's what someone else said a long time ago.
> 
> They aren't open to any disagreement at all.


Great job on being word police...you do know the difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves that LIGO claims they have discovered last week?:nono:


----------



## Shine

The final word will not be with me nor will it be with anyone herein. We will all pass, I believe that we all have souls, there have been some scientists that have found at the moment of death that there is a transfer of something measurable so maybe science does indicate that "something" leaves at the moment of death.

As for Heaven and hell, I understand it to have two significant differences as postulated in the Bible, Heaven will have the presence of God, hell will have the absence of God.

Science is really humans who desire to have everything nice and neat so that they can hold it in their hands and show it to others. I wonder, how many scientists have been bitten by their pet assumptions.

The "all" is not to be known, I would think that if humans lived to the point where our species is a billion years old, two billion years, - the unknown will still be with us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Great job on being word police...you do know the difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves that LIGO claims they have discovered last week?:nono:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave


> In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are *waves generated in a fluid medium* or at the interface between two media when the force of gravity or buoyancy tries to restore equilibrium. An example of such an interface is that between the atmosphere and the ocean, which gives rise to wind waves.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave



> In physics, gravitational waves are *ripples in the curvature of spacetime *which propagate as waves, travelling outward from the source. Predicted in 1916[1][2] by Albert Einstein on the basis of his theory of general relativity,[3][4] gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation.


They both seem to be "*waves *in a fluid medium"

Do you know the difference in "confront, compel, oblige and *force*"?

There is none. You caught me making a slight mistake. Big whoop!

It doesn't change what anyone else said


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you know the difference in "confront, compel, oblige and *force*"?



Do you? Why would you bold "force"? Is that what you want people to believe that I meant? If that was not my intention, why do you press so hard? Does oblige mean "to force" and is that it's only meaning? 

What is your issue where it is so important for you to change the meanings that I intend to infer?

I really wish you would accept that what you understand someone to mean is not necessarily what that person meant.

I also wish you would stop with your efforts to discredit me in the fashion that you have been doing for some time as highlighted by this post and within this thread.

It is quite dishonest.


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> I believe that we all have souls, there have been some scientists that have found at the moment of death that there is a transfer of something measurable so maybe science does indicate that "something" leaves at the moment of death.


Strange that you mock mainstream science, yet you believe debunked pseudoscience.

_It turns out that the only source for the 21 gram figure is a discredited study carried out in 1907 by a Haverhill, Massachusetts, doctor by the name of Duncan MacDougall._
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html

I could post more about this, but I have nothing to gain by embarrassing you further.


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> Strange that you mock mainstream science, yet you believe debunked pseudoscience.
> 
> _It turns out that the only source for the 21 gram figure is a discredited study carried out in 1907 by a Haverhill, Massachusetts, doctor by the name of Duncan MacDougall._
> http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html
> 
> I could post more about this, but I have nothing to gain by embarrassing you further.


Someone does not have to work hard to find things that I am in err on, I'm pretty good at embarrassing myself, thank you very much... :bowtie:

As far as a "debunked" study, I had only heard that there was such of a study, it is why I did not call it out specifically. If it was debunked then it was debunked, it really does not take away from the overall point that I was trying to make...


----------



## Shine

Food for thought:

" Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and even the commonest mental operations &#8211; such as imagination and memory &#8211; suggest the existence of a vital life force &#8211; an _Ã©lan vital_ &#8211; that exists independent of the body."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

http://www.zmescience.com/science/science-explains-our-soul/

"The topic of "life after death" raises disreputable connotations of past-life regression and haunted houses, but there are a large number of people in the world who believe in _some_ form of persistence of the individual soul after life ends."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Do you? Why would you bold "force"? Is that what you want people to believe that I meant? If that was not my intention, why do you press so hard? Does oblige mean "to force" and is that it's only meaning?
> 
> *What is your issue where it is so important for you to change the meanings that I intend to infer?
> *
> I really wish you would accept that what you understand someone to mean is *not necessarily what that person meant.*
> 
> I also wish you would stop with your efforts to discredit me in the fashion that you have been doing for some time as highlighted by this post and within this thread.
> 
> It is quite dishonest.


You don't seem to really know the meanings yourself, or you wouldn't have said "infer" when you obviously meant "imply".

Put me on ignore :shrug:


----------



## FourDeuce

"Science is really humans who desire to have everything nice and neat so that they can hold it in their hands and show it to others. I wonder, how many scientists have been bitten by their pet assumptions."
Not nearly as many as the people who try to attack science by lying about what science is. :shrug:


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Which is just another way of "Well it just happened."


No, it isn't. If you want to discuss philosophy, you should first learn to comprehend simple English. When somebody doesn't say what you want them to say, you can't change what they said to suit your wishful thinking, at least not if you want any credibility.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> So you now admit that we have no 'proof' about the size, the speed of expansion, age nor creation of the universe?
> 
> Nope, I did not admit that. I said nothing about that. Try to keep up.
> 
> After all there is no scientific proof that supports any of the data we are given because its all based on assumptions.
> 
> THAT is a good demonstration of the futility of trying to discuss something from a position of ignorance.
> 
> The same thing can be said about macroevolution and most of geology. None of it has anything which can be scientifically 'proven'.


The same thing can't be said by anybody who has a clue about what science is. You can't judge what can be "scientifically proven" until you learn basic science.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't seem to really know the meanings yourself, or you wouldn't have said "infer" when you obviously meant "imply".
> 
> Put me on ignore :shrug:


Put you on ignore.. nope, you are too entertaining...

Infer
verb (used with object), inferred, inferring. 
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.

2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to. 

3. to guess; speculate; surmise. 

*4. **to hint; imply; suggest.

*Gee, you keep on keeping on... Please refer to definition #4.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Put you on ignore.. nope, you are too entertaining...
> 
> Infer
> verb (used with object), inferred, inferring.
> 1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
> 
> 2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
> 
> 3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
> 
> *4. **to hint; imply; suggest.
> 
> *Gee, you keep on keeping on... Please refer to definition #4.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer


Refer to me not caring
What I said is still true


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Refer to me not caring
> What I said is still true



The truth is as you have told others - You do not get to tell others what the meaning of my statements are. 

I willing to let this pass now...


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
> 
> 
> 
> They both seem to be "*waves *in a fluid medium"
> 
> Do you know the difference in "confront, compel, oblige and *force*"?
> 
> There is none. You caught me making a slight mistake. Big whoop!
> 
> It doesn't change what anyone else said


No...they are very different. Everybody knows that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The truth is as you have told others - You do not get to tell others what the meaning of my statements are.
> 
> *I willing to let this pass now.*..


You say that quite often, but so far it hasn't been true
You told your own meanings by the words you chose
Spin them any way you like


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> No...they are very different. Everybody knows that.


So what's your point?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> So what's your point?


That there very different.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmerDale said:


> Ok, here goes. The "science" you use, says that evolution is what causes species to change slowly over millions of years. It also explains how gender came about, how metamorphosis began. I ask, how did the first time ever that gender evolution was put into motion, it was completed in one step. Same for metamorphosis. It HAD to have happened in one, single generation, or it could not have carried on.
> 
> So, is it millions of years, or is it the sudden, rapid change theory? Please use science to back it up. Page 22 now, and no evolution believe has even tried to explain or tackle the question.


I would pull actual science sources to back this up, but since your overall respect for science is as dismal as my respect for organized religion, I suspect this would not go very far? I have been through several biological science classes where we've gone over such material several times. It has taken me years to learn the ins and outs of the theory - and I still only know the tip of the iceberg.

It is both ways.

Sometimes, a mutation will take place that causes a specific organism to evolve past it's normal characteristic. Normally, mutations are harmful and die out, such as the recent two-headed snake. Others may give a member of the species a significant advantage in some way, and the rest of the species will die off, or continue in a different evolutionary path, while the now-superior organism competes more successfully. This is the fast way.

The slow way occurs when the species slowly evolves due to a variety of factors - environmental, tiny mutations, breeding and natural variety, and many other methods too numerous to list. 

As for the specifics of gender... *Gender wouldn't exist if not for parasites.* According to several studies, gender evolved as a response to parasites. Without parasites, it is possibly for species to exist entirely using asexual reproduction.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> I would pull actual science sources to back this up, but since your overall respect for science is as dismal as my respect for organized religion, I suspect this would not go very far? I have been through several biological science classes where we've gone over such material several times. It has taken me years to learn the ins and outs of the theory - and I still only know the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> It is both ways.
> 
> Sometimes, a mutation will take place that causes a specific organism to evolve past it's normal characteristic. Normally, mutations are harmful and die out, such as the recent two-headed snake. Others may give a member of the species a significant advantage in some way, and the rest of the species will die off, or continue in a different evolutionary path, while the now-superior organism competes more successfully. This is the fast way.
> 
> The slow way occurs when the species slowly evolves due to a variety of factors - environmental, tiny mutations, breeding and natural variety, and many other methods too numerous to list.
> 
> As for the specifics of gender... *Gender wouldn't exist if not for parasites.* According to several studies, gender evolved as a response to parasites. Without parasites, it is possibly for species to exist entirely using asexual reproduction.


It appears that your examples are more of adaptation, than evolution.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You say that quite often, but so far it hasn't been true
> You told your own meanings by the words you chose
> Spin them any way you like


...sorry, that ship sailed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> That there very different.


You already said that. Why would it need to be repeated multiple times?

On a side note, since you want to nit-pick "There" " and "They're" are also very different. Even more "different" than "gravity" and "gravitational"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Shine:
> I willing to *let this pass* now..





> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> You say that quite often, but* so far it hasn't been true*
> You told your own meanings by the words you chose
> Spin them any way you like





Shine said:


> ...sorry, *that ship sailed*.


Round and round and round.
Always running in circles, going nowhere


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You already said that. Why would it need to be repeated multiple times?


I can answer that one, but I think you've heard it before....... :spinsmiley::grin:


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> It appears that your examples are more of adaptation, than evolution.


 Successful adaptation over time leads to evolution of the species.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Successful adaptation over time leads to evolution of the species.


Proof of when and how it all started please!


----------



## FourDeuce

Evolution started after life began. That's why it's important to learn something about the subject(evolution) before you try to discuss it.


----------



## Raeven

JeffreyD said:


> It appears that your examples are more of adaptation, than evolution.


Please, DO explain the difference between these two things. There is one, a very important one, so I look forward to hearing your answer for the edification of all who are following along with this thread and may not know.


----------



## Raeven

FourDeuce said:


> Evolution started after life began. That's why it's important to learn something about the subject(evolution) before you try to discuss it.


Research is still ongoing, but there has been a fascinating new discovery that may explain how life did, indeed, begin.

_"In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago."_

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html#jCp

It's a great read.


----------



## JeffreyD

Raeven said:


> Research is still ongoing, but there has been a fascinating new discovery that may explain how life did, indeed, begin.
> 
> _"In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago."_
> 
> Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html#jCp
> 
> It's a great read.


It is very interesting. But like that article says, "it's still a mystery".


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> Evolution started after life began. That's why it's important to learn something about the subject(evolution) before you try to discuss it.


How did life begin? Let's start there.


----------



## Raeven

JeffreyD said:


> It is very interesting. But like that article says, "it's still a mystery".


LOL, of course it is. I believe I covered that by prefacing my link with the words, "Research is still ongoing..." At this point, it's a working hypothesis that so far has been borne out by the evidence.

But those words, "It's still a mystery," hardly invalidate the many other words contained in the article in terms of discovery, now, do they?


----------



## Raeven

JeffreyD said:


> How did life begin? Let's start there.


Still waiting for you to explain the difference between adaptation and evolution, please.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yes, science is interesting, but "how it all began" has nothing to do with evolution. That's where many religious apologists go astray when they attempt to attack evolution(aside from the obvious fact that attacking evolution is a waste of time anyway).


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> How did life begin? Let's start there.


You should start another thread if you want to try to discuss other subjects. This thread already has a subject.:cowboy:


----------



## Elevenpoint

elevenpoint said:


> That there very different.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You already said that. Why would it need to be repeated multiple times?
> 
> On a side note, since you want to nit-pick "There" " and "They're" are also very different. Even more "different" than "gravity" and "gravitational"


There..they're..their...my error was due to Rolling Rocks...which was only exacerbated by pizza and chicken wings.....


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> These are things we know. There is absolutely a way to tell how old the earth is. We can also demonstrate the big bang event through the measurable expansion of the universe and back-calculating from there.
> 
> You evidently have a hypothesis that the laws of physics change from one place in the universe to another, but I don't know of a reasonable explanation for why that might be.


Is it true was true that we could do that then why did science have to "discover" dark matter? 

Let me ask you this. Someone comes to you with a computer model of a car which shows that when built it will do 200 mph. You agree to fund the manufacture of the car based on that. The car is built and taken to the test track and the radar testing shows that the car is maxing out at 150 mph. You ask the designer what's going on and he tells you that the car is really doing 200 mph but there is some strange unseen never before detected something that is making the electromagnetic waves from the radar emitters not travel correctly. Are you going to accept that or are you going to think the assumptions the designer used in his computer model is wrong?

Change car to deep space bodies and tell me why you accept what scientist tell you about the universe.

Also please show me the experiments which have proven, scientifically, the process used to guess the age of the earth are scientifically accurate. What experiment has shown how long it takes for the muck at the bottom of the sea to turn into rock?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> It varies, depending on a few factors, and the age of the earth has been determined using many different techniques. While none of them are 100% accurate, they give a good enough picture that we KNOW for a fact the earth is BILLIONS of years old, not the 'thousands' that some would have us believe.
> You are free to look these things up yourself. It does not appear you spent much time studying these things in any depth. You do however seem to repeat the same often-used (and thoroughly debunked) talking points used by the creationists. I don't have time to go into each one point by point, but others have already done so. Do yourself a favor and look into them, they might answer some of these questions you keep asking. Scroll back about 30 pages or so, I provided some links that go into the creationist talking points one by one.


And those techniques are based on what scientifically proven techniques? I hold science to its own standards. If you can not prove using scientific standards something then it should not be accepted. You can't just notice the tree you just cut down has a bunch of rings and then say "You can tell the age of a tree by counting the number of growth rings." You have to find many trees you know the age of and show that they indeed do have the same number of rings as age. You also have to NEVER find a tree of a known age which does not the expected number of rings. After several years of testing then you can start stating that this tree is X number of years old shown by the X number of growth rings.

In the same way you can't just say "Well it takes X years for this rock to form therefore we know that the earth is Y years old." You need to be able to prove, scientifically, your statement is factual. 

Now if you can post links to the experiments which have shown how long it takes for a rock to form we can start talking about how old the earth is. If you can not then your guess isn't any better than the next guy's who is providing unsupported 'proof'.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Not even close watcher. Amazing you disrespect 'science' while communicating via the internet, possibly using satellites to bounce the data back and forth. All that stuff you claim is based on 'assumptions' allows you to send messages around the world at the speed of light. The good news is science works, even if you don't fully understand it.


I have a huge respect for science that has been proven. I have very little respect for a "science" which doesn't follow the basic rules of scientific process and proof. I have very little respect for science which is based on guesses, assumptions and having to find invisible matter to make their guesses and assumptions line up with what the real world shows them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Now if you can *post links to the experiments* which have shown how long it takes for a rock to form we can start talking about how old the earth is. If you can not then your guess isn't any better than the next guy's who is providing unsupported 'proof'.


The flaw in your "logic" (I used that term *very* loosely) is you think everything has to be perfect to be considered "science" or it doesn't count at all 

Science allows extrapolation based on known facts when experimentation is impractical and is subject to change based on new evidence.

It's rare for any scientist to say something is *absolutely* certain short of very simple things.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Also please show me the experiments which have proven, scientifically, the process used to guess the age of the earth are scientifically accurate.


Those techniques depend on the half life of certain isotopes remaining constant. No experiment has ever shown the half life of an isotope to vary for any reason.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Of course it answers the question. Just not in a watcher approved way. I have no desire to play the endless watcher game of what ifs offering narrowing constructed scenarios and answers only you get to approve. Science doesn't work that way. It seeks answers where ever they lead. You complain that science creates theories to fill gaps. Faith does the same. Science seeks to prove those theories. Faith takes them as incontrovertible fact. Only one is intellectually honest.


And it seems to prove some of its theories science can suddenly 'discover' there is some strange undetectable stuff out there because without this stuff, which no one can't detect, the math supporting their theories doesn't match the real world observations. 

After all we can't question the Holy Grail of science, the properties of light are always the same. Eeven though science has already shown gravity does have an effect on light, oops forget I brought that up. . .we know all about deep space objects because of the electromagnetic spectrum and light. All hail the ever faithful, oops ever FACTUAL light speed.

And you guys make fun of people who call themselves religions because they believe in things that have never been proven?!?!


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> And you guys make fun of people who call themselves religions because they believe in things that have never been proven?!?!


I never make fun of ANYONE for his religious beliefs. I don't find a lot of it plausible, but I also don't want to take something away from a religious person that is important to him.


----------



## FourDeuce

"And you guys make fun of people who call themselves religions because they believe in things that have never been proven?!?!"

I also make fun of people who try to "prove" their arguments by lying about what other people do.ound:

"After all we can't question the Holy Grail of science"

You can't question anything until you learn to face the truth.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> The flaw in your "logic" (I used that term *very* loosely) is you think everything has to be perfect to be considered "science" or it doesn't count at all
> 
> Science allows extrapolation based on known facts when experimentation is impractical and is subject to change based on new evidence.
> 
> It's rare for any scientist to say something is *absolutely* certain short of very simple things.


After nearly 1000 responses and 15K views...
Very little is certain besides a few things science wise.
Billions spent in that effort.
To prove God does not exist.
No way to show where one little bitty crawdad came from that occupies one small creek on the face of the earth only.
All insects...animals...flowers...vegetables...fruit...
How Earth is perfect for us...
How we came about....
There is an answer...
But the wisest man cannot understand what goes on under the sun.


----------



## FourDeuce

Rational people understand that there is no need to prove gods don't exist until somebody proves gods do exist. :cowboy:

"How Earth is perfect for us..."
Would that be the Earth that is hostile to human life for more than 75% of its surface area?

"There is an answer"
There are plenty of answers. Correct answers are harder to find(and prove).


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Now if you can post links to the experiments which have shown how long it takes for a rock to form we can start talking about how old the earth is. If you can not then your guess isn't any better than the next guy's who is providing unsupported 'proof'.


 Wow watcher you sure go to some great lengths to prove absolutely nothing. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in, or fully understand the scientific principles behind estimation of the age of the earth or the universe. Science has a pretty good handle on it, and while those methods may not be 100% accurate, you won't find one serious scientist who says the earth is 6000 years old or whatever other nonsensical made-up number the creationists are bandying about.


----------



## greg273

FourDeuce said:


> "How Earth is perfect for us..."
> Would that be the Earth that is hostile to human life for more than 75% of its surface area?


 There was another internet creationist going on and on about how bananas were 'proof of God' because they're so 'perfect', apparently he forgot the modern banana has selectively bred by humans from the original, less than perfect wild bananas, over the course of many lifetimes. 
The creationists made-up nonsense generally falls apart under the slightest scientific scrutiny.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Billions spent in that effort.
> To prove God does not exist.
> .


 Who did that? If you think the role of science is to 'disprove God' then you're listening to the wrong people. Many scientists DO believe in God, and it doesn't affect their ability to observe and understand the processes of the natural world.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Rational people understand that there is no need to prove gods don't exist until somebody proves gods do exist. :cowboy:
> 
> "How Earth is perfect for us..."
> Would that be the Earth that is hostile to human life for more than 75% of its surface area?
> 
> "There is an answer"
> There are plenty of answers. Correct answers are harder to find(and prove).


You could try the Mars 1 gig and go live there. Report back how that works out.
You will not have the answer here. Guaranteed.
There are no "gods" except those you worship.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> And it seems to prove some of its theories science can suddenly 'discover' there is some strange undetectable stuff out there because without this stuff, which no one can't detect, the math supporting their theories doesn't match the real world observations.
> 
> After all we can't question the Holy Grail of science, the properties of light are always the same. Eeven though science has already shown gravity does have an effect on light, oops forget I brought that up. . .we know all about deep space objects because of the electromagnetic spectrum and light. All hail the ever faithful, oops ever FACTUAL light speed.
> 
> And you guys make fun of people who call themselves religions because they believe in things that have never been proven?!?!


It's all based on plausible science, however. There are only a few fields built entirely on theories, and almost all other science has at least some facts in it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> And it seems to prove some of its theories science can suddenly 'discover' there is some strange undetectable stuff out there because without this stuff, which no one can't detect, the math supporting their theories doesn't match the real world observations.


You've worn that one out through over-use, and you're still pretending someone claimed it was absolute truth. Lots of things are theories based on known facts, but subject to change

We're getting close to 1000 posts, and you've been saying the same thing the whole time.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "And you guys make fun of people who call themselves religions because they believe in things that have never been proven?!?!"
> 
> I also make fun of people who try to "prove" their arguments by lying about what other people do.ound:
> 
> "After all we can't question the Holy Grail of science"
> 
> You can't question anything until you learn to face the truth.


The truth is what science "knows" about the universe is based on assumptions and guesses.

Ask Nevada if he can use science to tell you quite accurately to tell you what volume of a specific fluid can be pumped through a specific size of pipe made of a specific material at a specific pressure and how much energy would be necessary to pump it. I bet he could and if you tested what he told you, you wouldn't need to fudge the results by adding some undetectable matter to get real life to line up with his results. This because fluid dynamics is based on scientifically proven standards. That is science is. 

Nothing we are told about deep space is based on anything that has been proven yet we are told we should accept it because its "science". If you used the theory of dark matter to explain why the results of a physics experiment didn't match either the math or the results of every other time others had done the experiment I'm willing to bet you would not receive a passing grade. Do you think you would?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Wow watcher you sure go to some great lengths to prove absolutely nothing. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in, or fully understand the scientific principles behind estimation of the age of the earth or the universe. Science has a pretty good handle on it, and while those methods may not be 100% accurate, you won't find one serious scientist who says the earth is 6000 years old or whatever other nonsensical made-up number the creationists are bandying about.


I notice that you are providing no scientific proof to show just how long it take a rock to form. Could that be because there is none? Come on its science and science always has proof to support its claims because taking things on faith isn't allowed.

And if "science" can make up dark matter to make the real observed universe fit what their faith tells them why can't someone else make up light matter to make the real earth age fit what their faith tells them? Why do you believe something that can't be proven when one group tells you about it but not when another group tells you something else that can not be proven?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I notice that you are providing no scientific proof to show just how long it take a rock to form. Could that be because there is none? Come on its science and science always has proof to support its claims because taking things on faith isn't allowed.
> 
> And if "science" can make up dark matter to make the real observed universe fit what their faith tells them why can't someone else make up light matter to make the real earth age fit what their faith tells them? Why do you believe something that can't be proven when one group tells you about it but not when another group tells you something else that can not be proven?


They can. But science seeks to prove those assumptions. Religion takes it on faith their assumptions are true. Therein lies the difference between the two. No matter how many times you repeat things in an effort to make them
alike science and religion will always have that one fundamental difference. I do admire your faith in your flawed beliefs, though.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> It's all based on plausible science, however. There are only a few fields built entirely on theories, and almost all other science has at least some facts in it.


Most fields of science are based almost totally on scientifically proven facts. These we see in action each and every day. Every time you start your car you are seeing dozens, if not hundreds, of different scientific fields and sub-fields in action, e.g. metallurgy, chemistry, physics. 

My problem is with the sciences which are based on unproven 'facts' which are guesses and assumptions based on faith. No one here has even tired to use scientific principles to show that my assertions that everything we "know" about deep space is not based on anything that has been scientifically proven. 

They can not because its true. Everything we "know" about is based on this assumption; the properties of light and the entire electromagnetic spectrum and even gravity are the same in deep space as they are near earth. The fact science has to add in another assumption, i.e. dark matter, to their equations in order to get their mathematical models fit their observations should be more than enough to make them question that assumption. The problem is if they start questioning the "fact" that light is, was and always will be the same everywhere then a lot of their other science would have to be questioned as well.

Unlike them I have an open mind, I'm willing to admit they maybe right. There might just be something out there we can't yet detect that is causing the problem. But to just tossing something in because it makes your math come out correct is not "good" science.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've worn that one out through over-use, and you're still pretending someone claimed it was absolute truth. Lots of things are theories based on known facts, but subject to change
> 
> We're getting close to 1000 posts, and you've been saying the same thing the whole time.


So you now admit that everything we think we know about deep space is based on an unproven assumptions?


----------



## FourDeuce

Who is this "we" you keep pretending to speak for? Did some group of people tell you that you could speak for them? Got any proof of that? If you're going to try to speak for other people, you should first make sure they want you to speak for them.:bash:


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Most fields of science are based almost totally on scientifically proven facts. These we see in action each and every day. Every time you start your car you are seeing dozens, if not hundreds, of different scientific fields and sub-fields in action, e.g. metallurgy, chemistry, physics.
> 
> My problem is with the sciences which are based on unproven 'facts' which are guesses and assumptions based on faith. No one here has even tired to use scientific principles to show that my assertions that everything we "know" about deep space is not based on anything that has been scientifically proven.
> 
> They can not because its true. Everything we "know" about is based on this assumption; the properties of light and the entire electromagnetic spectrum and even gravity are the same in deep space as they are near earth. The fact science has to add in another assumption, i.e. dark matter, to their equations in order to get their mathematical models fit their observations should be more than enough to make them question that assumption. The problem is if they start questioning the "fact" that light is, was and always will be the same everywhere then a lot of their other science would have to be questioned as well.
> 
> Unlike them I have an open mind, I'm willing to admit they maybe right. There might just be something out there we can't yet detect that is causing the problem. But to just tossing something in because it makes your math come out correct is not "good" science.


And if they had simply made something up your criticism would be legitimate. But that's not how things like dark matter were postulated. Observations were made, measurements were taken and predictions were made as to what might cause them to be true. Experiments were designed, instruments invented to measure things intelligent then unmeasurable. Things like the Large Hadrin Collider have confirmed the existance of many of the particles you would say were made up out of thin air to fill gaps in knowledge and make calculations balance. It's not luck. It's science and a quest to find answers, not just assume them to be true. All that you praise as science started as an assumption by someone. Electricity was magical before it was explained by science. You can oversimplify things all you wish but science and religion aren't the same. Continuing to try to prove they are with childlike reasoning only continues to show how different they really are.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> They can. But science seeks to prove those assumptions. Religion takes it on faith their assumptions are true. Therein lies the difference between the two. No matter how many times you repeat things in an effort to make them
> alike science and religion will always have that one fundamental difference. I do admire your faith in your flawed beliefs, though.


Please point out the times I have said anything about my religious belief and the age and size of the universe. You will note that I said that I have no opinion on the age of the earth and I'll state the same about the age of the universe. I do so because there is no way either can be scientifically proven.

I believe in science when it is based on scientifically proven 'facts'. As I pointed out each time you start your care dozens of different scientific fields and sub-fields are being proven. As I posted I'm sure Nevada can use science, and even show his work, to show mathematically how a pumping system would work in the real world and if built it would not need "dark matter" to make his math line up with the real world.

My point is when a belief is based on nothing but faith in something which has not and can not be proven is called science its accepted by many people but when its called religion its not. 

No one here can dispute my assertion that all of what we "know" or are being told about deep space is based on scientifically unproven and scientifically unprovable assumptions. 

No one here can dispute my assertion that science has "discovered" dark matter because its the only way it can get the observed universe to line up with its assumptions. Calling it "dark matter" makes it acceptable, calling it "God" means you will be ridiculed. Yet the fact is both must be accepted and believed based on faith because there's no scientific proof.

This means all the scientific evidence being used to 'prove' the big bang theory is, at best, tainted. You can not use an unproven theory as support for another unproven theory.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> Who is this "we" you keep pretending to speak for? Did some group of people tell you that you could speak for them? Got any proof of that? If you're going to try to speak for other people, you should first make sure they want you to speak for them.:bash:


Its a general we meaning the populace or a large segment of the populace. It is not a specific we meaning a specific group. When someone addresses a group of people and uses the word "you" they are usually not referring to a specific individual but the group as a whole.

But its nice to see you feel the need to deflect with a grammar question. It tends to show that you can not rebutt my statements.

So let me ask this. Do you think what science (in the general not the specific) is telling you (that's specific you meaning the individual reading this) about deep space is based on scientifically proven facts? Or do you (specific again) think it is based on scientifically unproven assumptions?


----------



## Heritagefarm

The age of the earth can be almost scientifically proven, with only a small amount of implausibility. Radio dating techniques have become quite precise, and since they work on modern materials for short term dates, one can assume they also work on ancient artifacts.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Please point out the times I have said anything about my religious belief and the age and size of the universe. You will note that I said that I have no opinion on the age of the earth and I'll state the same about the age of the universe. I do so because there is no way either can be scientifically proven.
> 
> I believe in science when it is based on scientifically proven 'facts'. As I pointed out each time you start your care dozens of different scientific fields and sub-fields are being proven. As I posted I'm sure Nevada can use science, and even show his work, to show mathematically how a pumping system would work in the real world and if built it would not need "dark matter" to make his math line up with the real world.
> 
> My point is when a belief is based on nothing but faith in something which has not and can not be proven is called science its accepted by many people but when its called religion its not.
> 
> No one here can dispute my assertion that all of what we "know" or are being told about deep space is based on scientifically unproven and scientifically unprovable assumptions.
> 
> No one here can dispute my assertion that science has "discovered" dark matter because its the only way it can get the observed universe to line up with its assumptions. Calling it "dark matter" makes it acceptable, calling it "God" means you will be ridiculed. Yet the fact is both must be accepted and believed based on faith because there's no scientific proof.
> 
> This means all the scientific evidence being used to 'prove' the big bang theory is, at best, tainted. You can not use an unproven theory as support for another unproven theory.


I guess these folks are wrong, then. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html. You keep making the false contention that there is no proof of dark matter. Many subatomic particles have been predicted to have existed with only the assumption that they must because without them the calculations didn't work. They've been found. Proven. Seen. Before this proof you would lump them with dark matter and decry the science behind it as only faith based. Now that they've been proven you accept them as science? There is no difference. It was science all along.

I've made no assumptions about your beliefs nor tried to change your mind about them, save one. Your belief that science is faith based as religion is. Faith doesn't allow itself to be disproven. It can't else it fails. Science often seeks to disprove things and is often successful. That's how it moves forward and succeeds. It's a difference that seems beyond your comprehension but not your faith.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So you now admit that everything we think we know about deep space is based on an unproven assumptions?


I admit most of what you've said about it is unproven assumptions except for the portions that were totally false.

You just keep parroting the same fallacies


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Do you think what science (in the general not the specific) is telling you (that's specific you meaning the individual reading this) about deep space is based on scientifically proven facts? Or do you (specific again) think it is based on scientifically unproven assumptions?


How about some of the implausible facts in the Bible, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale and Moses parting the Red Sea? Even if Moses had parted the sea, do you really believe that they could have walked through the thick muck to the other side? Have you taken the time to explore the plausibility of those and other facts in the Bible?


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Its a general we meaning the populace or a large segment of the populace. It is not a specific we meaning a specific group. When someone addresses a group of people and uses the word "you" they are usually not referring to a specific individual but the group as a whole.
> 
> But its nice to see you feel the need to deflect with a grammar question. It tends to show that you can not rebutt my statements.
> 
> So let me ask this. Do you think what science (in the general not the specific) is telling you (that's specific you meaning the individual reading this) about deep space is based on scientifically proven facts? Or do you (specific again) think it is based on scientifically unproven assumptions?


So the answer to my question is that nobody told you to speak for them. I figured as much. Your attempt to deflect fails, as your attempt to steal respect for your opinion by claiming popular support failed.
And your attempt to hide your religious beliefs also fails. In more than 45 years of discussing philosophy, I have yet to see a single person trying to attack science who wasn't a believer in fairy tales. Many of you try to hide your irrational beliefs, but they always "shine" through in your irrational attempts to drag science down to the level of your fairy tales.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> How about some of the implausible facts in the Bible, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale and Moses parting the Red Sea? Even if Moses had parted the sea, do you really believe that they could have walked through the thick muck to the other side? Have you taken the time to explore the plausibility of those and other facts in the Bible?


What muck? I have been wading and fishing streams...creeks..and rivers my entire life and have yet to encounter muck. Even the Mississippi. And then God? Nope.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> What muck? I have been wading and fishing streams...creeks..and rivers my entire life and have yet to encounter muck. Even the Mississippi. And then God? Nope.


Trust me, mud & muck are realities in some locations. Need pictures?

So you believe those facts on face value?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Trust me, mud & muck are realities in some locations. Need pictures?
> 
> So you believe those facts on face value?


Yes sir I do...when I am on a stream wading and fishing I see all of God's creation...trout...smallmouth bass...minnows...crawdads...and more. I see the creek...the water...how perfect His plan and creation is. I see it...nothing else. It did not blow out of a big bang and just be there. I see Him and His works everywhere.


----------



## FourDeuce

You keep using the word "see", but I don't think it means what you seem to believe it means.:hysterical:


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> How about some of the implausible facts in the Bible, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale and Moses parting the Red Sea? Even if Moses had parted the sea, do you really believe that they could have walked through the thick muck to the other side? Have you taken the time to explore the plausibility of those and other facts in the Bible?


So its now scientific procedure to not answer direct questions and deflect by asking others?

Answer my questions then I'll answer yours.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So its now scientific procedure to not answer direct questions and deflect by asking others?
> 
> Answer my questions then I'll answer yours.


Most of your questions are based on false premises, and you tend to ignore all answers given anyway


----------



## FourDeuce

"So its now scientific procedure to not answer direct questions and deflect by asking others?"

That's been SOP for religious apologists for centuries. :teehee:


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> How about some of the implausible facts in the Bible, such as Jonah being swallowed by the whale and Moses parting the Red Sea? Even if Moses had parted the sea, do you really believe that they could have walked through the thick muck to the other side? Have you taken the time to explore the plausibility of those and other facts in the Bible?


Some people do................
http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/article/passover_proof_lies_in_egyptian_hieroglyphs_20100324/

I've even considered how unlikely it is to have a planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect ingredients to grow and sustain such a variety of abundant life, and how amazing it is that it still exists.

Sometimes even the small miracles are overlooked in our quest to "know it all".


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> I've even considered how unlikely it is to have a planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect ingredients to grow and sustain such a variety of abundant life, and how amazing it is that it still exists.


Simple enough. If the earth was significantly warmer or cooler then life as we know it couldn't have evolved. But this is where we happen to be.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Some people do................
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/article/passover_proof_lies_in_egyptian_hieroglyphs_20100324/
> 
> I've even considered how unlikely it is to have a planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect ingredients to grow and sustain such a variety of abundant life, and how amazing it is that it still exists.
> 
> Sometimes even the small miracles are overlooked in our quest to "know it all".


"The perfect distance"? What distance is that? That would be a number. Maybe you haven't heard, but the Earth's distance from the sun covers quite a few "distances". So if one of those distances is the "perfect" distance, does that mean all the other distances are imperfect?


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> I've even considered how unlikely it is to have a planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect ingredients to grow and sustain such a variety of abundant life, and how amazing it is that it still exists.
> 
> Sometimes even the small miracles are overlooked in our quest to "know it all".


 I don't overlook it at all. We're pretty lucky. But given the hundreds of billions of solar systems out there,quite a few are bound to have planets in what is termed 'the goldilocks zone'; not too hot, not too cold.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Carl Sagan would say there are "Billions...........*BILL*ions"


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Simple enough. If the earth was significantly warmer or cooler then life as we know it couldn't have evolved. But this is where we happen to be.


Life adapted, it didn't evolve.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> "The perfect distance"? What distance is that? That would be a number. Maybe you haven't heard, but the Earth's distance from the sun covers quite a few "distances". So if one of those distances is the "perfect" distance, does that mean all the other distances are imperfect?





greg273 said:


> I don't overlook it at all. We're pretty lucky. But given the hundreds of billions of solar systems out there,quite a few are bound to have planets in what is termed 'the goldilocks zone'; not too hot, not too cold.


At a bit under 93 million miles away...considering the temperature of the sun....yea..we hit the sweet spot....could be just luck...:bouncy:


----------



## FourDeuce

Yeah, just like the luck ALL puddles have when they form in holes in the ground. Isn't it a miracle how perfectly they fit the holes they end up in?


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> Life adapted, it didn't evolve.


If you can prove that, you should go ahead and do it so you can collect your Nobel Prize and all the money and fame that would come your way.:goodjob:


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, just like the luck ALL puddles have when they form in holes in the ground. Isn't it a miracle how perfectly they fit the holes they end up in?


That's Nobel Prize material right there.


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> If you can prove that, you should go ahead and do it so you can collect your Nobel Prize and all the money and fame that would come your way.:goodjob:


I'd say the same goes for you and proving the "theory" of evolution, go a head, try. You would be famous if you could.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> Some people do................
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/article/passover_proof_lies_in_egyptian_hieroglyphs_20100324/
> 
> I've even considered how unlikely it is to have a planet the perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect ingredients to grow and sustain such a variety of abundant life, and how amazing it is that it still exists.
> 
> Sometimes even the small miracles are overlooked in our quest to "know it all".



I hadn't expected such an observation would be mocked. Most of the great scientists throughout time have found themselves humbled, in awe.......

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

Go ahead, read a few.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> Simple enough. If the earth was significantly warmer or cooler then life as we know it couldn't have evolved. But this is where we happen to be.


You have to admit, the odds of that happening are incredibly slim, yet here we are. I used to use the eye an an example in pro-Creation debates. If it's that complex, how did it evolve? Yet there is a plausible explanation for that as well. Yet with the amount of "plausible" explanations running around, perhaps it is not so surprising that many people take the easier route and allow themselves to be told how it happened. 

And then I think, ah, but I have listened to the scientists. How much faith do I need to pay heed to them?


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> I'd say the same goes for you and proving the "theory" of evolution, go a head, try. You would be famous if you could.


Yeah, the same might go for me IF I claimed I could prove evolution. I understand that whether evolution is true or not has nothing to do with whether religious fairy tales are true. Basic logic is very useful.
Proving evolution is true would not win a Nobel Prize. It would win a shrug from anybody who understands it.


----------



## FourDeuce

"You have to admit, the odds of that happening are incredibly slim,"

Only if somebody can prove that. So far, nobody has been able to prove that claim either.

"And then I think, ah, but I have listened to the scientists. How much faith do I need to pay heed to them?"

None if you understand how science works.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> I hadn't expected such an observation would be mocked. Most of the great scientists throughout time have found themselves humbled, in awe.......
> 
> http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
> 
> Go ahead, read a few.


What's the point? The Appeal to Authority Fallacy will never qualify as a credible argument.:bash:


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> What's the point? The Appeal to Authority Fallacy will never qualify as a credible argument.:bash:



Well, you DID ask, "What's the point?" and from your reply, you obviously didn't get it, so I'll oblige with my answer.

I've known many intelligent and gifted men of science. One of them grew up as a neighbor to a funny looking old man with crazy, white hair in Princeton, NJ.
Albert, was his name. They used to socialize when he got older with a rather elite group, fellow Nobel Prize winners, just chewing the fat, playing cards, on occasion.
Many others were teachers and mentors during my youth and some are still around.

The point ISN'T to take, *on authority*, what they thought - but to appreciate it.
Despite their vast knowledge and discoveries, all of them, every one, would never fail to remark that the more that was revealed, the more astounded they were.
The simplest things we take for granted every day, was amazing in its order and purpose.
It humbled them.
I never heard a smug comment or got a know-it-all reaction.

No "authority" necessary, just careful observation.
Some might call it, pure science".
:spinsmiley:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Others night just call that more BS


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> "You have to admit, the odds of that happening are incredibly slim,"
> 
> Only if somebody can prove that. So far, nobody has been able to prove that claim either.
> 
> "And then I think, ah, but I have listened to the scientists. How much faith do I need to pay heed to them?"
> 
> None if you understand how science works.


On the contrary. If I listen to scientists, I make a number of assumptions. For example, I assume I am not in the Matrix, being examined by higher beings in an attempt to understand my behavior. I also assume they know what they're talking about. I assume the peer review process picked the errors out of their paper when I read it. 
Due to the number of assumptions one must make, it is arguable that even though science is the most stable and reliable knowledge base system, it still takes faith. It takes faith just to drive your car, since you assume your air bags will work, since you have a roughly 1 in 5500 chance of dying when you drive. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Others night just call that more BS


Oh? Farmrbrown's comment is worthy of our Freethinking thread. (There, I just made myself a higher authority. Ha!)


----------



## FourDeuce

"I never heard a smug comment or got a know-it-all reaction."

Looks like you never learned any critical thinking skills either.

"Some might call it, pure science".
:spinsmiley: "

Not if they are honest.

"The point ISN'T to take, *on authority*, what they thought - but to appreciate it."

Does that appreciation have anything to do with THIS thread? If so, what is the connection. If not, why post it here?


----------



## FourDeuce

"If I listen to scientists, I make a number of assumptions."

Not if you learn some critical thinking skills.

"Due to the number of assumptions one must make,"

I don't have to make ANY assumptions. No rational person does.
"it is arguable that even though science is the most stable and reliable knowledge base system, it still takes faith."

Anything is arguable, if a person is willing to ignore logic and integrity.

"It takes faith just to drive your car, since you assume your air bags will work, since you have a roughly 1 in 5500 chance of dying when you drive."

Unless you are psychic(and can prove it), you shouldn't try to speak for what other people think.:bash:

"(There, I just made myself a higher authority. Ha!)"

Wrong. You just tried to make yourself a higher authority and failed, destroying your credibility(if you had any left).


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Life adapted, it didn't evolve.


 We asked you many times to explain the difference, and yet you just keep repeating yourself.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> "If I listen to scientists, I make a number of assumptions."
> 
> Not if you learn some critical thinking skills.
> 
> "Due to the number of assumptions one must make,"
> 
> I don't have to make ANY assumptions. No rational person does.
> "it is arguable that even though science is the most stable and reliable knowledge base system, it still takes faith."
> 
> Anything is arguable, if a person is willing to ignore logic and integrity.
> 
> "It takes faith just to drive your car, since you assume your air bags will work, since you have a roughly 1 in 5500 chance of dying when you drive."
> 
> Unless you are psychic(and can prove it), you shouldn't try to speak for what other people think.:bash:
> 
> "(There, I just made myself a higher authority. Ha!)"
> 
> Wrong. You just tried to make yourself a higher authority and failed, destroying your credibility(if you had any left).


There's one last assumption I made. I assume you're a person, and not a computer program someone made to be rhetorical and vicious. 
Let's say I listen to Albert Einstein. According to what you seem to be arguing, I should listen to him, because he's a scientist, without hesitation. But I'm sure you'll find some pointless way of construing my words. How do I trust his theory that matter and energy are intrinsically interrelated? E=mc2, right? How do I test that myself? I don't own a lab to test how fast light travels, or a big telescope to try and stare at black holes. I have to rely on their credibility. Just like I have to assume you're not a malware program, which is up for grabs.


----------



## Nevada

Heritagefarm said:


> According to what you seem to be arguing, I should listen to him, because he's a scientist, without hesitation.


There are things I don't accept on face value, particularly in theoretical physics. For example, I have a hard time accepting the existence of parallel universes. But I have alternative plausible explanations to parallel universes.

But you're throwing theoretical science in with mainstream science. We expect people to question theoretical science, but it's foolish to question mainstream science. Most of mainstream science can be seen, and often even held in our hands.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> We asked you many times to explain the difference, and yet you just keep repeating yourself.


I'd say that would indicate he's neither adapting nor evolving


----------



## FourDeuce

"According to what you seem to be arguing, I should listen to him, because he's a scientist, without hesitation."

Actually I am arguing the opposite.

"How do I trust his theory that matter and energy are intrinsically interrelated? E=mc2, right?"

That's between you and Einstein. I'm not involved in that question.

"I have to rely on their credibility."

Not if you learn some critical thinking skills.

"Just like I have to assume you're not a malware program, which is up for grabs."

YOU may have to assume that, but I don't have to assume anything. I have a working brain, which means assumptions are not necessary(or justifiable). One thing the Army is fond of teaching people is that assumptions are not rational. Logic teaches the same thing.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> We asked you many times to explain the difference, and yet you just keep repeating yourself.


Because I thought you were smart enough to know the difference. I guess your not. :facepalm:


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Because I thought you were smart enough to know the difference. I guess your not. :facepalm:


 No, actually I don't. Maybe you can explain it for us.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> No, actually I don't. Maybe you can explain it for us.



It's a fairly simple difference, this was one thread that had it.......
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/507559-evolution-creation-debate.html

Adaptation is a change in behavior, not a change in the DNA, which is evolution.
Adapting to changes over time, can lead to natural selection of organisms that have the favorable genetic traits (DNA) which is the basis of the theory of evolution.
Hope that helps.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "If I listen to scientists, I make a number of assumptions."
> 
> Not if you learn some critical thinking skills.
> 
> "Due to the number of assumptions one must make,"
> 
> I don't have to make ANY assumptions. No rational person does.
> "it is arguable that even though science is the most stable and reliable knowledge base system, it still takes faith."
> 
> Anything is arguable, if a person is willing to ignore logic and integrity.
> 
> "It takes faith just to drive your car, since you assume your air bags will work, since you have a roughly 1 in 5500 chance of dying when you drive."
> 
> Unless you are psychic(and can prove it), you shouldn't try to speak for what other people think.:bash:
> 
> "(There, I just made myself a higher authority. Ha!)"
> 
> Wrong. You just tried to make yourself a higher authority and failed, destroying your credibility(if you had any left).





FourDeuce said:


> "According to what you seem to be arguing, I should listen to him, because he's a scientist, without hesitation."
> 
> Actually I am arguing the opposite.
> 
> "How do I trust his theory that matter and energy are intrinsically interrelated? E=mc2, right?"
> 
> That's between you and Einstein. I'm not involved in that question.
> 
> "I have to rely on their credibility."
> 
> Not if you learn some critical thinking skills.
> 
> "Just like I have to assume you're not a malware program, which is up for grabs."
> 
> YOU may have to assume that, but I don't have to assume anything. I have a working brain, which means assumptions are not necessary(or justifiable). One thing the Army is fond of teaching people is that assumptions are not rational. Logic teaches the same thing.





FourDeuce said:


> "I never heard a smug comment or got a know-it-all reaction."
> 
> Looks like you never learned any critical thinking skills either.
> 
> "Some might call it, pure science".
> :spinsmiley: "
> 
> Not if they are honest.
> 
> "The point ISN'T to take, *on authority*, what they thought - but to appreciate it."
> 
> Does that appreciation have anything to do with THIS thread? If so, what is the connection. If not, why post it here?


You made several references to "critical thinking" , not to be confused with "critical of everyone else's thinking"...........:hem:


http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

You may find your answers in the link above.

The relevancy to the thread's discussion, is that the greatest minds in the world have sought these answers and tried to contribute positively towards that end.
The fact that they still haven't conclusively, and realize that many more answers still remain to be found, SHOULD lead you to think that it's premature to exclude possible explanations that WOULD explain them.

To master critical thinking, means not exclusively dismissing the thoughts of others nor depending on them totally to form one's own conclusion.

I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about halfway there.........


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> It's a fairly simple difference, this was one thread that had it.......
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/507559-evolution-creation-debate.html
> 
> Adaptation is a change in behavior, not a change in the DNA, which is evolution.
> Adapting to changes over time, can lead to natural selection of organisms that have the favorable genetic traits (DNA) which is the basis of the theory of evolution.
> Hope that helps.


That's it, but I'd put a little more meat on those bones. My elaboration is directed generally, *farmrbrown*, not at you specifically.

Adaptation is something an organism can do to make its environment more habitable. Using a tool is adaptation. No physical change occurs.

Evolution is an actual physical change that occurs through mutation.

As *farmrbrown* pointed out, an adaptation can create an environment favorable for a mutation to occur, and in that way it contributes to evolution... but they are not the same thing, and adaptation can never be evolution. It's nonsensical to say so.

Natural selection enters into it when a mutation creates a better environment for the organism's survival. 

The eye is a perfect example. What began as a mutation to a bit of tissue that was sensitive to light created an advantage for survival, so the organism's line than carried that particular mutation survived better than those that didn't have it. Over time, the light-sensitive tissue mutated into remedial sight. Remedial sight proved an evolutionary advantage for organisms that had it, so the line that carried that mutation also survived better than those that didn't have it. And so on.

Interestingly, eyes have evolved over and over and over. The squid's eye evolved entirely separately from human eyes -- and the design is dramatically superior to our eyes. Squid can see way better than people can.

So if there is a god, does that mean he messed up? Or does he just like squid better than people? 

In any case, adaptation has a role to play in evolution, but evolution is different from adaptation -- and it certainly doesn't replace it.

Evolution of complex beings such as humans takes billions of years and many billions of genetic mutations.

Nothing has disproved evolution in any substantive way since Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859. The complete study is the theory, but the parts already proved are accepted as fact.


----------



## Elevenpoint

God created man...we did not evolve from anything else. Evolutionists want to fall on the dagger of time and talk about billions of years. No man can make a new specie. Man cannot say with absolute 100% certainty where our origin came from. Cannot figure out an ant. Nor any plant. Hundreds of billions spent and no answers. Really...no man can understand what goes on under the sun. And never will.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Or does he just like squid better than people?


I know I like Squid better than I like some people :shrug:


----------



## FourDeuce

"You made several references to "critical thinking" , not to be confused with "critical of everyone else's thinking"...........:hem:"

And also not to be confused with the logical fallacies you keep trying, like the Straw Man and the Red Herring.

"The fact that they still haven't conclusively, and realize that many more answers still remain to be found, SHOULD lead you to think that it's premature to exclude possible explanations that WOULD explain them."

I haven't excluded any rational explanations, so this Straw Man fails just like all your previous Straw Man arguments fail.

"To master critical thinking, means not exclusively dismissing the thoughts of others nor depending on them totally to form one's own conclusion."

You can't instruct people on mastering critical thinking when you know nothing about critical thinking.

"I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about halfway there."

I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about 0% there.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "You made several references to "critical thinking" , not to be confused with "critical of everyone else's thinking"...........:hem:"
> 
> And also not to be confused with the logical fallacies you keep trying, like the Straw Man and the Red Herring.
> 
> "The fact that they still haven't conclusively, and realize that many more answers still remain to be found, SHOULD lead you to think that it's premature to exclude possible explanations that WOULD explain them."
> 
> I haven't excluded any rational explanations, so this Straw Man fails just like all your previous Straw Man arguments fail.
> 
> "To master critical thinking, means not exclusively dismissing the thoughts of others nor depending on them totally to form one's own conclusion."
> 
> You can't instruct people on mastering critical thinking when you know nothing about critical thinking.
> 
> "I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about halfway there."
> 
> I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about 0% there.


Before I respond to your "criticism" of me, one question.
The link I posted is from one of the leading experts on critical thinking.
I read it, did you?

The reason for my question is, your definitions of "critical thinking" as well as "straw man" and "red herring" do not match the definitions of anything else that I've read or heard before.
Your replies sound like the ones one might hear from an obnoxious 14 year old boy, someone who is very early on his trek thru life, exposed to some of the knowledge of the world, but with little understanding of it.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> God created man...we did not evolve from anything else. Evolutionists want to fall on the dagger of time and talk about billions of years. No man can make a new specie. Man cannot say with absolute 100% certainty where our origin came from. Cannot figure out an ant. Nor any plant. Hundreds of billions spent and no answers. Really...no man can understand what goes on under the sun. And never will.


You start with an absolute and end with an absolute yet claim nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Science doesn't claim to absolutely know the origins of life or the universe. You do. By your own logic, who's wrong?


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> You start with an absolute and end with an absolute yet claim nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Science doesn't claim to absolutely know the origins of life or the universe. You do. By your own logic, who's wrong?


What I have seen and been shown defies logic or a laboratory. Man calculates results but calculations have no place in our relation to God. If the Pilot has come on board...why should the captain also pace the deck with weary foot?


----------



## Evons hubby

An interesting thread to say the least.... But it has raised a question in my mind... Who died and left anyone here in charge of being the "go to" poster for the unanswerable question of how and where mankind began?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An interesting thread to say the least.... But it has raised a question in my mind... Who died and left anyone here in charge of being the "go to" poster for the unanswerable question of how and where mankind began?


How and where mankind began is known by everyone. However some may believe monkeys or the big fart.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> How and where mankind began is known by everyone. However some may believe monkeys or the big fart.


Again, evolution doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys, it says man & monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Exactly what that common ancestor might have been is not known.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Your replies sound like the ones one might hear from an obnoxious 14 year old boy, someone who is very early on his trek thru life, exposed to some of the knowledge of the world, but with little understanding of it."

And your replies sound like the ones one might hear from a dishonest and irrational religious apologist who has never started on the intellectual trek thriugh life.:yawn:


----------



## FourDeuce

"The link I posted is from one of the leading experts on critical thinking.
I read it, did you?"

No need to. That person is not here making all the logical errors you are posting.

"The reason for my question is, your definitions of "critical thinking" as well as "straw man" and "red herring" do not match the definitions of anything else that I've read or heard before."

Your lack of familiarity with the subject is your problem. BTW, you don't know "my definition" of anything. The fact that you keep making incorrect assumptions shows that you know nothing about critical thinking skills.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> How and where mankind began is known by everyone. However some may believe monkeys or the big fart.


And some others will believe in fairy tales which lead them to lie about what other people believe. Very irrational of them.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> And some others will believe in fairy tales which lead them to lie about what other people believe. Very irrational of them.


Oh no...no lie there about what others believe. Any person can say what they believe. And I believe you should give an address so I can send the EMS over to pry your head out of your backside so you can get some oxygen to your brain. Then we can talk about critical thinking....or fairy tales...or monkeys.:bash:


----------



## FourDeuce

Wouldn't be any point in discussing critical thinking skills with you. You don't have a clue what it means. If you did, you wouldn't be trying those logical fallacies.

"How and where mankind began is known by everyone."
So you know what everyone knows? How did you find that out?


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> And I believe you should give an address so I can send the EMS over to pry your head out of your backside so you can get some oxygen to your brain. Then we can talk about critical thinking....or fairy tales...or monkeys.:bash:


Don't forget the talking snakes. Seriously if you think the Bible is the go-to scientific treatise and ultimate authority on worldly knowledge, I sure do hope you don't work in any field that requires actual scientific knowledge. Just you saying derisively that 'people evolved from monkeys' shows how little you actually know about this subject.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> What I have seen and been shown defies logic or a laboratory. Man calculates results but calculations have no place in our relation to God. If the Pilot has come on board...why should the captain also pace the deck with weary foot?


But if no man can know anything with 100% certainty how can you? Are you not a man? Are you a god?


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> Oh no...no lie there about what others believe. Any person can say what they believe. And I believe you should give an address so I can send the EMS over to pry your head out of your backside so you can get some oxygen to your brain. Then we can talk about critical thinking....or fairy tales...or monkeys.:bash:


You never did explain how you know what other people believe. I know I didn't tell you I believe anything, so how do you know what I believe or know?


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> And some others will believe in fairy tales which lead them to lie about what other people believe. Very irrational of them.





elevenpoint said:


> How and where mankind began is known by everyone. However some may believe monkeys or the big fart.


It becomes obvious that my theory is true.... Nobody knows when/where mankind originated, but a good number of folks think they know!


----------



## Elevenpoint

elevenpoint said:


> What I have seen and been shown defies logic or a laboratory. Man calculates results but calculations have no place in our relation to God. If the Pilot has come on board...why should the captain also pace the deck with weary foot?





mmoetc said:


> But if no man can know anything with 100% certainty how can you? Are you not a man? Are you a god?


My answer for me is the same. It is what I have seen and been shown. That is proof for me. Ask and you shall receive. Very true. Man's purpose for his life and God's purpose for his life are wholly incompatible. You can't serve two masters. That is a firm foundation for me.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Don't forget the talking snakes. Seriously if you think the Bible is the go-to scientific treatise and ultimate authority on worldly knowledge, I sure do hope you don't work in any field that requires actual scientific knowledge. Just you saying derisively that 'people evolved from monkeys' shows how little you actually know about this subject.


Scientific knowledge is proving God's perfect design more all the time.
OK lets talk science. The following do not apply:
Theory/therories. They are just that...even though some say a fact...still not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Any discussion about science that is truth...does not include might be...could be..may be...suggests...should be...there is an idea...leans to...or any other words phrases or statements that do not have a solid foundation.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Wouldn't be any point in discussing critical thinking skills with you. You don't have a clue what it means. If you did, you wouldn't be trying those logical fallacies.
> 
> "How and where mankind began is known by everyone."
> So you know what everyone knows? How did you find that out?


You are aware that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, right? You discredit the person instead of the argument. This is almost the only thing you've been doing, which actually makes you a greatest hypocrite of all. THIS is critical thinking. Bah!


----------



## FourDeuce

"OK lets talk science."

Right. Anything to avoid discussing the fact that nobody has ever managed to prove any gods exist. It makes you look a bit hypocritical when you ask for proof of science while you believe a whole book of fairy tales with no proof.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Scientific knowledge is proving God's perfect design more all the time.
> .


 Perhaps what you derisively refer to as 'the big fart' is Gods perfect design, and you're too much of a bible literalist to accept that. The expansion of the universe has much observational data to back it up, and while no knows for certain, its certainly the most plausible explanation for what we can observe. Want to say 'God did it'?? Fine. I can't argue with that. Want to say 'God made everything just as it is, unchanging and static'?? Then the observations don't support that. 
Face it eleven, you started this whole thread to mock certain scientific concepts that you haven't shown much knowledge about.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> You are aware that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, right? You discredit the person instead of the argument. This is almost the only thing you've been doing, which actually makes you a greatest hypocrite of all. THIS is critical thinking. Bah!


I'm just asking for information. Somebody claimed that everyone knows the origin of humans. In rational adult discussion, people are expected to prove their claims. If a person claims everybody knows something, they should be able to prove their claim. Otherwise, their claim is worthless. 
You mention logical fallacies. Have you ever heard of the burden of proof? Do you consider asking a person to prove their claim an ad hominem fallacy?
"THIS is critical thinking."
No, lying about what other people do is not any kind of thinking.:yawn:


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> "OK lets talk science."
> 
> Right. Anything to avoid discussing the fact that nobody has ever managed to prove any gods exist. It makes you look a bit hypocritical when you ask for proof of science while you believe a whole book of fairy tales with no proof.


I have no interest or no way to prove God exist to you or any other person. Again...what I have seen and been shown is proof enough for me...me only. I have no problem with any person that believes in science theory. We're just different that's all.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Perhaps what you derisively refer to as 'the big fart' is Gods perfect design, and you're too much of a bible literalist to accept that. The expansion of the universe has much observational data to back it up, and while no knows for certain, its certainly the most plausible explanation for what we can observe. Want to say 'God did it'?? Fine. I can't argue with that. Want to say 'God made everything just as it is, unchanging and static'?? Then the observations don't support that.
> Face it eleven, you started this whole thread to mock certain scientific concepts that you haven't shown much knowledge about.


You are right...I do mock scientific concepts. Big bang theory. Evolution theory. Really liked those science classes.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "You made several references to "critical thinking" , not to be confused with "critical of everyone else's thinking"...........:hem:"
> 
> And also not to be confused with the logical fallacies you keep trying, like the Straw Man and the Red Herring.
> 
> "The fact that they still haven't conclusively, and realize that many more answers still remain to be found, SHOULD lead you to think that* it's premature to exclude possible explanations *that WOULD explain them."
> 
> *I haven't excluded any rational explanations*, so this Straw Man fails just like all your previous Straw Man arguments fail.
> 
> "To master critical thinking, means not exclusively dismissing the thoughts of others nor depending on them totally to form one's own conclusion."
> 
> You can't instruct people on mastering critical thinking when you know nothing about critical thinking.
> 
> "I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about halfway there."
> 
> I would conclude, based on your posts, you are about 0% there.



So, let me see if I got this.........
You are free to make assumptions, but no one else?
And only you get to decide what is in the realm of possible or rational?
That IS *part* of "critical thinking", to make one's own conclusions, but I guess that I missed the part where you were the one given the right to decide for everyone else...........
I'll have to go back and find out where I overlooked that part.
:bash:



Yvonne's hubby said:


> An interesting thread to say the least.... But it has raised a question in my mind... Who died and left anyone here in charge of being the "go to" poster for the unanswerable question of how and where mankind began?


I think the rumors of his demise were greatly exaggerated.
(Apologies to Samuel Clemens, LOL)




FourDeuce said:


> "The link I posted is from one of the leading experts on critical thinking.
> I read it, did you?"
> 
> *No need to. That person is not here making all the logical errors you are posting.*
> 
> Your lack of familiarity with the subject is your problem. BTW, you don't know "my definition" of anything. The fact that you keep making incorrect assumptions shows that you know nothing about critical thinking skills.


Yes, I'm beginning to see that now.
Maybe you could point me in the right direction? Obviously these so called experts in the field have been putting out erroneous information on this subject of "critical thinking" and I've been misled by them.

More than once you've said that critical thinking does not include the thoughts of dead people or anyone else who hasn't participated on this thread.
That's another piece of crucial information the other teachers on this subject left out, I'm simply appalled they would do that.
I feel like I've been duped.:sob:



FourDeuce said:


> Wouldn't be any point in discussing critical thinking skills with you. You don't have a clue what it means. If you did, you wouldn't be trying those logical fallacies.
> 
> "How and where mankind began is known by everyone."
> *So you know what everyone knows? How did you find that out?*





FourDeuce said:


> You never did explain how you know what other people believe.* I know I didn't tell you I believe anything, so how do you know what I believe or know?*



NOW we're getting somewhere.
So that I can shed this ignorance, please tell us everything you believe so we can learn this "critical thinking" that you've brought to the world.:bouncy:


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> I'm just asking for information. Somebody claimed that everyone knows the origin of humans. In rational adult discussion, people are expected to prove their claims. If a person claims everybody knows something, they should be able to prove their claim. Otherwise, their claim is worthless.
> You mention logical fallacies. Have you ever heard of the burden of proof? Do you consider asking a person to prove their claim an ad hominem fallacy?
> "THIS is critical thinking."
> No, lying about what other people do is not any kind of thinking.:yawn:


No, that is acceptable, but continually saying people are lying is getting old.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> You are right...I do mock scientific concepts. Big bang theory. Evolution theory. Really liked those science classes.


Big Fancy Explosion Theory and Really Long Earthworm Theory.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> I'm just asking for information. Somebody claimed that everyone knows the origin of humans. In rational adult discussion, people are expected to prove their claims. If a person claims everybody knows something, they should be able to prove their claim. Otherwise, their claim is worthless.
> You mention logical fallacies. Have you ever heard of the burden of proof? Do you consider asking a person to prove their claim an ad hominem fallacy?
> "THIS is critical thinking."
> No, lying about what other people do is not any kind of thinking.:yawn:


My bad...I thought everybody has read the best selling book of all time.


----------



## FourDeuce

I wish you thought.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> No, that is acceptable, but continually saying people are lying is getting old.


Continually having people lie is getting old, too, even though I'm used to it. Been dealing with it for more than 45 years already.


----------



## FourDeuce

"So, let me see if I got this.........
You are free to make assumptions, but no one else?"

Nope, you ain't got this.


"And only you get to decide what is in the realm of possible or rational?"

Nope, you ain't got that either.

"That IS *part* of "critical thinking", to make one's own conclusions, but I guess that I missed the part where you were the one given the right to decide for everyone else..........."

Nope, you ain't got that either.

"I'll have to go back and find out where I overlooked that part."

You didn't overlook it. You made it up.

"Maybe you could point me in the right direction?"

Been doing that all long. 

"Obviously these so called experts in the field have been putting out erroneous information"

Nope, that's not obvious.

"on this subject of "critical thinking" and I've been misled by them"

You've been misled by anybody who told you that you understand anything about critical thinking skills.

"More than once you've said that critical thinking does not include the thoughts of dead people or anyone else who hasn't participated on this thread."

Post a quote of me saying that if you can.

"I feel like I've been duped."

I feel that you've been duped, too, but it looks like you keep duping yourself.


----------



## FourDeuce

"NOW we're getting somewhere."

Not that I've seen.

"So that I can shed this ignorance, please tell us everything you believe so we can learn this "critical thinking" that you've brought to the world.:bouncy:"


I can correct some of your ignorance, but you have to do some of the work. 
First, what I believe has nothing to do with YOUR arguments. That's basic "critical thinking".
Second, I didn't bring it to the world. It was around long before I was born. IF you knew anything about it, you'd know that, too.


----------



## mreynolds

My theory is this. No one knows exactly how the world came to be. when y'all figure it out PM me please.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> I have no interest or no way to prove God exist to you or any other person. Again...what I have seen and been shown is proof enough for me...me only. I have no problem with any person that believes in science theory. We're just different that's all.


Why do you religious apologists keep talking about people who "believe in science theory"? Don't you learn how science works? They teach that in elementary school(usually).
I do agree you are different from those people who believe in science theory. You are also different from those people who understand how science works. We shouldn't ignore them.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "NOW we're getting somewhere."
> 
> Not that I've seen.
> 
> "So that I can shed this ignorance, please tell us everything you believe so we can learn this "critical thinking" that you've brought to the world.:bouncy:"
> 
> 
> I can correct some of your ignorance, but you have to do some of the work.
> First, what I believe has nothing to do with YOUR arguments. That's basic "critical thinking".
> Second, I didn't bring it to the world. It was around long before I was born. IF you knew anything about it, you'd know that, too.



"Whew", that's good to know, for a minute there, I thought that making my own analysis based on careful observation and investigative questioning, NOT solely on biased opinions, was all wrong.



FourDeuce said:


> You've been misled by anybody who told you that you understand anything about critical thinking skills.



That's good to know too.
Fortunately, I don't believe that's something that's ever come up, specifically, in any conversations I've had. I have heard "Good point!" or "Makes sense to me!"
That doesn't count, does it?
Of course, in the practice of my own "critical thinking" naturally I would have to ignore such an irrelevant comment, especially without supporting evidence........


----------



## FourDeuce

You might, IF you ever practiced critical thinking. Can you show any example of where you did that?


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> I wish you thought.


So you labeled a book a fairy tale based upon others opinions? Critical thinking requires more.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> My answer for me is the same. It is what I have seen and been shown. That is proof for me. Ask and you shall receive. Very true. Man's purpose for his life and God's purpose for his life are wholly incompatible. You can't serve two masters. That is a firm foundation for me.


Still don't want to tackle how you are the only one who can know with 100% certainty? Or was your initial statement false? If you are a man you can't have it both ways. I realize belief allows no room for doubt. Science allows ample room for it and, indeed, uses doubt to advance. I like looking forward.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> You might, IF you ever practiced critical thinking. Can you show any example of where you did that?


By constantly bashing others' critical thinking skills, you implicitly imply that you are very good at critical thinking. However, you have not given examples of why others' thinking is flawed. 

Defining Critical Thinking



> Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a *life-long endeavor*.


If it is a life-long endeavor, stating that someone has not attainted critical thinking is arrogant and invalid.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> Still don't want to tackle how you are the only one who can know with 100% certainty? Or was your initial statement false? If you are a man you can't have it both ways. I realize belief allows no room for doubt. Science allows ample room for it and, indeed, uses doubt to advance. I like looking forward.


Millions believe that God created the heavens and the earth in all their vast array. They are absolutely certain. There is no doubt. Likewise millions believe in science and big bang and evolution therories.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> Millions believe that God created the heavens and the earth in all their vast array. They are absolutely certain. There is no doubt. Likewise millions believe in science and big bang and evolution therories.


But you said no man can know anything with 100% certainty. Is there a possibility you, and all these others, might be wrong? Your own words seem to indicate that such might be true. How can you be 100% certain and still be a man if no man can know with 100% certainty. Was your statement false or is there a chance your belief is wrong? Simple yes or no answers will suffice.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> But you said no man can know anything with 100% certainty. Is there a possibility you, and all these others, might be wrong? Your own words seem to indicate that such might be true. How can you be 100% certain and still be a man if no man can know with 100% certainty. Was your statement false or is there a chance your belief is wrong? Simple yes or no answers will suffice.


No I will not do the merry go round. My certainty is based upon God and not man. God can do what no man can do. That is a rock solid foundation for me and millions of others. It is not my problem if some have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> No I will not do the merry go round. My certainty is based upon God and not man. God can do what no man can do. That is a rock solid foundation for me and millions of others. It is not my problem if some have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear.


Still can't answer the question asked? It's quite simple. If, as you said, nothing can be known with 100% certainty, how can you be 100% certain? Or, if things can be known with 100% certainty, can others beside the religous know things with the same certainty?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> *Millions believe* that God created the heavens and the earth in all their vast array. They are absolutely certain. There is no doubt. Likewise millions believe in science and big bang and evolution therories.


What "millions *believe*" doesn't mean they are right, no matter how "certain" they *believe* they are


----------



## FourDeuce

That's the Bandwagon Fallacy. Religious apologists often use "arguments" like that because they have no good arguments.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> By constantly bashing others' critical thinking skills, you implicitly imply that you are very good at critical thinking. However, you have not given examples of why others' thinking is flawed.
> 
> Defining Critical Thinking
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a life-long endeavor, stating that someone has not attainted critical thinking is arrogant and invalid.


 Not when it's obviously true. When a person tries using a logical fallacy as an argument, they lack critical thinking skills.

"By constantly bashing others' critical thinking skills, you implicitly imply that you are very good at critical thinking."

Lying about what other people imply is a Straw Man Fallacy. People who have attained critical thinking skills don't do that. Saying other people lack critical thinking skills says nothing about my critical thinking skills. 

"However, you have not given examples of why others' thinking is flawed."

That fallacy is known as Shifting the Burden of Proof. That's another thing people with critical thinking skills don't do. You can find lists of the logical fallacies online. Avoiding using them is another basic critical thinking skill.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> So you labeled a book a fairy tale based upon others opinions? Critical thinking requires more.


No, I don't label a book a fairy tale based on others' opinions. If you want to know what I base my opinions on, try asking me instead of assuming you can read my mind. I've seen many people claiming psychic abilities, but haven't seen any real psychics.
As I already explained to you, you can't explain what critical thinking requires if you don't understand critical thinking. :bash:


----------



## FourDeuce

"It is not my problem if some have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear."

It is your problem if you keep making claims you can't prove and lying about other people. That's a BIG problem for your credibility.:sob:


----------



## farmrbrown

This seems to be an important point for some people to overcome, before they are willing to discuss anything further.
It's simple enough a question for me, however.



mmoetc said:


> But you said no man can know anything with 100% certainty. Is there a possibility you, and all these others, might be wrong? Your own words seem to indicate that such might be true. How can you be 100% certain and still be a man if no man can know with 100% certainty. Was your statement false or is there a chance your belief is wrong? Simple yes or no answers will suffice.


Yes.
Yes, it is certainly possible that my belief in God is a mistake and I could be wrong about it all in the end.

Is that what is so important to hear from a Christian?
That we have shortcomings and struggles and doubt?
Is that the big stumbling block that must be overcome to have an open dialogue?
It seemed pretty easy for me, all I had to do was look within for that original sin - pride - in order to give an honest answer.
Let's see, what's more important?
Discussing my beliefs with someone who may not know the wonders of God, or maintaining that I'm so perfect, I could never be wrong about anything?

I see the same wall of separation played out here and elsewhere all the time.

"The other guy is so arrogant, he can't even discuss anything, because he's too obsessed with being right and not wrong."

It's easy to see in others and just as easy to see in myself when I'm doing it. 





mmoetc said:


> Still can't answer the question asked? It's quite simple. If, as you said, nothing can be known with 100% certainty, how can you be 100% certain? Or, if things can be known with 100% certainty, can others beside the religous know things with the same certainty?



Same question, same answer.
In order to get to discussing WHY we have come to believe the way we do, both parties apparently have to admit room for doubt. Then we can tell each other WHY our doubts have been resolved - or not.
I have no problem with science testing and studying the workings and origins of the universe. I have equal thirst for the knowledge of God as well. I find both fascinating.
It can show the ugly side of people however when they try to degrade someone's intelligence, all for the sake of being prideful.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> This seems to be an important point for some people to overcome, before they are willing to discuss anything further.
> It's simple enough a question for me, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Yes, it is certainly possible that my belief in God is a mistake and I could be wrong about it all in the end.
> 
> Is that what is so important to hear from a Christian?
> That we have shortcomings and struggles and doubt?
> Is that the big stumbling block that must be overcome to have an open dialogue?
> It seemed pretty easy for me, all I had to do was look within for that original sin - pride - in order to give an honest answer.
> Let's see, what's more important?
> Discussing my beliefs with someone who may not know the wonders of God, or maintaining that I'm so perfect, I could never be wrong about anything?
> 
> I see the same wall of separation played out here and elsewhere all the time.
> 
> "The other guy is so arrogant, he can't even discuss anything, because he's too obsessed with being right and not wrong."
> 
> It's easy to see in others and just as easy to see in myself when I'm doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same question, same answer.
> In order to get to discussing WHY we have come to believe the way we do, both parties apparently have to admit room for doubt. Then we can tell each other WHY our doubts have been resolved - or not.
> I have no problem with science testing and studying the workings and origins of the universe. I have equal thirst for the knowledge of God as well. I find both fascinating.
> It can show the ugly side of people however when they try to degrade someone's intelligence, all for the sake of being prideful.


I've never asked you, nor anyone else, to prove their faith to me. As I've told you in the past your belief is good enough for me. However, if you wish to prove that your belief is evidence of something you will have to provide such evidence. Your belief may work for you. It doesn't for me. I'm not trying to degrade, diminish or cast doubt on the beliefs of the person I've been asking questions of. I simply wish to know which of his two contradictory statements is true. Is it that no man can know anything with 100% certainty or is it that he and, now millions of others, can know with 100% certainty the origins of life? Both cannot be true at the same time yet he seems to contend they are.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Not when it's obviously true. When a person tries using a logical fallacy as an argument, they lack critical thinking skills.
> 
> "By constantly bashing others' critical thinking skills, you implicitly imply that you are very good at critical thinking."
> 
> Lying about what other people imply is a Straw Man Fallacy. People who have attained critical thinking skills don't do that. Saying other people lack critical thinking skills says nothing about my critical thinking skills.
> 
> "However, you have not given examples of why others' thinking is flawed."
> 
> That fallacy is known as Shifting the Burden of Proof. That's another thing people with critical thinking skills don't do. You can find lists of the logical fallacies online. Avoiding using them is another basic critical thinking skill.


Whatever you're doing, it's not thinking. I refuse to further engage in conversation with you, troll.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> What "millions *believe*" doesn't mean they are right, no matter how "certain" they *believe* they are


Agree...millions may believe we were hatched from eggs by a giant chicken...then we flew over the moon on the chickens back. A guy that worked on a building project for me announced one day that God put him on earth to drink beer...I have no argument for that either.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Why do you religious apologists keep talking about people who "believe in science theory"? Don't you learn how science works? They teach that in elementary school(usually).
> I do agree you are different from those people who believe in science theory. You are also different from those people who understand how science works. We shouldn't ignore them.


I like science...medicine is mind boggling...growing flowers on the space station is great...man made mechanical devices excite me...regardless I lean away from the man made world to the woods...my farm...springs...creeks and streams...I love to be in a place out in the middle of nowhere where not one single human being on the face of the earth knows where I am.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> That's the Bandwagon Fallacy. Religious apologists often use "arguments" like that because they have no good arguments.


I have no argument with any person...my life provides me absolute peace and contentment...there is no amount of money that buy that.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> I've never asked you, nor anyone else, to prove their faith to me. As I've told you in the past your belief is good enough for me. However, if you wish to prove that your belief is evidence of something you will have to provide such evidence. Your belief may work for you. It doesn't for me. I'm not trying to degrade, diminish or cast doubt on the beliefs of the person I've been asking questions of. I simply wish to know which of his two contradictory statements is true. Is it that no man can know anything with 100% certainty or is it that he and, now millions of others, can know with 100% certainty the origins of life? Both cannot be true at the same time yet he seems to contend they are.


Millions of people belive that. It is proven for me and that is all that matters to me. You are also free to believe anything and I'm good with that.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> Millions of people belive that. It is proven for me and that is all that matters to me. You are also free to believe anything and I'm good with that.


So anyone can know something with 100% certainty?


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> I have no argument with any person...my life provides me absolute peace and contentment...there is no amount of money that buy that.


 Arguments in the sense I used it means "a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:". When a person makes a claim, rational people expect them to provide an argument to support it.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> I like science...medicine is mind boggling...growing flowers on the space station is great...man made mechanical devices excite me...regardless I lean away from the man made world to the woods...my farm...springs...creeks and streams...I love to be in a place out in the middle of nowhere where not one single human being on the face of the earth knows where I am.


I enjoy both, too. That's why I bought 45 acres in the Ozarks.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> Whatever you're doing, it's not thinking. I refuse to further engage in conversation with you, troll.


When all else fails, call the opponent a troll.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> So anyone can know something with 100% certainty?


I am 100% certain I have a black toaster.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> God created man...we did not evolve from anything else. Evolutionists want to fall on the dagger of time and talk about billions of years. No man can make a new specie. Man cannot say with absolute 100% certainty where our origin came from. Cannot figure out an ant. Nor any plant. Hundreds of billions spent and no answers. Really...no man can understand what goes on under the sun. And never will.





elevenpoint said:


> I am 100% certain I have a black toaster.


Easily provable. But are you 100% certain of our origin?


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> Easily provable. But are you 100% certain of our origin?


Mine....yours can be anything you believe and I have no problem with that.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> I am 100% certain I have a black toaster.


Better stay away from philosophy, especially the old "brains-in-vats" idea. Some people find the whole thing scary. It was the idea behind the Matrix movies.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> Mine....yours can be anything you believe and I have no problem with that.


So your statement that man can't know such things with 100% certainty was wrong?


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> So your statement that man can't know such things with 100% certainty was wrong?


What such things?


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> God created man...we did not evolve from anything else. Evolutionists want to fall on the dagger of time and talk about billions of years. No man can make a new specie. Man cannot say with absolute 100% certainty where our origin came from. Cannot figure out an ant. Nor any plant. Hundreds of billions spent and no answers. Really...no man can understand what goes on under the sun. And never will.





elevenpoint said:


> What such things?


Such things as "where our origin came from." You really should make an effort to remember your own words.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Better stay away from philosophy, especially the old "brains-in-vats" idea. Some people find the whole thing scary. It was the idea behind the Matrix movies.


I think my Self is stored somewhere else, and my hologram learns for me in a virtual reality. Possibly my real world is made of steel, and I am actually an intelligent amoeba.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> Such things as "where our origin came from." You really should make an effort to remember your own words.


I remember my words exactly...where I came from is crystal clear to me. You have a problem with you.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> I remember my words exactly...where I came from is crystal clear to me. You have a problem with you.


No, I have a problem with someone making two contradictory statements and trying to claim they are both true. One must be false. I have no real hope that you will own up to your words and to me , that says more about you than the statements themselves. Have a fine evening.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> No, I have a problem with someone making two contradictory statements and trying to claim they are both true. One must be false. I have no real hope that you will own up to your words and to me , that says more about you than the statements themselves. Have a fine evening.


More nonsense..


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

*Folks I have been lurking here on this thread for a while .... (since someone on the freething thread caused everyone to leave it)

That persons remarks are not liked ..... same applies to this thread

BTW if you like my post please click the like button
*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *Folks I have been lurking here on this thread for a while .... (since someone on the freething thread caused everyone to leave it)
> 
> That persons remarks are not liked ..... same applies to this thread
> 
> BTW if you like my post please click the like button
> *


Not "everyone" left the "freething" thread.
Everybody likes free things


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> So your statement that man can't know such things with 100% certainty was wrong?


There is nothin that is 100% certain, since there's always a tiny chance the apocalypse will occur.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> So anyone can know something with 100% certainty?


Simple. - Somehow you are shown something. Happened to me.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> More nonsense..


Which of your statements are you referring to as nonsense. The one where you claim man can't know with 100% certainty the origins of the world or where you claim to know such things with 100% certainty?


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> Which of your statements are you referring to as nonsense. The one where you claim man can't know with 100% certainty the origins of the world or where you claim to know such things with 100% certainty?


Man does not know regardless of knowledge...logic..education. Will never know. Man in all his worldly knowledge cannot comprehend what goes on under the sun. However intelligent man is it falls short. Man competes against man to be the best...the wisest..faster...stronger. 

Then there is God.

Man just lost.

Cannot have any conversation that compares man and God due to how foolish it would be.

Once I built an indoor waterfall with natural stone in a clients million dollar home. The raves were endless. Then I went into the woods and sat near a 200 million gallon a day spring.

I realized how silly of a man I was comparing my creation to His.

Man alone cannot be certain. With God...all things are possible.


----------



## farmrbrown

elevenpoint said:


> Man does not know regardless of knowledge...logic..education. Will never know. Man in all his worldly knowledge cannot comprehend what goes on under the sun. However intelligent man is it falls short. Man competes against man to be the best...the wisest..faster...stronger.
> 
> Then there is God.
> 
> Man just lost.
> 
> Cannot have any conversation that compares man and God due to how foolish it would be.
> 
> Once I built an indoor waterfall with natural stone in a clients million dollar home. The raves were endless. Then I went into the woods and sat near a 200 million gallon a day spring.
> 
> I realized how silly of a man I was comparing my creation to His.
> 
> Man alone cannot be certain. With God...all things are possible.




:goodjob:
I wanted to "like" it more than once. 

I'm sure you're thinking isn't "critical" enough for some, but I can't argue with the logic.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Man does not know regardless of knowledge...logic..education. Will never know. Man in all his worldly knowledge cannot comprehend what goes on under the sun. .


 Man cannot know everything, but God gave us eyes, ears and a brain to use. And we see certain things... certain fossils... certain ways the stars move... and these thing lead us to ask questions, make observations, do experiements, etc. That is how we have come to beleive the universe is expanding, and mankind has common ancestors with all life on earth. These things are based on OBSERVATIONS, not 'faith'. YOU may have faith a talking snake fooled a woman into eating a dietys forbidden fruit, and thats fine, but being that there is no evidence of it, you just have to believe. Not so with the scientific discoveries. Those are observable, they don't require faith.
So keep on mocking 'science' there elevenpoint, as you type on your computer and send messages around the globe at the speed of light. I hope the irony is not lost on you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> I remember my words exactly...where I came from is crystal clear to me. You have a problem with you.


You once told me you couldn't remember the difference in:
"They're, Their, and There" due to "Rolling Rock".
Could it be that condition has recurred?


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Man competes against man to be the best...the wisest..faster...stronger.
> 
> Then there is God.
> 
> Man just lost.
> 
> Cannot have any conversation that compares man and God due to how foolish it would be.


 The only competition is in your imagination. Many scientists believe in God, and they also believe in using their minds to explore Gods world.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Man cannot know everything, but God gave us eyes, ears and a brain to use. And we see certain things... certain fossils... certain ways the stars move... and these thing lead us to ask questions, make observations, do experiements, etc. That is how we have come to beleive the universe is expanding, and mankind has common ancestors with all life on earth. These things are based on OBSERVATIONS, not 'faith'. YOU may have faith a talking snake fooled a woman into eating a dietys forbidden fruit, and thats fine, but being that there is no evidence of it, you just have to believe. Not so with the scientific discoveries. Those are observable, they don't require faith.
> So keep on mocking 'science' there elevenpoint, as you type on your computer and send messages around the globe at the speed of light. I hope the irony is not lost on you.


Considering I am out in the middle of nowhere right now on a cell phone I agree thats really is an incredible work of man. When I was in Florida on vacation and watched the space shuttle take off...speechless. When I watched it blow up..speechless. Science is great based upon absolute truth...not therories.
Mans creations and God's are not comparable.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> The only competition is in your imagination. Many scientists believe in God, and they also believe in using their minds to explore Gods world.


There cannot be a competition in my mind or imagination. God's wisdom and mans are not comparable.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Mans creations and God's are not comparable.


 So stop comparing them. And you should probably stop getting your science info from scrolls written by men over 2000 years ago. 
See the evidence is that the universe is expanding, and expanded from a small point in space-time to what we see today, also that all creatures on earth share a common ancestor. Sorry if that somehow offends your religious faith, but that is what the evidence shows. If you're going to base you religious faith on things that are obviously untrue, then prepare to be constantly offended by reality.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> So stop comparing them. And you should probably stop getting your science info from scrolls written by men over 2000 years ago.
> See the evidence is that the universe is expanding, and expanded from a small point in space-time to what we see today, also that all creatures on earth share a common ancestor. Sorry if that somehow offends your religious faith, but that is what the evidence shows. If you're going to base you religious faith on things that are obviously untrue, then prepare to be constantly offended by reality.


Huh? I have no religious faith. Religion comes from man.


----------



## FourDeuce

Aren't you a man?


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Aren't you a man?


Man yes...religion no.

No we can't discuss it. Jesus covered that 2000 years ago. Pharisees.


----------



## FourDeuce

"No we can't discuss it."
If you feel you are exempt from logic, there's no reason for anybody to listen to anything you say.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> "No we can't discuss it."
> If you feel you are exempt from logic, there's no reason for anybody to listen to anything you say.


Your logic...or any mans logic...vs Jesus? Seriously?


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Your logic...or any mans logic...vs Jesus? Seriously?


I'm not surprised. The Bible doesn't hold critical or innovative thinking to be a virtue. If it does I've never seen it.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> I'm not surprised. The Bible doesn't hold critical or innovative thinking to be a virtue. If it does I've never seen it.


Critical thinking is mans version of his wisdom. 
So...Solomon asked God for discernment.
God have him that and was one of the wisest men ever.
Proverbs beats out critical thinking hands down every day of the week.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Critical thinking is mans version of his wisdom.
> So...Solomon asked God for discernment.
> God have him that and was one of the wisest men ever.
> Proverbs beats out critical thinking hands down every day of the week.


Believe what you're told and don't ask questions. That's about the long and the short of it.

Interestingly, I spent the morning reading about what's going on with the FLDS church in the Short Creek area now that Warren Jeffs is behind bars. Most of the reason he got away with what he did for so long was because followers were told not to ask questions.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Believe what you're told and don't ask questions. That's about the long and the short of it.
> 
> Interestingly, I spent the morning reading about what's going on with the FLDS church in the Short Creek area now that Warren Jeffs is behind bars. Most of the reason he got away with what he did for so long was because followers were told not to ask questions.


Jim Jones was a dandy too...wolves dressed in sheep's clothing has always been a part of them religious folk.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Jim Jones was a dandy too...wolves dressed in sheep's clothing has always been a part of them religious folk.


Yes, just tell them not to ask questions or it will offend God.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Your logic...or any mans logic...vs Jesus? Seriously?


So you don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory because of Jesus? I didn't realize he weighed in on the subject.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> Your logic...or any mans logic...vs Jesus? Seriously?


Nope. There is only one logic. I never compare logic to fairy tales. That would just be silly.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Yes, just tell them not to ask questions or it will offend God.


They were warned beforehand.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> I'm not surprised.* The Bible doesn't hold critical or innovative thinking to be a virtue. If it does I've never seen it.*





elevenpoint said:


> Critical thinking is mans version of his wisdom.
> So...Solomon asked God for discernment.
> God have him that and was one of the wisest men ever.
> Proverbs beats out critical thinking hands down every day of the week.


I was thinking about this today, in reference to this thread.
The Preacher's final conclusion?
"Vanity, all is vanity."



Nevada said:


> *Believe what you're told and don't ask questions. That's about the long and the short of it.*
> 
> Interestingly, I spent the morning reading about what's going on with the FLDS church in the Short Creek area now that Warren Jeffs is behind bars. Most of the reason he got away with what he did for so long was because followers were told not to ask questions.


Wow Nevada, if you missed those parts, you missed a LOT.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> So you don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory because of Jesus? I didn't realize he weighed in on the subject.


Nooooo...I don't believe in theory of any kind because they lack absolute truth. I can go for hours on therories of any kind..in the end that is all they are.

Find a chair because tonight I am going to give you the answer.
I will give you the answer that will put to rest all doubt.
Be in a chair so you don't fall over.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Critical thinking is mans version of his wisdom.
> So...Solomon asked God for discernment.
> God have him that and was one of the wisest men ever.
> Proverbs beats out critical thinking hands down every day of the week.


Old Testament, so it doesn't count.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> Old Testament, so it doesn't count.


It only counts when they want to use leviticus to say god hates gays. The rest of the old testament doesn't count.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Nooooo...I don't believe in theory of any kind because they lack absolute truth.


That ridiculous! You can safely hang your hat on any theory that's stood peer review. We use theories to build bridges and tall buildings safely.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> Old Testament, so it doesn't count.


Except for the part about homosexuals. Except that's actually in the NT as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

I haven't seen this many flip-flops since I lived at Myrtle Beach


----------



## FourDeuce

Irish Pixie said:


> It only counts when they want to use leviticus to say god hates gays. The rest of the old testament doesn't count.


And their 10 commandments.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> So you don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory because of Jesus? I didn't realize he weighed in on the subject.





elevenpoint said:


> Nooooo...I don't believe in theory of any kind because they lack absolute truth. I can go for hours on therories of any kind..in the end that is all they are.
> 
> Find a chair because tonight I am going to give you the answer.
> I will give you the answer that will put to rest all doubt.
> Be in a chair so you don't fall over.


I don't think he'll fall over, he will likely just dismiss it, lol
It's ok, many Christians would be surprised at how many times Jesus is referred to in the Old Testament, including Genesis ch. 1 

The deceivers like to say the OT doesn't count, but most of us know better than that.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Nooooo...I don't believe in theory of any kind because they lack absolute truth. I can go for hours on therories of any kind..in the end that is all they are.



Yes, I am sure you could go on for hours about what you THINK is meant by a 'theory', but if your past replies about science have been any indication, you'd probably be wrong. A 'theory' is not just some wild arsed guess based on nothing, its a set of observations and attempt to explain that which is observed, based on known laws, principles, and properties of matter. 
I find it odd you have such a high standard of proof for things like the expansion of the universe and evolution, yet are perfectly willing to believe in talking snakes and vindictive dieties that give land to certain tribes of people. 
As far as the Big Bang theory, your original reason for starting this thread, you're right, no one can know for certain what transpired in the past. But we can look at what exists now, judge its speed, its position, its relative motion, and deduce with confidence that things are expanding. Its not someones wild idea, its what the observations show.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> The deceivers like to say the OT doesn't count, but most of us know better than that.


 Who would those people be? I've heard many times on this forum, when pointing out the violent edicts in the OT, that it 'no longer counted' because of Jesus. Of course those same people use it to justify bigotry when it suited them, they just didn't like the rest of the laws Moses laid down for the Jews. I find there is much wisdom in the Old Testament, but a detailed scientific treatise it is not, and thats ok, it was not meant to be. Ask St. Augustine, he had some choice words for those who would refute obvious scientific facts based on their flawed understanding of scripture.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> So you don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory because of Jesus? I didn't realize he weighed in on the subject.


Of course Jesus did not "weigh" in on those subjects...Jesus never talked about anything so far out of reality.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Of course Jesus did not "weigh" in on those subjects...Jesus never talked about anything so far out of reality.


Jesus undoubtedly left those subjects for scientists answer.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> That ridiculous! You can safely hang your hat on any theory that's stood peer review. We use theories to build bridges and tall buildings safely.


How did that theory work out when that bridge collapsed in Minnesota. Not good. I have hundreds of other therories that did not work out.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Jesus undoubtedly left those subjects for scientists answer.


Well sure He did...He did not believe in God !


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Yes, I am sure you could go on for hours about what you THINK is meant by a 'theory', but if your past replies about science have been any indication, you'd probably be wrong. A 'theory' is not just some wild arsed guess based on nothing, its a set of observations and attempt to explain that which is observed, based on known laws, principles, and properties of matter.
> I find it odd you have such a high standard of proof for things like the expansion of the universe and evolution, yet are perfectly willing to believe in talking snakes and vindictive dieties that give land to certain tribes of people.
> As far as the Big Bang theory, your original reason for starting this thread, you're right, no one can know for certain what transpired in the past. But we can look at what exists now, judge its speed, its position, its relative motion, and deduce with confidence that things are expanding. Its not someones wild idea, its what the observations show.


I'm fine with what man thinks.
Futile though it may be.
Man can base anything on speed..expansion...or observation of any kind.
All roads lead to a dead end.
Nothing yet to get excited about.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> How did that theory work out when that bridge collapsed in Minnesota. Not good. I have hundreds of other therories that did not work out.


A better question might be how did the Tacoma Narrows Bridge come down in 1940. The truth is that they were in the planning stages of rebuilding the bridge before understanding why the first one came down. It wasn't that the bridge was build on incorrect theories, it was because there was a theory that mainstream science didn't fully understand -- namely boundary layer disturbances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_layer

The second bridge was designed in the late 1940s. Engineers were aware of boundary layer theory, but it's effects were thought to be minimal for suspension bridges. Instead the designer blamed the collapse on the harmonic frequency set by the specific dimensions of the bridge. The plan was the change the dimensions of the bridge so it would have a different frequency. Fortunately a WSU physics professor set them straight before construction began.

But the Bible didn't tell us about boundary layer disturbances. Why do you suppose not? Fortunately engineers spend a lot of time studying failure analysis to develop safe design practices.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec[/ame]


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> A better question might be how did the Tacoma Narrows Bridge come down in 1940. The truth is that they were in the planning stages of rebuilding the bridge before understanding why the first one came down. It wasn't that the bridge was build on incorrect theories, it was because there was a theory that mainstream science didn't fully understand -- namely boundary layer disturbances.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_layer
> 
> The second bridge was designed in the late 1940s. Engineers were aware of boundary later theory, but it's effects were thought to be minimal for suspension bridges. Instead the designer blamed the collapse on the harmonic frequency set by the specific dimensions of the bridge. The plan was the change the dimensions of the bridge so it would have a different frequency. Fortunately a WSU physics professor set them straight before construction began.
> 
> But the Bible didn't tell us about boundary layer disturbances. Why do you suppose not? Fortunately engineers spend a lot of time studying failure analysis to develop safe design practices.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec


Science is good...boundary layer disturbances...great.
God's wisdom?
Not even close.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Science is good...boundary layer disturbances...great.
> God's wisdom?
> Not even close.


It's not a contest. Science certainly has it's place. Without science we would be a bunch of nomads; hunting and gathering to stay alive. Science has allowed us to build a grand society, with a quality of life never attained before by any creature on earth.

Indeed, without science most of us would have died off at a young age from small pox, if not from a simple pneumonia infection.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> It only counts when they want to use leviticus to say god hates gays. The rest of the old testament doesn't count.


Why would you be so defensive of gays anyway? Scared they are going to burn in he'll? How would you know? I dont...how would you?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> It's not a contest. Science certainly has it's place. Without science we would be a bunch of nomads; hunting and gathering to stay alive. Science has allowed us to build a grand society, with a quality of life never attained before by any creature on earth.
> 
> Indeed, without science most of us would have died off at a young age from small pox, if not from a simple pneumonia infection.


I agree...many positive steps in science and medicine.
Then there is a limit.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> Why would you be so defensive of gays anyway? Scared they are going to burn in he'll? How would you know? I dont...how would you?


Continuation of the species is the only thing that matters. Gays usurp this rule, but since they are not actively committing the species to destruction, they are an anomaly that can be ignored. They do not need to be eliminated. However, our hardwiring forces us to reproduce to create the next generation, so they are definitely an exception.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Who would those people be? I've heard many times on this forum, when pointing out the violent edicts in the OT, that it 'no longer counted' because of Jesus. Of course those same people use it to justify bigotry when it suited them, they just didn't like the rest of the laws Moses laid down for the Jews. I find there is much wisdom in the Old Testament, but a detailed scientific treatise it is not, and thats ok, it was not meant to be. Ask St. Augustine, he had some choice words for those who would refute obvious scientific facts based on their flawed understanding of scripture.



Quite true. I've refuted those comments as well.
More recently, i was referring to these...........



FourDeuce said:


> And their 10 commandments.





Nevada said:


> Old Testament, so it doesn't count.





Irish Pixie said:


> It only counts when they want to use leviticus to say god hates gays. The rest of the old testament doesn't count.












Nevada said:


> But the Bible didn't tell us about boundary layer disturbances. Why do you suppose not?


Good question.
I don't know.

HE DID give detailed interactions on boat building that would allow safe transport over large bodies of water though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Why would you be so defensive of gays anyway? Scared they are going to burn in he'll? How would you know? I dont...how would you?


Why would anyone be afraid of something a religion believes if they aren't a follower of that religion?



> burn in *he'll*


Is that the Rolling Rock talking again?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would anyone be afraid of something a religion believes if they aren't a follower of that religion?
> 
> 
> Is that the Rolling Rock talking again?


No...legally sidestepping moderators.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Quite true. I've refuted those comments as well.
> More recently, i was referring to these...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> I don't know.
> 
> HE DID give detailed interactions on boat building that would allow safe transport over large bodies of water though.


There is extremely limited geological evidence for the Flood.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> No...legally sidestepping moderators.


"Hell" isn't considered profanity
Telling people they are going to Hell could be considered an insult.
Saying "going to he'll" is just silly, since it's not hiding any intent


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Hell" isn't considered profanity
> Telling people they are going to Hell could be considered an insult.
> Saying "going to he'll" is just silly, since it's not hiding any intent


I don't know who is going to hell. If anyone.
Why would any person that has zero belief in God..His word...have one bit of concern in the first place.
Why would that person quote anything in the Bible?
They must be worried.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Why would you be so defensive of gays anyway? Scared they are going to burn in he'll? How would you know? I dont...how would you?


I'm defensive of gays, but because they deserve the same benefits we get. They pay into FICA at the same rate as everyone else. Why shouldn't they be able to leave their SS & Medicare benefits to a same-sex spouse?

I always dislike things that make a group of people different. Check out why Toby thinks prayer in school should remain outlawed. When you treat any group of people differently the outcome is never good.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49lLqFsO4Dc[/ame]


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> There is extremely limited geological evidence for the Flood.


Well, I thank you for that little nudge.
I ran across some very interesting scientific discussions on that subject because of it........

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Quite true. I've refuted those comments as well.
> More recently, i was referring to these...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> I don't know.
> 
> HE DID give detailed interactions on boat building that would allow safe transport over large bodies of water though.


Right. That's why nobody has ever built an ark using biblical instructions and floated it in water. A wooden boat built that large couldn't float.:bash:


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> There is extremely limited geological evidence for the Flood.


Yes, no evidence for a world-wide flood is extremely limiting for the people who claim it happened.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Why would you be so defensive of gays anyway? Scared they are going to burn in he'll? How would you know? I dont...how would you?


How could I possibly be scared that anyone would burn in something that doesn't exist?  

It's absolutely none of our business what goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults, straight or gay.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> Why would you be so defensive of gays anyway? Scared they are going to burn in he'll? How would you know? I dont...how would you?


I tend to worry more about what may happen to them in this realm, not some future one that may, or may not, exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> Right. That's why nobody has ever built an ark using biblical instructions and floated it in water. A wooden boat built that large couldn't float.:bash:


Hey, Mr. "critical", are you 100% sure you wanna go with that statement?
After all, that's one that involves physics and engineering, something that can actually be seen and touched by your own wittle eyes and hands.




FourDeuce said:


> Yes, no evidence for a world-wide flood is extremely limiting for the people who claim it happened.


Another "critical" mistake.
I opted to not present other scientific studies I found. The whole argument of, "My link is credible, yours is not" is old and tiresome.

There IS evidence, just not a lot of it and science has intentionally published false information for years in the hopes that their errors would not be revealed.
It reminds me of the global cooling/global warming debate.
Lots of "evidence" and lots of misinterpretation.

As far as the people who claimed it happened.........that opens up another realm of "evidence" that is quite interesting.
But rather than sling continuous insults at others, I prefer to simply study what is or isn't found.
Your blatant bias and prejudice guarantees that you cannot accept anything that is factual.


----------



## Lisa in WA

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I thank you for that little nudge.
> I ran across some very interesting scientific discussions on that subject because of it........
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous


I was just in the scablands yesterday. Very strange landscape.


----------



## Lisa in WA

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I thank you for that little nudge.
> I ran across some very interesting scientific discussions on that subject because of it........
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous


I was just in the scablands yesterday. Very strange landscape. I did know about the Lake Missoula flood. But it wasn't exactly world wide.


----------



## farmrbrown

It does sound fascinating. I hope that I can see some of the West before I die.


While the evidence of a "worldwide" flood appears not to exist, there are two factors to consider.
Nevada may want to weigh in on this, he probably has more knowledge of geology and engineering than most of us.

The flood myth isn't only biblical, it's in almost every culture in the world. While not "evidence" that one fact alone shouldn't be dismissed so easily. To search for the 'why' is what science is all about. Even if you doubt the conclusion, the evidence is wherever that takes you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Secondly, the geological strata timeline that has been presented as "fact" in recent history, falls apart at the seams when the facts are truly examined.
Questioning even published scientific "foundations" IS critical thinking, supposedly.................
Otherwise, it's just another case of taking someone's word for it without question.
http://www.icr.org/article/242/272

Am I right, Mr. Critical? (4 deuce)


----------



## Lisa in WA

Double post


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I thank you for that little nudge.
> I ran across some very interesting scientific discussions on that subject because of it........
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous


 Yes, and what does that article say? The Mediterranean may have flooded the Black Sea at some point in history. 
The possibility of a great flood in the Middle East 7000 years ago does not mean 'the whole earth' was flooded, or that some dude had to grab 'two of every creature'. There probably is some truth to the 'great flood' stories, many ancient cultures have them, but they were localized events, some larger than others, and there is NO evidence for a 'world wide' flood as described in the Old Testament. And unless you employ good old 'Diety Magic', there is no way it could happen anyway. Where would the water drain off to if the whole world was flooded? Maybe it all froze up and formed Antarctica, or maybe the story is exaggerated for effect.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I thank you for that little nudge.
> I ran across some very interesting scientific discussions on that subject because of it........
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous


Not exactly evidence of rain for forty days and nights. The non believer might point to these historical events and conclude that that these natural events were witnessed by early man and passed down as part of their early oral histories. One could also conclude that in generations of retelling natural events like these were woven into the early god myths as an example of the power of those gods. Five thousand or so years later they get written down in a modified way to prove that some are god's chosen people. But isn't that what all religions claim. Which is right?


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Yes, and what does that article say? The Mediterranean may have flooded the Black Sea at some point in history.
> The possibility of a great flood in the Middle East 7000 years ago does not mean 'the whole earth' was flooded, or that some dude had to grab 'two of every creature'. There probably is some truth to the 'great flood' stories, many ancient cultures have them, but they were localized events, some larger than others, and there is NO evidence for a 'world wide' flood as described in the Old Testament. And unless you employ good old 'Diety Magic', there is no way it could happen anyway. Where would the water drain off to if the whole world was flooded? Maybe it all froze up and formed Antarctica, or maybe the story is exaggerated for effect.


If you care to, read the last two links I posted.
That was some of what I read last night.
The second one on how the geological evidence has been either misrepresented intentionally or misinterpreted unintentionally, means something different to me.

That scientific "certainty" has about the same structural weakness as "fairy tales".
:duel:

I wonder if I should post the link about the physics study on the seaworthiness of the design of Noah's ark?
Naaaaaaahhhhhhhh...........that might confuse EVERYBODY, LOL.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Secondly, the geological strata timeline that has been presented as "fact" in recent history, falls apart at the seams when the facts are truly examined.


 What 'geologic strata timeline' are you talking about? Its a complicated picture, for sure, and errors and uncertanties crop up, but taken as a whole, the science is sound. 
I will tell you this, there is FAR more evidence for an earth of BILLIONS of years old than there is for an earth of 6000 years old. This conversation has taken so many twists and turns I forget who, if anyone was advocating for that particular bit of nonsense. My apologies if it was not you.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> If you care to, read the last two links I posted.
> That was some of what I read last night.
> The second one on how the geological evidence has been either misrepresented intentionally or misinterpreted unintentionally, means something different to me.
> 
> That scientific "certainty" has about the same structural weakness as "fairy tales".
> :duel:
> 
> I wonder if I should post the link about the physics study on the seaworthiness of the design of Noah's ark?
> Naaaaaaahhhhhhhh...........that might confuse EVERYBODY, LOL.


 I read your links, and the last one in particular about the supposed 'errors' made by geologists is complete garbage. I know enough about geology to see the heavily biased strawman arguments they put forth. Maybe enough to fool the geologically uneducated, but their arguments are beyond weak. 
As to the seaworthiness of a craft like Noahs Ark was described, sure, why not. If you displace enough water, i would guess you could float just about anything.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> I read your links, and the last one in particular about the supposed 'errors' made by geologists is complete garbage. I know enough about geology to see the heavily biased strawman arguments they put forth. Maybe enough to fool the geologically uneducated, but their arguments are beyond weak.
> As to the seaworthiness of a craft like Noahs Ark was described, sure, why not. If you displace enough water, i would guess you could float just about anything.


Aaahhhh. "I see" said the blind man.

That's why I was looking forward to Nevada's input.
But I'll ask you in the meantime.

Is the 10 layer geological record completely consistent and in the same order throughout the entire earth's crust?
That is what was questioned by scientists in the mountains of Washington state, in the link I provided.
Those WERE geologists.
Or is it true that is actually present only on 5% of the earth?
Remember, 75% of the earth is still under water, so make sure before you give an answer.

IOW, this statement that there is "no evidence", has that been vetted as closely as the vetting of supposed "fairy tales"?
I seem to remember a story about scientific evidence indicating a stable, flat earth, prior to 1492............


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Aaahhhh. "I see" said the blind man.
> 
> That's why I was looking forward to Nevada's input.
> But I'll ask you in the meantime.
> 
> Is the 10 layer geological record completely consistent and in the same order throughout the entire earth's crust?
> That is what was questioned by scientists in the mountains of Washington state, in the link I provided.
> Those WERE geologists.
> Or is it true that is actually present only on 5% of the earth?
> Remember, 75% of the earth is still under water, so make sure before you give an answer.
> 
> IOW, this statement that there is "no evidence", has that been vetted as closely as the vetting of supposed "fairy tales"?
> I seem to remember a story about scientific evidence indicating a stable, flat earth, prior to 1492............



How about you study geology for awhile, then get back to us. And not the 'creationist' version, but the real version. You've got so much misunderstanding going on its hard to know where to begin. There is nothing in that article about 'questioning the 10 layer geologic record'. That is creationist strawman stuff... things THEY make up to make their own kooky theories seem plausible.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> How about you study geology for awhile, then get back to us. And not the 'creationist' version, but the real version. You've got so much misunderstanding going on its hard to know where to begin. There is nothing in that article about 'questioning the 10 layer geologic record'. That is creationist strawman stuff... things THEY make up to make their own kooky theories seem plausible.


And how did I know that was going to be the reply?:smack

Let me finish the thought for you.........


"We will ONLY accept and believe evidence from atheists scientists. No matter what is found or proven, the only biased scientist that I will listen to, has to agree with my philosophy first. If you believe in the Bible and want to look at scientific studies that refute the Bible, that is fine. But I will refuse to look at yours at utterly dismiss them as hogwash because........well because......it may exposes a ***** in my armor."


The fact that I DO look at the geological record is why I asked the question, which curiously you didn't answer.
So again, is the earth's surface homogeneous and consistent with this evidence of "no flood"?
Everywhere on earth that you bring up a core sample, is it always the same?
If it is different, how so?

Even better, do the fossil records show anything past unicellular organisms when you reach true bottom?
In other words, does this theory of evolution have evidence of such that proves these organisms had an earlier origin plainly seen in the fossil layers?

It's ok if the answers are uncomfortable or impossible.
My feet have worn many shoes over the years, I understand.:kiss:


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> And how did I know that was going to be the reply?:smack
> 
> Let me finish the thought for you.........
> 
> 
> "We will ONLY accept and believe evidence from atheists scientists. No matter what is found or proven, the only biased scientist that I will listen to, has to agree with my philosophy first. If you believe in the Bible and want to look at scientific studies that refute the Bible, that is fine. But I will refuse to look at yours at utterly dismiss them as hogwash because........well because......it may exposes a ***** in my armor."


 No, it only exposes the ****** in your geologic understanding, and your willingness to believe the creationists as they contort and twist observable facts to fit thier narrative.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> The fact that I DO look at the geological record is why I asked the question, which curiously you didn't answer.
> So again, is the earth's surface homogeneous and consistent with this evidence of "no flood"?
> Everywhere on earth that you bring up a core sample, is it always the same?
> If it is different, how so?


 See, this is why I urge you yourself to study geology. You can answer those questions yourself. I really don't know what you're driving at... is the earths surface 'homogeneous'?? You mean the same all the way through?? HUH?? Have you taken ANY formal training in geology??
Perhaps you should read your article again, the one about the Washington state floods.


> These were not global deluges as described in the Genesis story of Noah, but were more focused catastrophic floods taking place throughout the world. They likely inspired stories like Noahâs in many cultures, passed down through generations.


 And no, when you bring up a core sample, its not going to be the same everywhere. Why on earth would it?? They would have some similarities though, once you got low enough, you would hit what is called the 'basement complex', typically granite transitioning to basalt which is heavier. Below this is magma, the molten ocean on which the continental crust float.


----------



## fireweed farm

greg273 said:


> See, this is why I urge you yourself to study geology. You can answer those questions yourself. I really don't know what you're driving at... is the earths surface 'homogeneous'?? You mean the same all the way through?? HUH?? Have you taken ANY formal training in geology??
> Perhaps you should read your article again, the one about the Washington state floods.
> 
> 
> And no, when you bring up a core sample, its not going to be the same everywhere. Why on earth would it?? They would have some similarities though, once you got low enough, you would hit what is called the 'basement complex', typically granite transitioning to basalt which is heavier. Below this is magma, the molten ocean on which the continental crust float.



You're trying to reason with someone that's clearly never been out of their town. Never been off their farm. Never been on a hike through mountains. And never took a basic course (grade 5?) with geography or geology.


----------



## mmoetc

fireweed farm said:


> You're trying to reason with someone that's clearly never been out of their town. Never been off their farm. Never been on a hike through mountains. And never took a basic course (grade 5?) with geography or geology.


I'm going to say that he's just a person with a different perspective. He seems well read and able to comprehend what he reads though what he chooses to read is often different than what I choose. There's not a lot he and I agree on but attack his arguments, not what you think his education or travel experiences are, please.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> I don't know who is going to hell. If anyone.
> *Why would any person that has zero belief in God..His word...have one bit of concern in the first place.*
> Why would that person quote anything in the Bible?
> They must be worried.


That's what I asked you but you've still given no answer

Quoting the Bible has no hidden meanings when you take things in context


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Aaahhhh. "I see" said the blind man.
> 
> That's why I was looking forward to Nevada's input.
> But I'll ask you in the meantime.
> 
> Is the 10 layer geological record completely consistent and in the same order throughout the entire earth's crust?
> That is what was questioned by scientists in the mountains of Washington state, in the link I provided.
> Those WERE geologists.
> Or is it true that is actually present only on 5% of the earth?
> Remember, 75% of the earth is still under water, so make sure before you give an answer.
> 
> IOW, this statement that there is "no evidence", has that been vetted as closely as the vetting of supposed "fairy tales"?
> I seem to remember a story about scientific evidence indicating a stable, flat earth, prior to 1492............


If you know of some "scientific evidence" that the earth was flat, post it. It would be good to see if you understand what scientific evidence IS.


----------



## FourDeuce

greg273 said:


> I read your links, and the last one in particular about the supposed 'errors' made by geologists is complete garbage. I know enough about geology to see the heavily biased strawman arguments they put forth. Maybe enough to fool the geologically uneducated, but their arguments are beyond weak.
> As to the seaworthiness of a craft like Noahs Ark was described, sure, why not. If you displace enough water, i would guess you could float just about anything.


Water displacement is not the only problem. Look up the history of wooden boats. There's an important reason they stopped trying to build large wooden boats once they reached a certain size. When they get too big, wooden boats fall apart under their own weight because wood is not strong enough.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Hey, Mr. "critical", are you 100% sure you wanna go with that statement?
> After all, that's one that involves physics and engineering, something that can actually be seen and touched by your own wittle eyes and hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another "critical" mistake.
> I opted to not present other scientific studies I found. The whole argument of, "My link is credible, yours is not" is old and tiresome.
> 
> There IS evidence, just not a lot of it and science has intentionally published false information for years in the hopes that their errors would not be revealed.
> It reminds me of the global cooling/global warming debate.
> Lots of "evidence" and lots of misinterpretation.
> 
> As far as the people who claimed it happened.........that opens up another realm of "evidence" that is quite interesting.
> But rather than sling continuous insults at others, I prefer to simply study what is or isn't found.
> Your blatant bias and prejudice guarantees that you cannot accept anything that is factual.


Post an example where anybody built a wooden boat that large and floated it in water if you can find one. You can't use the bible story, since that one hasn't been proven true.
If there is evidence of a world-wide flood, why doesn't somebody show it instead of trying to change the subject?
If you consider people claiming something happened to be "evidence", Elvis must still be alive.:nanner:


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> And how did I know that was going to be the reply?:smack
> 
> Let me finish the thought for you.........
> 
> 
> "We will ONLY accept and believe evidence from atheists scientists. No matter what is found or proven, the only biased scientist that I will listen to, has to agree with my philosophy first. If you believe in the Bible and want to look at scientific studies that refute the Bible, that is fine. But I will refuse to look at yours at utterly dismiss them as hogwash because........well because......it may exposes a ***** in my armor."
> 
> 
> The fact that I DO look at the geological record is why I asked the question, which curiously you didn't answer.
> So again, is the earth's surface homogeneous and consistent with this evidence of "no flood"?
> Everywhere on earth that you bring up a core sample, is it always the same?
> If it is different, how so?
> 
> Even better, do the fossil records show anything past unicellular organisms when you reach true bottom?
> In other words, does this theory of evolution have evidence of such that proves these organisms had an earlier origin plainly seen in the fossil layers?
> 
> It's ok if the answers are uncomfortable or impossible.
> My feet have worn many shoes over the years, I understand.:kiss:


Trying to "finish the thought" for another person is dishonest unless you can read their mind. 
Scientists are not working on proving "no Flood" yet. They need to finish proving "no Santa" and "no Harry Potter" first. Then they'll work on proving "no Easter Bunny". Have you ever heard of something called the burden of proof? When rational people make a claim(like the claim that the entire planet was covered by a flood) they are expected(by logic) to prove that claim. It's called the burden of proof because people who make claims they can't prove find it very heavy. So heavy, sometimes, that they try to dodge it by shifting it to other people.:gaptooth:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FourDeuce said:


> Post an example where anybody built a wooden boat that large and floated it in water if you can find one. You can't use the bible story, since that one hasn't been proven true.
> If there is evidence of a world-wide flood, *why doesn't somebody show it instead of trying to change the subject?*
> If you consider people claiming something happened to be "evidence", Elvis must still be alive.:nanner:


Those who actually have evidence will show it, while those who know they don't will post unrelated items and pretend they mean something, in an attempt to divert attention.

Some just like theatrics and melodrama more than reality


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Post an example where anybody built a wooden boat that large and floated it in water if you can find one. You can't use the bible story, since that one hasn't been proven true.
> If there is evidence of a world-wide flood, why doesn't somebody show it instead of trying to change the subject?
> If you consider people claiming something happened to be "evidence", Elvis must still be alive.:nanner:


I'm going to shift my tune here for a moment and direct you to this article:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/

While we have yet to find the actual ark, or any geological evidence of the flood, the boat itself is theoretically possible.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those who actually have evidence will show it, while those who know they don't will post unrelated items and pretend they mean something, in an attempt to divert attention.
> 
> Some just like theatrics and melodrama more than reality


I find this very melodramatic.


----------



## Nevada

Heritagefarm said:


> While we have yet to find the actual ark, or any geological evidence of the flood, the boat itself is theoretically possible.


But you'll have to believe in scientific theory to accept that.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> But you'll have to believe in scientific theory to accept that.


True. But FourDeuce will step in and disagree. I say everything takes a little faith. Absolute lack of faith would require a Vulcan. Believing that empirical thinking is better requires some faith.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> I find this very melodramatic.


It's still true :shrug:



Heritagefarm said:


> True. But FourDeuce will step in and disagree. I say everything takes a little faith. Absolute lack of faith would require a Vulcan. Believing that empirical thinking is better requires some faith.


Everything requires a little faith, but religion is based on faith *alone*, and each religion tends to claim they are the only correct religion, again on faith alone


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> Water displacement is not the only problem. Look up the history of wooden boats. There's an important reason they stopped trying to build large wooden boats once they reached a certain size. When they get too big, wooden boats fall apart under their own weight because wood is not strong enough.


Maybe not....

Or a lot of people are about to put their foot in their mouth...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cl3wBPrWF0&ebc=ANyPxKrOoChs7sbccLgZijzu4-qJi7WnKNQBgEurU0ZX0FPI4ycQs5ghDnd0XJSHnwDYBh4UZW846gRVYkn0a1Jh963zcWLK4A[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp



> Claim: Noah's Ark has been discovered in eastern Turkey.
> 
> FALSE


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm going to shift my tune here for a moment and direct you to this article:
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/
> 
> While we have yet to find the actual ark, or any geological evidence of the flood, the boat itself is theoretically possible.


So is Hogwarts Academy.:hobbyhors
IF the ark could theoretically float, why hasn't anybody done it in recorded history? Religious people keep pretending to build one, but they never build it entirely of wood or they never try to put it in water. Know why? Because it would not float(as a boat). Sure, the pieces of wood might float after it broke apart, but it would be kind of tough to keep thousands of animals and a few humans alive for a year on some broken pieces of wood.
Smithsonian.com should be ashamed of that article. :/


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> Maybe not....
> 
> Or a lot of people are about to put their foot in their mouth...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cl...5ghDnd0XJSHnwDYBh4UZW846gRVYkn0a1Jh963zcWLK4A


One person definitely did.:grin:


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> True. But FourDeuce will step in and disagree. I say everything takes a little faith. Absolute lack of faith would require a Vulcan. Believing that empirical thinking is better requires some faith.


How did you get to decide what everybody must do? Instead of trying to tell other people what they believe, you should try asking them. That's what rational people do.
Everything may take a little faith for you, but most rational people prefer to decide for themselves what they require.
Did somebody(other than you) say they believe that empirical thinking is better?


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> I find this very melodramatic.


And a very accurate description of this thread.


----------



## Shine

Snopes??? Have they ever been found to be biased and incorrect? Do they have an agenda? What's there to gain from their deductions?

http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html

I won't even accept the above citation to be completely honest, somebody's in it for something. Those that rely on such will find their foot in their mouth from time to time...


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> One person definitely did.:grin:


You must not have understood the jibe meant by what I provided. Oh well, one could only hope that people "might" understand what was written...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Snopes??? Have they ever been found to be biased and incorrect? Do they have an agenda? What's there to gain from their deductions?
> 
> http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html
> 
> *I won't even accept* the above citation to be completely honest, somebody's in it for something. Those that rely on such will find their foot in their mouth from time to time...


It makes no difference if you "accept it".

Your source has been proven to be false and it's obvious there is also bias and an agenda there.


----------



## Shine

The story is true, the facts are in question. Is there a link to the actual scientific tests and their findings?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *The story is true*, the facts are in question. Is there a link to the actual scientific tests and their findings?


It's your claim
You provide the facts if you want it to be believed

Snopes did their research and offered their results, which I suspect you didn't bother to read nor research further since you're repeating your questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah's_Ark

(Don't whine about WIKI....read the footnotes for sources)

http://www.examiner.com/article/noah-s-ark-debunked-again



> Of course the wood discovered on Mt. Ararat in Turkey is not the fabled Noahâs Ark. That this find has been reported with any seriousness at all in the media is stunning.
> 
> Noahâs Ark Ministries, International, a Hong Kong evangelical organization, teamed up with Media Evangelism and set off to find Noahâs ark. Naturally, they found just what they were looking for.
> 
> Instead of reporting their findings in peer-reviewed archaeological journals and subjecting them to further study, they chose to hold a press conference and claim they were 99.9% certain theyâd found Noahâs Ark.


http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html



> Abstract
> 
> A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.


----------



## Shine

First Snopes? Now Wikipedia? Their proof that it was faked? Came from:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070911024306/http://atheistalliance.org/library/jammal-hoaxing.php

Atheist Alliance... lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *First Snopes? Now Wikipedia?* Their proof that it was faked? Came from:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070911024306/http://atheistalliance.org/library/jammal-hoaxing.php
> 
> Atheist Alliance... lol


 I knew you'd whine about *the source* without paying attention to the facts 
You're too predictable
Just show your proof if it's true


----------



## Shine

lol, if you read the attributing comment you'll see something... maybe I should explain more - naaaa


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> How did you get to decide what everybody must do? Instead of trying to tell other people what they believe, you should try asking them. That's what rational people do.
> Everything may take a little faith for you, but most rational people prefer to decide for themselves what they require.
> Did somebody(other than you) say they believe that empirical thinking is better?


I didn't, but you did argue in the manner I expected, therefore I am correct, no? But this is not the line of conversation I wished to pursue. A completely rational person does not exist. The decision making center of the brain is physically located in the emotion center. Thus, unless you are a function sociopath, you cannot make decisions without some emotion. Further, when a rational person is deciding what they require, they may use emotions or logic. Logic trumps emotion, of course, but we are not actually logical entities.



FourDeuce said:


> And a very accurate description of this thread.


Yes.



Shine said:


> First Snopes? Now Wikipedia? Their proof that it was faked? Came from:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070911024306/http://atheistalliance.org/library/jammal-hoaxing.php
> 
> Atheist Alliance... lol


Wikipedia is statistically no less accurate than print encyclopedias of old. But no one ever had a problem quoting from Brittanica.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> lol, *if you read* the attributing comment you'll see something... maybe I should explain more - naaaa


If you read what I posted you'll see your "explanations" are meaningless.
If you have proof to show, now is the time.
If you just want to ramble aimlessly, I'm done


----------



## Shine

Good...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Good...


I didn't think you had anything to show


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what I asked you but you've still given no answer
> 
> Quoting the Bible has no hidden meanings when you take things in context


What is the question?


----------



## FourDeuce

"I didn't"
Actually, you did. Do you need me to quote where you did it?
"but you did argue in the manner I expected, therefore I am correct, no?"
Not when you tried to tell me what I have to do.
"But this is not the line of conversation I wished to pursue."
Ah, so you realize you said something you can't justify. Good.
"A completely rational person does not exist."
Straw Man time already? Did somebody say something about "a completely rational person"? Quote it if you can. I must have missed it.
"The decision making center of the brain is physically located in the emotion center. Thus, unless you are a function sociopath, you cannot make decisions without some emotion."
You can continue to make decisions without any logic, though. The trick(for rational people) is learning to decide when emotions belong in decisions and when they don't. When making claims about reality, emotions have no part in the decision(for rational people).
"Further, when a rational person is deciding what they require, they may use emotions or logic. Logic trumps emotion, of course, but we are not actually logical entities."
Some of us are much less logical than others. There is a BIG difference between having emotion in your brain and trying to include emotion in every decision you make.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> I knew you'd whine about *the source* without paying attention to the facts
> You're too predictable
> Just show your proof if it's true


Exactly. It's his statement to prove. And I say, "Good luck with that."


----------



## Elevenpoint

HDRider said:


> Sure are some real smart people on here, soulless but real smart,god-like almost in their wisdom.





Johnny Dolittle said:


> "For *the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing*, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'​  "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made fo78tholish the wisdom of this world? ​ "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, *but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God*. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25​





JoePa said:


> We are all made of some form of matter - tell me how does matter have the ability to think -
> 
> You can argue till you are blue in the face and not convince anyone of the existence of God if that person can't see His handy work all around them - believing that this world just happened without a creator is like believing that a wind blowing through a junk yard can over a long enough time will eventually build a 747 jet that is able to fly -
> 
> I believe in God and when anyone asks me why I tell them - I won't argue with them after that - let them find out some day - actually I feel sorry for them because they go through this life without a reason for even existing - their life is meaningless - here today - gone tomorrow - for what - at least I have the hope for a better place after I die -





elevenpoint said:


> There..they're..their...my error was due to Rolling Rocks...which was only exacerbated by pizza and chicken wings.....


These are some very good posts on this thread...farmerDale and farmerga have to many to link. And many others when I can catch up. Nevada..good too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> What is the question?


Scroll back and figure it out


----------



## Shine

I am greatly sorrowed that I do not have the ways to prove for you as it has been proved for me. That is all I can relate.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm going to shift my tune here for a moment and direct you to this article:
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/
> 
> While we have yet to find the actual ark, or any geological evidence of the flood, the boat itself is theoretically possible.


I forgot to mention that the religious claim is not that the ark possibly existed. Their claim is that it did exist. We should deal with the claim that was made before we try to deal with claims that weren't made. Otherwise it might look like somebody was trying to move the goalposts, another logical fallacy.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Scroll back and figure it out


Through 50 pages? Nope.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. It's his statement to prove. And I say, "Good luck with that."


He'll show nothing of substance, and will soon claim I'm "attacking" him.

(Did I just say "Hell"?)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Through 50 pages? Nope.


Then do better at keeping up.
It's really not that hard


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then do better at keeping up.
> It's really not that hard


It is hard to keep up when you have been with clients all weekend for a timber framing project starting tomorrow.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> "I didn't"
> Actually, you did. Do you need me to quote where you did it?
> "but you did argue in the manner I expected, therefore I am correct, no?"
> Not when you tried to tell me what I have to do.
> "But this is not the line of conversation I wished to pursue."
> Ah, so you realize you said something you can't justify. Good.
> "A completely rational person does not exist."
> Straw Man time already? Did somebody say something about "a completely rational person"? Quote it if you can. I must have missed it.
> "The decision making center of the brain is physically located in the emotion center. Thus, unless you are a function sociopath, you cannot make decisions without some emotion."
> You can continue to make decisions without any logic, though. The trick(for rational people) is learning to decide when emotions belong in decisions and when they don't. When making claims about reality, emotions have no part in the decision(for rational people).
> "Further, when a rational person is deciding what they require, they may use emotions or logic. Logic trumps emotion, of course, but we are not actually logical entities."
> Some of us are much less logical than others. There is a BIG difference between having emotion in your brain and trying to include emotion in every decision you make.


It is your opinion that I decided everyone must do something. That is your interpretation of by behavioral pattern, just as I interpreted your behavioral pattern. Yours is logic at attacking between the lines. Perhaps I make a fallacy on purpose?
It is not a straw man since we are discussing rationalistic thought, which relates directly to how well one believes or does not believe in biblical principles. 

Yes. However one must train his mind to include logic and reason in every decision. Consider choosing between breakfast cereals. One might just pick at random, but that is barely a decision. Is one uses logic, you could stand there all day debating the merits of each cereal - taste, nutrition content, diet requirements, and have a difficult time. Emotion would tell you, perhaps, to choose the Great Grains, since they taste best. The solution was attained much faster. However, this person could have logic to decide that an emotional decision was prudent.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> He'll show nothing of substance, and will soon claim I'm "attacking" him.
> 
> (Did I just say "Hell"?)


After looking through the thread...I gave any answer that needs to be given as plain as day. Actually I gave the answer to the entire thread. You must have missed it.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> It is hard to keep up when you have been with clients all weekend for a timber framing project starting tomorrow.


 Maybe you should start a thread about that then. You probably know more about timber framing than you do about astrophysics and evolutionary theory, based on what you've shown here.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Maybe you should start a thread about that then. You probably know more about timber framing than you do about astrophysics and evolutionary theory, based on what you've shown here.


Evolution theory is great for a theory that can't be proven.

Here's your answer to all.

Ask and you shall receive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> It is hard to keep up when you have been with clients all weekend for a timber framing project starting tomorrow.


That really doesn't prevent you from scrolling back now to catch up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> After looking through the thread...I gave any answer that needs to be given as plain as day. Actually I gave the answer to the entire thread. You must have missed it.


I suspect the Rolling Rocks are working again


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect the Rolling Rocks are working again


Pan fried chicken...real mashed potatos...corn...pumpkin pie from scratch with lard pie crusts. Once I was so busy I did not have a beer for seven years.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Evolution theory is great for a theory that can't be proven.


Evolution has absolutely been proven. There is no scientific controversy about evolution being proven, since it can be demonstrated in the lab. Dog breeders do it all the time.

Denying that evolution occurs is completely frivolous.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Evolution has absolutely been proven. There is no scientific controversy about evolution being proven, since it can be demonstrated in the lab. Dog breeders do it all the time.
> 
> Denying that evolution occurs is completely frivolous.


What did you evolve from?
Be careful.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> What did you evolve from?
> Be careful.


Read about it for yourself.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/intro-human-evolution


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Read about it for yourself.
> 
> http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/intro-human-evolution


Theory.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Theory.


Did you read the "How do we know" page?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/How-Do-We-Know

Come on, this is the Smithsonian.

_Fossils like the ones shown in our Human Fossils Gallery provide evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier humans. These skulls record changes in features such as the size and shape of the face and braincase. Other fossils show changes to the entire skeleton over the past 6 million years._
http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/how-do-we-know-humans-evolved


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Did you read the "How do we know" page?
> 
> http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/How-Do-We-Know
> 
> Come on, this is the Smithsonian.
> 
> _Fossils like the ones shown in our Human Fossils Gallery provide evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier humans. These skulls record changes in features such as the size and shape of the face and braincase. Other fossils show changes to the entire skeleton over the past 6 million years._
> http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/how-do-we-know-humans-evolved


The Smithsonian means something? Same nonsense I was sent to the principals office in 9Ith grade for telling the science teacher BS.


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> I am greatly sorrowed that I do not have the ways to prove for you as it has been proved for me. That is all I can relate.


There is a way to prove for others if it was proved for you. That way is logic. It's a very efficient way to prove things. In fact, it's the most effective way we have found so far.


----------



## Shine

Quote:
Originally Posted by *FourDeuce*  
_Water displacement is not the only problem. Look up the history of wooden boats. There's an important reason they stopped trying to build large wooden boats once they reached a certain size. When they get too big, wooden boats fall apart under their own weight because wood is not strong enough._

Maybe not....

Or a lot of people are about to put their foot in their mouth..."

...was my post, many here missed what was said... Many on here want the above to mean something other than what was intended. This is not walking anything back, this is not doing anything other than pointing out that many missed the original intent. See if you can find it now... Think hard about where the link to the video was.

Anyone can find almost anything to back up what they say and just as many can find something to refute what is said and still more can find something that refutes the refuters... 

Then, a little after that I said what I really meant and ya'll still laugh at that. Oh, well. There's almost no satisfaction to be gained from being honest and open with the people that frequent this thread...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Or a lot of people are about to put their foot in their mouth..."
> 
> ...was my post, many here missed what was said... Many on here want the above to mean something other than what was intended. *This is not walking anything back*, this is not doing anything other than pointing out that many missed the original intent. See if you can find it now... *Think hard about where the link to the video was*.


Your source was a religious group making false claims which were scientifically refuted by multiple other sources



> There's almost no satisfaction to be gained from being honest and open with the people that frequent this thread...


It's always someone else's fault that you are constantly misunderstood.
Why not just show some real proof of the original claim?

That would be "honest and open"


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> It is your opinion that I decided everyone must do something. That is your interpretation of by behavioral pattern, just as I interpreted your behavioral pattern. Yours is logic at attacking between the lines. Perhaps I make a fallacy on purpose?
> It is not a straw man since we are discussing rationalistic thought, which relates directly to how well one believes or does not believe in biblical principles.
> 
> Yes. However one must train his mind to include logic and reason in every decision. Consider choosing between breakfast cereals. One might just pick at random, but that is barely a decision. Is one uses logic, you could stand there all day debating the merits of each cereal - taste, nutrition content, diet requirements, and have a difficult time. Emotion would tell you, perhaps, to choose the Great Grains, since they taste best. The solution was attained much faster. However, this person could have logic to decide that an emotional decision was prudent.


So when you posted this "I say everything takes a little faith.", you weren't speaking for everybody? Were you just saying everything takes a little faith for you? If so, you should have specified that, because the statement you made says EVERYTHING takes a little faith. Was that "everything" like Bill Clinton's non-universal "universal health care"?
As for learning the difference between having emotions and letting them influence every decision you make, try adding 1 + 1. You can let emotion enter the calculation and come up with any random number(or purple or vanilla) or you can keep emotion out of it and come up with 2.
"Consider choosing between breakfast cereals."
That's why it's important to learn which situations call for logic and which don't(and which decisions can involve both of them).


----------



## FourDeuce

"Anyone can find almost anything to back up what they say"

Can they? The people who claim the bible is true have been looking for thousands of years for some backup. They're still looking.

"and just as many can find something to refute what is said and still more can find something that refutes the refuters..."

And anyone can learn critical thinking skills, which teaches them that there is no need to refute claims which are not proven true. That's why I don't waste my time trying to refute claims until they are proven. Of course, if they can be proven, there is no need to refute them anyway.:banana:


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> The Smithsonian means something? Same nonsense I was sent to the principals office in 9Ith grade for telling the science teacher BS.


That's because science doesn't care what you say. It cares what you prove. Maybe you should have paid more attention in science class.:grin:


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> "Anyone can find almost anything to back up what they say"
> 
> Can they? The people who claim the bible is true have been looking for thousands of years for some backup. They're still looking.
> 
> "and just as many can find something to refute what is said and still more can find something that refutes the refuters..."
> 
> And anyone can learn critical thinking skills, which teaches them that there is no need to refute claims which are not proven true. That's why I don't waste my time trying to refute claims until they are proven. Of course, if they can be proven, there is no need to refute them anyway.:banana:


The anti scince community would disagree with that last.


----------



## Shine

That's why I don't even like any dialog with you. It is obvious that the initial post was tongue in cheek. To whom do you think that the "put their foot in their mouth" was attributed to?

You found something that apparently "refuted" it, I found something that "refuted" your stance. Who's proof should we use?


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> Can they? The people who claim the bible is true have been looking for thousands of years for some backup. They're still looking.


What is the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the similarities with History? Ever read any of Josephus, his writings during the period directly after Jesus? Those directly supports much of the Biblical story...


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> What is the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the similarities with History? Ever read any of Josephus, his writings during the period directly after Jesus? Those directly supports much of the Biblical story...


One must be aware that taking things from the Bible to prove the Bible is a tad contradictory, right? This is the problems I had when reading the Answers books. The authors were always using the Bible to prove the Bible. If I wrote a book, and then use my own quotations to prove myself right, people would hang me. (At least verbally.) BY THE WAY I don't think anyone doubts that Jesus lived. His messages were even good. The main problem I have personally is with organized religion. I don't mind anyone being Christian - or pagan or Buddhist or anything really. (Pagans were invented by Christians, further.)


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> What is the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the similarities with History? Ever read any of Josephus, his writings during the period directly after Jesus? Those directly supports much of the Biblical story...


Josephus can't directly support the bible since he wasn't even born when jesus allegedly lived. Aside from that, history says nothing about any gods existing, so that's one major area where it differs from the scrolls.


----------



## farmrbrown

No, you're correct.
Josephus was born in 37 A.D. in Jerusalem in the family of the priest line.
He missed being a direct witness by a few years, but other than the witnesses in the Bible, he's about as close as you're ever going to get.
He certainly had access to direct witnesses and as a historian, I don't know how much better it gets, but other than seeing every event in history for yourself, we all have the same disadvantage when it comes to our education, no?


----------



## farmrbrown

There are other sources than the Smithsonian on the Ark. I'll see if I can find the most recent program I saw on PBS a few years ago, but some thoughts to consider.......

Almost no one today, can define what "gopher wood" is, the language translations don't always agree.
The conventional thought is "cedar" but other translations by scholars indicate it is wood that has been formed into planks and laminated by "pitch". Those familiar with Noah's story will see the significance and anyone with boat building knowledge will see even more. Assumptions made on how it was built will produce biased conclusions, some true, some false. The best anyone can do, is produce a replica that DOES work, which no doubt will be criticized as a fairy tale anyway. So no, I won't be spending any time doing that, unless I receive instructions from above to do so. 

Yes, Nevada, evolution is a fact that takes place today, like in dog breeding.
The evidence is clear to me.
Yes, I have seen evidence in geology that the earth is billions of years old, hopefully that clears up some of my educational background and its doubts.

I also have seen the scriptures of God describing dinosaurs to Job, so I can appreciate both the knowledge of Him and of science.
Keeping my mind open to all the possibilities is my way of using critical thinking. A false assumption along the way will usually lead to a false conclusion.
Good luck to those on their path thru life.
Choose wisely.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I am greatly sorrowed that I do not have the ways to prove for you as it has been proved for me. That is all I can relate.


That's not proof, it is faith. While faith is fine for those that believe it's not for those that don't.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> The Smithsonian means something? Same nonsense I was sent to the principals office in 9Ith grade for telling the science teacher BS.


What do you think is BS about the fossil evidence for the evolution of man? You think the skulls are fake?


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> One must be aware that taking things from the Bible to prove the Bible is a tad contradictory, right? This is the problems I had when reading the Answers books. The authors were always using the Bible to prove the Bible. If I wrote a book, and then use my own quotations to prove myself right, people would hang me. (At least verbally.) BY THE WAY I don't think anyone doubts that Jesus lived. His messages were even good. The main problem I have personally is with organized religion. I don't mind anyone being Christian - or pagan or Buddhist or anything really. (Pagans were invented by Christians, further.)


Josephus is not "of" the Bible, he was a man that was born around 33AD and lived through a portion of the time prophesied in Revelations. He wrote historically regarding the happening of those times.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not proof, it is faith. While faith is fine for those that believe it's not for those that don't.


If and when you get the truth, you will have no questions about it's veracity, you will want to share it with others, some will look you in the face and make fun of you for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *That's why I don't even like any dialog with you*. It is obvious that the initial post was tongue in cheek. To whom do you think that the "put their foot in their mouth" was attributed to?
> 
> You found something that apparently "refuted" it, I found something that "refuted" your stance. Who's proof should we use?


Who made you?

If your post's meanings are "obvious" why do you always seem to spend half your time explaining them to everyone?

You've shown nothing that *proved* they "found Noah's Ark"
I found multiple sources which gave scientific data (which you asked for)

You haven't even shown you "don't want dialog" since you continue to prove otherwise.


----------



## Shine

"You haven't even shown you "don't want dialog" since you continue to prove otherwise. "

Yeah, I'll have to work on that... It seems that you intentionally confuse my words with my meaning(s). It would further seem that this is your intention. 

I'll try to ignore your confusion if that is, in fact, what is going on. 

"You've shown nothing that *proved* they "found Noah's Ark""

Never intended to do that which I am unable to do, I even said I was sorry that I could not so I do not know what you are going on about, just stirring the pot I would guess...

"If your post's meanings are "obvious" why do you always seem to spend have your time explaining them to everyone?"

Why is it that only you, pixie and a couple of others misconstrue my meanings?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Josephus is not "of" the Bible, he was a man that was born around 33AD and lived through a portion of the time prophesied in Revelations. He wrote historically regarding the happening of those times.


My mistake. I'll look into that.


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> No, you're correct.
> Josephus was born in 37 A.D. in Jerusalem in the family of the priest line.
> He missed being a direct witness by a few years, but other than the witnesses in the Bible, he's about as close as you're ever going to get.
> He certainly had access to direct witnesses and as a historian, I don't know how much better it gets, but other than seeing every event in history for yourself, we all have the same disadvantage when it comes to our education, no?


I guess that takes care of the claim that there are "eyewitness records".
Do you have any evidence that Josephus had access to direct witnesses? Just because he lived at the same time as those "alleged eyewitnesses" doesn't mean he had access to them. Cellphone coverage in those days was very spotty, and people didn't travel as much as they do today.
"I don't know how much better it gets,"
Actual eyewitness reports are a lot better.
"we all have the same disadvantage when it comes to our education, no?"
No. Having access to people who actually witnessed things and wrote about them is much better than having access to people who weren't even alive when the events happened and MAY have had access to eyewitnesses. Also, learning critical thinking skills makes getting educated possible. Many people prefer to skip that step.


----------



## FourDeuce

I've noticed Harry Potter books have a remarkable similarity with geography. I've seen those train stations in London, so that means the Harry Potter books are reliable geography books. Too bad they don't give specific instructions to find Hogwarts Academy(for us muggles).


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> "You haven't even shown you "don't want dialog" since you continue to prove otherwise. "
> 
> Yeah, I'll have to work on that... *It seems that you intentionally confuse my words with my meaning(s)*. It would further seem that this is your intention.
> 
> I'll try to ignore your confusion if that is, in fact, what is going on.
> 
> "You've shown nothing that *proved* they "found Noah's Ark""
> 
> Never intended to do that which I am unable to do, I even said I was sorry that I could not so I do not know what you are going on about, just stirring the pot I would guess...
> 
> "If your post's meanings are "obvious" why do you always seem to spend have your time explaining them to everyone?"
> 
> Why is it that only you, pixie and a couple of others misconstrue my meanings?


You confuse your own words with your "meanings" when you constantly say one thing then do another, or claim "what I really meant was...". 

No one "misconstrues" what you *say*. 
It's just that when it's pointed out, you almost always say "that's not what I meant", even when you've posted the definitions yourself


----------



## Shine

Yeah, well.... OK You must be right. :zzz:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yeah, well.... OK You must be right. :zzz:


It's not about right or wrong
It's just stating reality, as you *continue* to prove


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> So when you posted this "I say everything takes a little faith.", you weren't speaking for everybody? Were you just saying everything takes a little faith for you? If so, you should have specified that, because the statement you made says EVERYTHING takes a little faith. Was that "everything" like Bill Clinton's non-universal "universal health care"?
> As for learning the difference between having emotions and letting them influence every decision you make, try adding 1 + 1. You can let emotion enter the calculation and come up with any random number(or purple or vanilla) or you can keep emotion out of it and come up with 2.
> "Consider choosing between breakfast cereals."
> That's why it's important to learn which situations call for logic and which don't(and which decisions can involve both of them).


Everyone does take things on faith every day. Even you. Do you stop your car at every bridge, do a physical examination of the bridge, calculate the load bearing capacity, and test the roadbed or do you take it on faith that engineers and construction workers did their jobs and built a safe bridge? Ever fly commercial? Did you do a walk around the plane, examine the maintenance records, demand to see the pilots liscenses and logs or did you you exhibit a bit of faith and trust others knew what they were doing. Do you do a complete chemical and biological analysis of every glass of water you drink? Or do you have just a bit of faith that whatever safety methods you have in place are working. You can't function without some faith. Where you place it is up to you.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Everyone does take things on faith every day. Even you."

Another psychic? Great. None of the other people who claim psychic abilities have ever been able to tell me the number I'm thinking of. Can you?

"Do you stop your car at every bridge, do a physical examination of the bridge, calculate the load bearing capacity, and test the roadbed or do you take it on faith that engineers and construction workers did their jobs and built a safe bridge?"

Neither. Ever hear of the False Dichotomy Fallacy?


"Do you do a complete chemical and biological analysis of every glass of water you drink?"
Why are you asking? If you are psychic, you should be able to tell me what I do, as well as telling me the number I'm thinking of.

"Or do you have just a bit of faith that whatever safety methods you have in place are working."

You tell me. You're the psychic, aren't you?:grin:

"You can't function without some faith."

I can't? If you are in charge of deciding what I can and can't do, why haven't I heard of you before this?
Silly me. I've been functioning for 58 years so far without faith, and now you come along and tell me I can't do it? :gaptooth:

"Where you place it is up to you."
So I do get to decide a few things for myself? Great. Do you have some kind of badge or ID card so I can know you really are in charge of making all those decisions for me? I have LOTS of people trying to tell me what I have to do, but so far none of them ever showed any kind of badge or ID card proving they were really in charge of me.:hobbyhors


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> "Everyone does take things on faith every day. Even you."
> 
> Another psychic? Great. None of the other people who claim psychic abilities have ever been able to tell me the number I'm thinking of. Can you?
> 
> "Do you stop your car at every bridge, do a physical examination of the bridge, calculate the load bearing capacity, and test the roadbed or do you take it on faith that engineers and construction workers did their jobs and built a safe bridge?"
> 
> Neither. Ever hear of the False Dichotomy Fallacy?
> 
> 
> "Do you do a complete chemical and biological analysis of every glass of water you drink?"
> Why are you asking? If you are psychic, you should be able to tell me what I do, as well as telling me the number I'm thinking of.
> 
> "Or do you have just a bit of faith that whatever safety methods you have in place are working."
> 
> You tell me. You're the psychic, aren't you?:grin:
> 
> "You can't function without some faith."
> 
> I can't? If you are in charge of deciding what I can and can't do, why haven't I heard of you before this?
> Silly me. I've been functioning for 58 years so far without faith, and now you come along and tell me I can't do it? :gaptooth:
> 
> "Where you place it is up to you."
> So I do get to decide a few things for myself? Great. Do you have some kind of badge or ID card so I can know you really are in charge of making all those decisions for me? I have LOTS of people trying to tell me what I have to do, but so far none of them ever showed any kind of badge or ID card proving they were really in charge of me.:hobbyhors


I have heard of it but it doesn't really apply here. I asked you a series of questions you refused to answer. If you don't take it on faith the bridge is safe and you don't do your own examination how do you decide whether its safe to drive across? I'll let you give any alternative answer you wish. I have faith whatever answer you give will have some basis in faith.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Maybe faith is not important for you, but the rest of society is demoralizing on their faith in science. Since the average person cannot take into account so many different things, their faith in the expects dictates how well science will continue to function in society.
America's crisis of faith in science


----------



## Elevenpoint

This morning...God asks an Angel...what are they doing today?
The same..killing..their having all the usual problems they have.
I see God says...have they read anything my Son or I have to say?
Some have...still many call it a fairy tale.
I see God says...have they figured out how they and all plants..animals came to be..everything...they were working on that correct?
Yes God...they think they came from monkeys...they have hundreds of therories on anything about what you put on Earth.
I see God says...why is that? Have they not read their owners manual?
No God...they think you are imagined.
Have they asked Me of anything..even knocked once?
No God...they cannot. 
Why?
Well God...even though they are like a ship adrift without a rudder...they have become their own god with wisdom beyond even Yours.
I see God says......


----------



## FourDeuce

mmoetc said:


> I have heard of it but it doesn't really apply here. I asked you a series of questions you refused to answer. If you don't take it on faith the bridge is safe and you don't do your own examination how do you decide whether its safe to drive across? I'll let you give any alternative answer you wish. I have faith whatever answer you give will have some basis in faith.


I answered your first question. The answer for the rest was the same(since the question was the same). Did you miss my questions or did you just refuse to answer them?
BTW, the False Dichotomy Fallacy always applies when a person asks a question and then pretends there are only two choices to answer it.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe faith is not important for you, but the rest of society is demoralizing on their faith in science. Since the average person cannot take into account so many different things, their faith in the expects dictates how well science will continue to function in society.
> America's crisis of faith in science


Anybody who has faith in science doesn't understand how science works.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> I answered your first question. The answer for the rest was the same(since the question was the same). Did you miss my questions or did you just refuse to answer them?
> BTW, the False Dichotomy Fallacy always applies when a person asks a question and then pretends there are only two choices to answer it.


I never pretended there were only two choices. I did give you two possible choices but I didn't limit you to them. In fact, I explicitly said you could give any answer you wish. How do you decide a bridge is safe to cross? Its a rather simple question. I'm not a psychic. If I was I wouldn't need to ask. Nor do I have any control over your thoughts or actions. I have no desire to. I would like you to explain, without using any aspect of faith, how you decide a bridge is safe to cross.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I explicitly said you could give any answer you wish."

Yeah, after you had already told me I have faith.

"I'm not a psychic."

Then how could you tell me I have faith and that I MUST have faith?

"I would like you to explain, without using any aspect of faith, how you decide a bridge is safe to cross."

I would like you to explain how you know what everybody thinks. 
You posted "Everyone does take things on faith every day. Even you."
If you're not a psychic, how do you know that?


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> "I explicitly said you could give any answer you wish."
> 
> Yeah, after you had already told me I have faith.
> 
> "I'm not a psychic."
> 
> Then how could you tell me I have faith and that I MUST have faith?
> 
> "I would like you to explain, without using any aspect of faith, how you decide a bridge is safe to cross."
> 
> I would like you to explain how you know what everybody thinks.
> You posted "Everyone does take things on faith every day. Even you."
> If you're not a psychic, how do you know that?


Not psychic but I understand human behavior. You can keep attacking me or answer one simple question, prove me wrong and I will admit my error. How do
you decide a bridge is safe to cross?


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> I guess that takes care of the claim that there are "eyewitness records".


Yep.
There's a whole book, in fact. 
Supporting corroboration is being discovered by archaeologists all the time.



FourDeuce said:


> Do you have any evidence that Josephus had access to direct witnesses? Just because he lived at the same time as those "alleged eyewitnesses" doesn't mean he had access to them. Cellphone coverage in those days was very spotty, and people didn't travel as much as they do today.


Do *I* have any?
No, but I'll see if I can point you in the right direction.





FourDeuce said:


> "I don't know how much better it gets,"
> Actual eyewitness reports are a lot better.
> "we all have the same disadvantage when it comes to our education, no?"
> No. Having access to people who actually witnessed things and wrote about them is much better than having access to people who weren't even alive when the events happened and MAY have had access to eyewitnesses. Also, learning critical thinking skills makes getting educated possible. Many people prefer to skip that step.


If you can access people that died 2,000 years ago, you are no doubt at a huge advantage over me.
The only One that I can contact still lives, but when He returns, I'm sure it will be an event you won't miss.
:angel:







FourDeuce said:


> "Everyone does take things on faith every day. Even you."
> 
> "You can't function without some faith."
> 
> 
> Silly me. I've been functioning for 58 years so far without faith, and now you come along and tell me I can't do it? :gaptooth:




Wouldn't a complete lack of faith make it hard to even leave your house?
Could it be that you just don't recognize it when you use it?




mmoetc said:


> Not psychic but I understand human behavior. You can keep attacking me or answer one simple question, prove me wrong and I will admit my error. How do
> you decide a bridge is safe to cross?


Like most people, seeing a number cross ahead of me without harm, I cross the same bridge too, taking it "on faith" that I'll make it safely across.
(I don't know WHY that was so hard for him to answer, lol)

Likewise, when I saw cars spinning last week on icy bridges, my faith was put to the test........and my driving skills too!


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Anybody who has faith in science doesn't understand how science works.


Probably not. The best thing about science is that it doesn't matter what you believe. However, there are plenty of controversial situations. Take CRISPR genome siting, for instance. It has the potential to create genetically altered humans. This is a huge responsibility. Do we trust what science has to say? Science isn't supposed to make philosophical judgements. Further, just because one can do something, doesn't mean it should be done. On the flip side, we can make humanity better. Again on the other side, the rich may choose to create superhumans. These issues require more than just science and logic.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> Probably not. The best thing about science is that it doesn't matter what you believe. However, there are plenty of controversial situations. Take CRISPR genome siting, for instance. It has the potential to create genetically altered humans. This is a huge responsibility. Do we trust what science has to say? Science isn't supposed to make philosophical judgements. Further, just because one can do something, doesn't mean it should be done. On the flip side, we can make humanity better. Again on the other side, the rich may choose to create superhumans. These issues require more than just science and logic.


If this does not bring faith to ones mind then there will be nothing to do so...


----------



## FourDeuce

"Wouldn't a complete lack of faith make it hard to even leave your house?"

Not for me. I can't speak for you or anybody else.

"Could it be that you just don't recognize it when you use it?"

Nope. I'm sure I can recognize what I think better than anybody else can.

"There's a whole book, in fact."

Yeah, the book is the claim. It can't be the evidence for that claim. That would be silly and irrational.

"I don't know WHY that was so hard for him to answer, lol)"

I don't know WHY you assume it was hard for him to answer. Are you psychic too?


----------



## roadless

faith
f&#257;TH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:	trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms:	religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"


According to this definition. It seems to me we all have faith.


----------



## FourDeuce

Another psychic? Were you born with psychic abilities or did they develop later? It must be tough being able to read everybody's mind like that. Can you shut out all those billions of thoughts when you don't want to receive them?


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "Wouldn't a complete lack of faith make it hard to even leave your house?"
> 
> Not for me. I can't speak for you or anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> "Could it be that you just don't recognize it when you use it?"
> 
> Nope. I'm sure I can recognize what I think better than anybody else can.
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't know WHY that was so hard for him to answer, lol)"
> 
> I don't know WHY you assume it was hard for him to answer. Are you psychic too?



I guess that happens when simple questions are repeatedly avoided intentionally.
You went so far as to say earlier, "Why not just ask me what I think?"

This is why.
Because after waiting days for a simple answer to a simple question, the rest of the world is going to move on, if your only responses are to hand out condescending remarks instead.
I'm sure you can see the "logic" in that, can't you?

I COULD be wrong, but I think most of us understand the "bridge" question and fall into one of a few categories.

1) Never cross a bridge
2) Stop and conduct a structural test before deciding to cross
3) Cross without testing first, believing it will be safe, based on various criteria.

Another possible answer did occur to me later.......

4) Crossing without testing, due to a lack of interest or concern about anyone or anything.

3 & 4 have the same result, but the personal motivations are hidden from others, obviously.
So no, I'm not psychic.
Care to share your personal thoughts on bridge crossing?







> "There's a whole book, in fact."
> 
> Yeah, the book is the claim. It can't be the evidence for that claim. That would be silly and irrational.


Not necessarily, but you're entitled to your opinion.
I witness events daily, to which I only have my "claim" as evidence. To believe pathological liars is silly and irrational, to believe anyone else, would require a small amount of faith in their credibility.
Another option would be to disbelieve everyone and everything. Perhaps this is your definition of "critical thinking"?

If NOTHING in the Bible could be independently verified and the claims were contrary to accepted historical events, then you would have a correct foundation for your statement.
But, that isn't the case, is it?

If you choose not to believe there was a Roman Empire, a city within it called Jerusalem and none of the accounts of their history, that's your prerogative.
After all, you never saw it with your own eyes.
Faith has an infinite amount of levels, your choice.


----------



## roadless

FourDeuce said:


> Another psychic? Were you born with psychic abilities or did they develop later? It must be tough being able to read everybody's mind like that. Can you shut out all those billions of thoughts when you don't want to receive them?




Lol. If this is in reference to my post, I certainly wouldn't call myself a psychic......and certainly can't read minds. My own thoughts can be annoying enough.....

My point is that the definition of faith does not just concern itself with religious matters.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> Another psychic? Were you born with psychic abilities or did they develop later? It must be tough being able to read everybody's mind like that. Can you shut out all those billions of thoughts when you don't want to receive them?


Earlier you accused me of using the the false dichotomy fallacy. After thinking about it more and reading farmerbrown's posts a thought came to mind. Its only a fallacy if you can prove there are more than two choices. If there are only two possible choices then there is no fallacy. Surely whatever logic class you so enjoyed but learned little in or book you have read without full understanding must have explained this. It's not enough to label something you must be able to prove that label applies. So it's quite simple. Provide that third answer on how you decide a bridge is safe to cross. Provide one that relies only on your observations and not in any way on a faith, belief or trust in others. As I said if you provide such an answer I'll admit I was wrong. Being wrong isn't a crime. It's sometimes how I've learned very important things about myself, my world and others.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> There's a whole book, in fact.
> Supporting corroboration is being discovered by archaeologists all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Do *I* have any?
> No, but I'll see if I can point you in the right direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can access people that died 2,000 years ago, you are no doubt at a huge advantage over me.
> The only One that I can contact still lives, but when He returns, I'm sure it will be an event you won't miss.
> :angel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't a complete lack of faith make it hard to even leave your house?
> Could it be that you just don't recognize it when you use it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most people, seeing a number cross ahead of me without harm, I cross the same bridge too, taking it "on faith" that I'll make it safely across.
> (I don't know WHY that was so hard for him to answer, lol)
> 
> Likewise, when I saw cars spinning last week on icy bridges, my faith was put to the test........and my driving skills too!


Wouldn't a complete lack of faith make it almost impossible to even live in that house? Unless one manufacured, assembled or tested every component that went into it and even devised the formulas and structural integrity charts independently how could one even step through the front door with any certainty the structure wouldn't fall down around them. It seems it would be a pretty limiting existence.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Probably not. The best thing about science is that it doesn't matter what you believe. However, there are plenty of controversial situations. Take CRISPR genome siting, for instance. It has the potential to create genetically altered humans. This is a huge responsibility. Do we trust what science has to say? Science isn't supposed to make philosophical judgements. Further, just because one can do something, doesn't mean it should be done. On the flip side, we can make humanity better. Again on the other side, the rich may choose to create superhumans. These issues require more than just science and logic.


Was this issue too complicated? I can choose one where you can move the goalposts more easily.


----------



## FourDeuce

mmoetc said:


> Earlier you accused me of using the the false dichotomy fallacy. After thinking about it more and reading farmerbrown's posts a thought came to mind. Its only a fallacy if you can prove there are more than two choices. If there are only two possible choices then there is no fallacy. Surely whatever logic class you so enjoyed but learned little in or book you have read without full understanding must have explained this. It's not enough to label something you must be able to prove that label applies. So it's quite simple. Provide that third answer on how you decide a bridge is safe to cross. Provide one that relies only on your observations and not in any way on a faith, belief or trust in others. As I said if you provide such an answer I'll admit I was wrong. Being wrong isn't a crime. It's sometimes how I've learned very important things about myself, my world and others.


Ah, so you DO understand where the burden of proof lies? Amazing. That means another personality must have posted this gem: "Provide that third answer on how you decide a bridge is safe to cross." Remember that thing called the burden of proof? When a person claims there are ONLY TWO choices, they have the burden of proof for that claim. Funny how you suddenly realize there is a burden of proof for the opposite claim, but no burden of proof for the first claim. A little deliberate blindness there?

"Its only a fallacy if you can prove there are more than two choices."
Wrong. It's also a fallacy if you can't prove your claim(that there are only two choices).

"As I said if you provide such an answer I'll admit I was wrong."
You're already wrong. Whether you admit it isn't my problem.

"Being wrong isn't a crime."
I think it's a requirement for some people.


----------



## FourDeuce

roadless said:


> Lol. If this is in reference to my post, I certainly wouldn't call myself a psychic......and certainly can't read minds. My own thoughts can be annoying enough.....
> 
> My point is that the definition of faith does not just concern itself with religious matters.


It's in reference to the post just before mine from roadless:
"According to this definition. It seems to me we all have faith."

Since I never said faith just concerns itself with religious matters, that's another Straw Man argument.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> I see God says...have they read anything my Son or I have to say?
> Some have....


 Oh yeah, we've read it. The parts about killing infidels and burning their towns really doesn't jibe with what I call morality. The stuff in the new testament written in RED ink is far better, but I still fail to see, apart from cherry-picked and misinterpreted scriptural reasons, why you feel evolution and the BIg Bang theory are untrue. Perhaps thats the way God works, have you ever considered that?


----------



## roadless

FourDeuce said:


> It's in reference to the post just before mine from roadless:
> "According to this definition. It seems to me we all have faith."
> 
> Since I never said faith just concerns itself with religious matters, that's another Straw Man argument.


 Or Straw Woman in my case:gaptooth:


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Oh yeah, we've read it. The parts about killing infidels and burning their towns really doesn't jibe with what I call morality. The stuff in the new testament written in RED ink is far better, but I still fail to see, apart from cherry-picked and misinterpreted scriptural reasons, why you feel evolution and the BIg Bang theory are untrue. Perhaps thats the way God works, have you ever considered that?


Perhaps that's the way God works? No. He has shown me repeatedly how He "works".
Big bang is atheists baby. The foundation to living a God less life. Life is a test..eternity is a long time...and there is no make up test.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Big bang is atheists baby. The foundation to living a God less life.


There really is no denying that something happened 14 billion years ago at the focal point of the matter in our universe. Call it what you like, but it still happened.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Big bang is atheists baby. The foundation to living a God less life. Life is a test..eternity is a long time...and there is no make up test.


 It has nothing to do with believing, or NOT believing in God. One can believe in God and still believe in evolution and the expansion of the universe.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> It has nothing to do with believing, or NOT believing in God. One can believe in God and still believe in evolution and the expansion of the universe.


One can believe in anything they want. Free country.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> One can believe in anything they want. Free country.


But denying facts that can be demonstrated is frivolous. Do you really believe that God gives preference to people who deny obvious facts about their surroundings?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> But denying facts that can be demonstrated is frivolous. Do you really believe that God gives preference to people who deny obvious facts about their surroundings?


I don't deny my surroundings...Big bang...evolution are not my surroundings.


----------



## FourDeuce

But gods are?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Little green bottles are


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> But gods are?


One God.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Little green bottles are


Very few...Rolling Rock was a rarity...Dark German Wheat always is in brown bottles.:rock:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Little green bottles are


SlÃ¡inte, many many times.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> Ah, so you DO understand where the burden of proof lies? Amazing. That means another personality must have posted this gem: "Provide that third answer on how you decide a bridge is safe to cross." Remember that thing called the burden of proof? When a person claims there are ONLY TWO choices, they have the burden of proof for that claim. Funny how you suddenly realize there is a burden of proof for the opposite claim, but no burden of proof for the first claim. A little deliberate blindness there?
> 
> "Its only a fallacy if you can prove there are more than two choices."
> Wrong. It's also a fallacy if you can't prove your claim(that there are only two choices).
> 
> "As I said if you provide such an answer I'll admit I was wrong."
> You're already wrong. Whether you admit it isn't my problem.
> 
> "Being wrong isn't a crime."
> I think it's a requirement for some people.


Wrong. When a person claims there are more than two answers it is their obligation to provide them. My contention is that to decide a bridge is safer to cross you must either use faith or do sufficient examination of such bridge to conclude its safety. Nothing you have said disproves this. The only thing that would disprove my statement is another scenario describing how you decide a bridge is safe to cross without using some faith or examining it. It's not up to me to prove you're right. It's all up to you.


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> One God.


I already asked for proof of that, but haven't seen any, so I guess there's no point in asking for proof again.


----------



## FourDeuce

"When a person claims there are more than two answers it is their obligation to provide them."

How about when a person claims there are ONLY two answers? Does that same burden of proof apply to them?

"My contention is that to decide a bridge is safer to cross you must either use faith or do sufficient examination of such bridge to conclude its safety."

So you claim there are only two answers. Are you exempt from the burden of proof for your claim? I've never heard of any exemptions from logic.

"The only thing that would disprove my statement is another scenario describing how you decide a bridge is safe to cross without using some faith or examining it."

The only thing that would prove your statement is you providing evidence there are only two choices.

"It's not up to me to prove you're right."

It's not up to me to prove you're wrong.

"It's all up to you."

Only MY actions are up to me.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> "When a person claims there are more than two answers it is their obligation to provide them."
> 
> How about when a person claims there are ONLY two answers? Does that same burden of proof apply to them?
> 
> "My contention is that to decide a bridge is safer to cross you must either use faith or do sufficient examination of such bridge to conclude its safety."
> 
> So you claim there are only two answers. Are you exempt from the burden of proof for your claim? I've never heard of any exemptions from logic.
> 
> "The only thing that would disprove my statement is another scenario describing how you decide a bridge is safe to cross without using some faith or examining it."
> 
> The only thing that would prove your statement is you providing evidence there are only two choices.
> 
> "It's not up to me to prove you're right."
> 
> It's not up to me to prove you're wrong.
> 
> "It's all up to you."
> 
> Only MY actions are up to me.


My proof is that I claim only two answers are possible and I provided those answers. It is your contention, not mine, that more answers exist. It is up to you prove those answers exist. I'm not just going to take it on faith that they do. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You claimed more answers exist. Prove it.


----------



## FourDeuce

"My proof is that I claim only two answers are possible and I provided those answers."

But you did not prove those are the ONLY two answers possible. That would be like me saying only two flavors of ice cream are possible. Then I could name vanilla and chocolate and claim there are no other flavors. I guess you'd consider that proven.

"The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim."

All the time or just when you find it convenient?

"You claimed more answers exist. Prove it."

After you finish proving your claim.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> "My proof is that I claim only two answers are possible and I provided those answers."
> 
> But you did not prove those are the ONLY two answers possible.
> 
> "The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim."
> 
> All the time or just when you find it convenient?
> 
> "You claimed more answers exist. Prove it."
> 
> After you finish proving your claim.


Can't come up with an answer, huh? I claimed only two answers and provided only two answers. That proves only two answers exist. Unless another answer is given, of course. But since I claim no more answers exist why would I even think another exists. You seem to think one does. You can end this and make me look quite foolish by providing such an answer. It's a risk I'm willing to take.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> "My proof is that I claim only two answers are possible and I provided those answers."
> 
> But you did not prove those are the ONLY two answers possible. That would be like me saying only two flavors of ice cream are possible. Then I could name vanilla and chocolate and claim there are no other flavors. I guess you'd consider that proven.
> 
> "The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim."
> 
> All the time or just when you find it convenient?
> 
> "You claimed more answers exist. Prove it."
> 
> After you finish proving your claim.


Nope , I'd bring you a bowl of mint chocolate chip and prove you wrong. Provide a third answer and prove me wrong. I'll buy you a bowl of ice cream.


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> Oh yeah, we've read it. The parts about killing infidels and burning their towns really doesn't jibe with what I call morality. The stuff in the new testament written in RED ink is far better, but I still fail to see, apart from cherry-picked and misinterpreted scriptural reasons, why you feel evolution and the BIg Bang theory are untrue. Perhaps thats the way God works, have you ever considered that?


The Old Testament provides a rather explicit explanation for how the earth was created. One must ignore vast amounts of science in order to accept the 7 day theory.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> The Old Testament provides a rather explicit explanation for how the earth was created. One must ignore vast amounts of science in order to accept the 7 day theory.


That is of course if one reads thru it hastily and without consulting language translations.
A few times on this thread, it was asked if someone believed in the "young earth" theory, presumably that the earth is somehow only a few thousand years old.
Many believe this is stated as fact in Genesis.
Careful study of every word, verse and chapter will reveal much more than is taught to youngsters in Sunday school.
I haven't read this entire link, but here is one section I did read when looking up the word "void" in the Strong's concordance.
It may be of interest to some who still think there may be more to learn before deciding what they believe.............


http://mystery-babylon.org/thegaptheory.html


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> That is of course if one reads thru it hastily and without consulting language translations.
> A few times on this thread, it was asked if someone believed in the "young earth" theory, presumably that the earth is somehow only a few thousand years old.
> Many believe this is stated as fact in Genesis.
> Careful study of every word, verse and chapter will reveal much more than is taught to youngsters in Sunday school.
> I haven't read this entire link, but here is one section I did read when looking up the word "void" in the Strong's concordance.
> It may be of interest to some who still think there may be more to learn before deciding what they believe.............
> 
> 
> http://mystery-babylon.org/thegaptheory.html


You think the Bible is a good place to look for that kind of information? The Bible isn't purported to be a reference on the origin of the earth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> You think the Bible is a good place to look for that kind of information? The Bible isn't purported to be a reference on the origin of the earth.


Those links seemed to be more people playing word games to make the Bible appear to say what they wanted it to say, as so many love to do


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> You think the Bible is a good place to look for that kind of information? The Bible isn't purported to be a reference on the origin of the earth.


Creationists believe Genesis is the ultimate, because if you reject Genesis, you can then reject other parts of the Bible. Before long, you've fallen off the bandwagon and Satan wins. I used to be a creationist - I still am, somewhat, because I believe it's possible someone created the earth, and it may have been God.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> You think the Bible is a good place to look for that kind of information? The Bible isn't purported to be a reference on the origin of the earth.



Yes I do.
If one believes in God, seeking the ultimate in wisdom is a good thing.
If one does NOT believe in God, then those things perceived as wise will be called foolish, and the foolish things of this world will be called wisdom.
The bias in my statement obviously show what category I fall in.
As the post that followed yours indicated, what some see as "word games" is what I call understanding.
Some of the hardest translations in the world are from the smallest words, the best example, any form of the words "to be". Am, is, was, become, became, are, etc.
Just ask Bill Clinton........... 

That's why English speakers sometimes get this air of arrogance towards foreigners. They act like other people are morons because what they said or tried to say, didn't come out exactly right.
By the same token, when we speak to a foreigner in THEIR language, they smile and nod at us thinking, "That silly fool doesn't realize he just insulted my wife, while asking for a loaf of bread."
That one is a favorite of story of mine, told to me from South America.
They ALL speak Spanish, right?

Hey, we may not realize which category we fall in, the foolish or the wise until we die, right?
:kiss:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> There really is no denying that something happened 14 billion years ago at the focal point of the matter in our universe. Call it what you like, but it still happened.


It is an assumption that something happened 14 billion years ago. Is our time today..a calendar year always been a solid reference point 5 billion years ago? How about the universe rapidly expanded for a short time then slowed down? When you really break big bang down the assuptions you have to take for granted are endless. Our time in the last 100 years of any knowledge of the universe is so tiny compared to what the real truth is that it will never be answered on earth.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> How about the universe rapidly expanded for a short time then slowed down?


Because that would be contrary to the law of inertia.

_The law of inertia states that it is the tendency of an object to resist a change in motion. According to Newton, an object will stay at rest or stay in motion (i.e. 'maintain its velocity' in modern terms) unless acted on by a net external force, whether it results from gravity, friction, contact, or some other source._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

What is your basis for suggesting that the law of inertia might not have been followed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Because that would be contrary to the law of inertia.
> 
> _The law of inertia states that it is the tendency of an object to resist a change in motion. According to Newton, an object will stay at rest or stay in motion (i.e. 'maintain its velocity' in modern terms) unless acted on by a net external force, whether it results from gravity, friction, contact, or some other source._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
> 
> What is your basis for suggesting that the law of inertia might not have been followed?


Gravity would cause some things to slow down and others to change directions.
No "laws" would be violated


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Gravity would cause some things to slow down and others to change directions.
> No "laws" would be violated


He's trying to explain away 14 billion years. Not going to happen.

His suggestion is that the expansion was more rapid at first, then slowed to it's current apparent rate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> He's trying to explain away 14 billion years. Not going to happen.
> 
> His suggestion is that the expansion was *more rapid at first, then slowed* to it's current apparent rate.


That actually makes some sense because gravity would have been counteracting inertia from the beginning, but I doubt there is any way of measuring the relative changes in velocities.

It happened billions of years ago and it's only been in the last century that we could take accurate measurements


----------



## Raeven

Cosmic inflation is actually a working hypothesis.

http://www.space.com/25075-cosmic-inflation-universe-expansion-big-bang-infographic.html

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html


----------



## Nevada

Raeven said:


> Cosmic inflation is actually a working hypothesis.


Yes, except that it isn't an alternative to Big Bang. Cosmic Inflation helps explain Big Bang.


----------



## Raeven

Nevada said:


> Yes, except that it isn't an alternative to Big Bang. Cosmic Inflation helps explain Big Bang.


Ah, apologies, then. I do understand it's not an alternative to the Big Bang, but I confess I haven't been following the conversation that closely.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> He's trying to explain away 14 billion years. Not going to happen.
> 
> His suggestion is that the expansion was more rapid at first, then slowed to it's current apparent rate.


No...actually I was trying to comprehend a billion years while I was outside having coffee before dawn staring off in the universe. More to the point is the idea to arrive at any age we have to rely on the laws that have been learned in the last 100 years or so...then it has had to stay the same. Just one billion years is not something I can comprehend.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> No...actually I was trying to comprehend a billion years while I was outside having coffee before dawn staring off in the universe. More to the point is the idea to arrive at any age we have to rely on the laws that have been learned in the last 100 years or so...then it has had to stay the same. Just one billion years is not something I can comprehend.


To be fair, that law wasn't learned in the last 100 years. The law of inertia was laid out by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago.

The fact that you're having difficulty comprehending a billion years isn't of a lot of consequence to me. Astronomy has a lot of large numbers to consider.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> To be fair, that law wasn't learned in the last 100 years. The law of inertia was laid out by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago.
> 
> The fact that you're having difficulty comprehending a billion years isn't of a lot of consequence to me. Astronomy has a lot of large numbers to consider.


20 million times a 50 year old's agespan. That's a pretty big number.


----------



## Nevada

Heritagefarm said:


> 20 million times a 50 year old's agespan. That's a pretty big number.


I don't know why that's a problem.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> I don't know why that's a problem.


It helps illustrate how people can have a hard time comprehending numbers. For instance, climate change data relies on huge pools of data that supercomputers process. When people cannot know how large a number is, they cannot know how they function as well, and thus lose faith in large number crunching.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> 20 million times a 50 year old's agespan. That's a pretty big number.


It is the theory that nothing changed in 14 billion years...give or take a few billion to boot.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Well, actually the earth is only 4.5 BYO, and the rest of the universe has been around for quite some time. There are lots of ways to measure the age of the earth. Evolution largely agrees with the age of the earth. According to the Bible's genealogy, the earth should be about 4000 YO or something like that. Other religions have less of a bone to pick - Hinduism, for instance, embraces even larger amounts of time than is realistic.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, actually the earth is only 4.5 BYO, and the rest of the universe has been around for quite some time. There are lots of ways to measure the age of the earth. Evolution largely agrees with the age of the earth. According to the Bible's genealogy, the earth should be about 4000 YO or something like that. Other religions have less of a bone to pick - Hinduism, for instance, embraces even larger amounts of time than is realistic.


The genealogy of Adam in the Bible does NOT say the earth is a few thousand years old. That is a bad assumption made by those who have read something into it that isn't there.
Read Job, Psalms, Peter and many other books of the Bible sometime and you'll find a much different history.


----------



## FourDeuce

I read the whole thing and didn't find much history. I just found a story.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> It is the theory that *nothing changed* in 14 billion years...give or take a few billion to boot.


Lots of things changed.
Some things didn't, as far as we can tell.


----------



## farmrbrown

Based on reading difference posts, I'm not at all surprised on how they would view the Bible.
If you see nothing positive in your life, have no faith or interest in anything, and contribute nothing positive when you interact with others, .................... Here's your sign............

BTW, that's addressed in many places, including Proverbs and several books in the NT.
Talk to those you can, the rest leave them for God to deal with one on one, and one day we well all have that opportunity, believe it or not.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> The genealogy of Adam in the Bible does NOT say the earth is a few thousand years old. That is a bad assumption made by those who have read something into it that isn't there.
> Read Job, Psalms, Peter and many other books of the Bible sometime and you'll find a much different history.


The Answers books widely assumed a correlation between the old genealogy and the age of the earth. Their reasoning was that one must take the entire scriptures at face value, lest other portions become suspect as well. 



farmrbrown said:


> Based on reading difference posts, I'm not at all surprised on how they would view the Bible.
> If you see nothing positive in your life, have no faith or interest in anything, and contribute nothing positive when you interact with others, .................... Here's your sign............
> 
> BTW, that's addressed in many places, including Proverbs and several books in the NT.
> Talk to those you can, the rest leave them for God to deal with one on one, and one day we well all have that opportunity, believe it or not.


I choose a looser interpretation of my religion. I mostly don't like organized religion and its constant moral superiority through proselytization and masquerading. As Ghandi supposedly said, "I like your Christ, but not your Christians - they are so unlike him." Many people interpret the teachings as being the one true religion as an excuse to view themselves as superior.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> It is the theory that nothing changed in 14 billion years...give or take a few billion to boot.


No, the theory is that a lot changed during that time, including the evolution of man.

But with respect to the laws of physics, it's assumed that those laws have remained constant. We have no reason to believe otherwise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> Based on reading difference posts, I'm not at all surprised on how they would view the Bible.
> If you see nothing positive in your life, have no faith or interest in anything, and contribute nothing positive when you interact with others, .................... *Here's your sign*.........


So it's the same old holier-than-thou "if you don't agree with me you are stupid" line of thought....

No surprises there


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> The Answers books widely assumed a correlation between the old genealogy and the age of the earth. Their reasoning was that one must take the entire scriptures at face value, lest other portions become suspect as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I choose a looser interpretation of my religion. I mostly don't like organized religion and its constant moral superiority through proselytization and masquerading. As Ghandi supposedly said, "I like your Christ, but not your Christians - they are so unlike him." Many people interpret the teachings as being the one true religion as an excuse to view themselves as superior.


Right...as a Christian...more my personal relationship with Him...I still fall short..and I am flawed regardless if some here may have mistaken me for a perfect human being...:kiss:

After pouring 23 yards of concrete yesterday...the last truck off the site at 830pm...2nd truck stuck up to the axles...massive wreckers to get it out...

One and a quarter pound ribeye on an open fire this evening...good German Wheat beers...it is good. Very.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> So it's the same old holier-than-thou "if you don't agree with me you are stupid" line of thought....
> 
> No surprises there


Your'e absolutely right, except for the "holier-than-thou" insult.
How does the book of Proverbs begin?
The wisest man on earth tells you himself, only a fool says there is no God.
I didn't WRITE the book, so it isn't me you disagree with, it's Him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Your'e absolutely right, except for the "holier-than-thou" insult.
> How does the book of Proverbs begin?
> The wisest man on earth tells you himself, only *a fool* says there is no God.
> I didn't WRITE the book, so it isn't me you disagree with, it's Him.


It wasn't an insult. 
It's an observation based on statements made.

It's funny how quickly you react to perceived insults while tossing them around yourself.



> Here's your sign.........


Did "He" write that?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of things changed.
> Some things didn't, as far as we can tell.





Bearfootfarm said:


> So it's the same old holier-than-thou "if you don't agree with me you are stupid" line of thought....
> 
> No surprises there


As far as we can tell. 14 billion years ago...but no eyewitnesses..

No holier than thou here...except when it comes to murdering unborn kids.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> As far as we can tell. 14 billion years ago...but no eyewitnesses..
> 
> No holier than thou here...except when it comes to murdering unborn kids.


Context means everything
Rambling means nothing


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wasn't an insult.
> It's an observation based on statements made.
> 
> It's funny how quickly you react to perceived insults while tossing them around yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Here's your sign.........
> 
> Did "He" write that?



Yep, many times.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/signs
Here's a good one...............

*Isaiah 7:14 

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.*


This link is a little better........
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Signs


*Num 14:11
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?*


It's funny how old sayings have forgotten origins, like "The writing is on the wall".
(Book of Daniel)


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> As far as we can tell. 14 billion years ago...but no eyewitnesses..
> .


 No eyewitness, by we can see the aftermath. Also there were no eyewitnesses to God saying 'let there be light', but you have no problem believing that. 
And as I mentioned about 40 pages ago, its pretty pointless debating or even discussing this with you, you've already shown you know very little about what is meant by 'the Big Bang'. You started this threat not to discuss anything, but to mock a widely accepted scientific theory that you've shown very little knowledge about. And as usual, you can offer nothing in the way of an alternate explanation for the state of matter and being we observe today,except for vague scriptural allusions and lot of veiled threats and insults to those who would dare question ancient Judeo cosmology.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> *
> 
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.*
> )


 Yes, obviously you are very familiar with the Bible, but judging from your earlier posts, perhaps you should expand your reading material list, perhaps include a modern geology book.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Yes, obviously you are very familiar with the Bible, but judging from your earlier posts, perhaps you should expand your reading material list, perhaps include a modern geology book.


Maybe sometime, I will. I confess that is one subject that bores me to tears, chemistry and biology OTOH were my favorites.
I know that the earth is very old and the universe even older, billions of years. I know you can find dinosaur bones and fossils of ancient creatures buried in the land and sea. I know that inside the core of the earth there is hot magma then bursts to the surface at times and the shapes of the continents fit like a puzzle suggesting they were all united in one land mass once, and they now drift slowly on tectonic plates.
I know a few things about how heat, compression and time affect the elements, changing them into things of value.

And that's about the extent of my limited knowledge.

But when I HAVE sought knowledge of the unknown, I've found that asking the One that knows all, is the best place to start.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yep, many times.
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/signs
> Here's a good one...............
> 
> *Isaiah 7:14
> 
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.*
> 
> This link is a little better........
> http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Signs
> 
> *Num 14:11
> And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?*
> 
> It's funny how old sayings have forgotten origins, like "The writing is on the wall".
> (Book of Daniel)


Quoting a book isn't proof of who "said" something or proof the book is correct, and has nothing at all to do with what you posted

We've covered that ad nauseum


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Quoting a book isn't proof of who "said" something or proof the book is correct, and has nothing at all to do with what you posted
> 
> We've covered that ad nauseum



Well, I'm sorry Bearfoot, as I've covered "ad nauseum", the only reference book I have on the words of God, is the bible.
So when you ask the question............



Bearfootfarm said:


> Did "He" write that?


What exactly were you expecting as a reply?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wasn't an insult.
> It's an observation based on statements made.
> 
> It's funny how quickly you react to perceived insults while tossing them around yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Did "He" write that?


Actually you're generally really insulting. 



elevenpoint said:


> As far as we can tell. 14 billion years ago...but no eyewitnesses..
> 
> No holier than thou here...except when it comes to murdering unborn kids.


That's makes no sense. What does A have to do with B?



farmrbrown said:


> Maybe sometime, I will. I confess that is one subject that bores me to tears, chemistry and biology OTOH were my favorites.
> I know that the earth is very old and the universe even older, billions of years. I know you can find dinosaur bones and fossils of ancient creatures buried in the land and sea. I know that inside the core of the earth there is hot magma then bursts to the surface at times and the shapes of the continents fit like a puzzle suggesting they were all united in one land mass once, and they now drift slowly on tectonic plates.
> I know a few things about how heat, compression and time affect the elements, changing them into things of value.
> 
> And that's about the extent of my limited knowledge.
> 
> But when I HAVE sought knowledge of the unknown, I've found that asking the One that knows all, is the best place to start.


It is difficult to know all the answers, and sometimes the answers change. Sometimes it's easier to believe in a simple information set than to try to come up with all the ideas and information. Most things have an explanation. Many things have a good explanation. Many more things have neither.


----------



## Shine

If someone opens a door and you get a look inside, it flavors the way that you think about something. For unbelievers, this is incomprehensible, they have not seen that which changes everything. We, or anyone, is not "good" enough to be asked to come into the fold, but somehow, we are. There is no rhyme or reason that I am aware of to make any sense of the whole shebang... 

Yet... it all makes sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I'm sorry Bearfoot, as I've covered "ad nauseum", the only reference book I have on the words of God, is the bible.
> So when you ask the question............
> What exactly were you expecting as a reply?


I was expecting you to talk about what *you *posted, since that is what I referred to and even quoted it for you.

But you know all that


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> If someone opens a door and you get a look inside, it flavors the way that you think about something. For unbelievers, this is incomprehensible, they have not seen that which changes everything.
> 
> We, or anyone, is not "good" enough to be asked to come into the fold, but somehow, we are.
> 
> There is* no rhyme or reason* that I am aware of to make any sense of the whole shebang...
> 
> Yet... it all makes sense.


There was a thread about the reasons:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html


----------



## farmrbrown

I DID that already.
He provides many signs, whether you pay attention or not, is up to you.




farmrbrown said:


> Based on reading difference posts, I'm not at all surprised on how they would view the Bible.
> If you see nothing positive in your life, have no faith or interest in anything, and contribute nothing positive when you interact with others, .................... Here's your sign............
> 
> *BTW, that's addressed in many places, including Proverbs and several books in the NT.*
> Talk to those you can, the rest leave them for God to deal with one on one, and one day we well all have that opportunity, believe it or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I DID that already.
> He provides many signs, whether you pay attention or not, is up to you.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> Based on reading difference posts, I'm not at all surprised on how they would view the Bible. If you see nothing positive in your life, have no faith or interest in anything, and contribute nothing positive when you interact with others, .................... *Here's your sign*............
> 
> BTW, that's addressed in many places, including Proverbs and several books in the NT.
> Talk to those you can, the rest leave them for God to deal with one on one, and one day we well all have that opportunity, believe it or not.


You may believe that but I don't.
The tone of the first paragraph and the "here's your sign" reference was pretty clear 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here's_Your_Sign



> *Here's Your Sign* is the debut comedy album of Bill Engvall.
> 
> The title of this album refers to a routine framework commonly used by Engvall, which begins with his stating that stupid people should have to wear warning signs that simply state "I'm stupid."


----------



## farmrbrown

If you choose to believe that thought originated with Bill Engvall and not God, that's your prerogative.
But I know that you have many times cautioned others about assuming "hidden meanings" in posted comments.
True?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was a thread about the reasons:
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html



Yes, I posted to that topic... A topic about the reason why someone is drawn to a spiritual understanding that you can accept and support because it takes God out of the picture, I see it as maybe one small reason that a human might become spiritual and most certainly not the only one. lol


----------



## Shine

farmrbrown said:


> I DID that already.
> He provides many signs, whether you pay attention or not, is up to you.


I would offer that it is not up to him. unless he bumps his head or God chooses to call him near, he will continue to fulfill God's plan doing whatever it is that he is doing.

Everything starts with God. We are not in control, these are His plans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> If you choose to believe that thought originated with Bill Engvall and not God, that's your prerogative.
> But I know that you have many times cautioned others about assuming "hidden meanings" in posted comments.
> True?


You're the one who said:


> And yes, most meanings AREN'T hidden, they just aren't always ADMITTED.


There was nothing hidden in what you said though, and now you don't want to admit it.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the one who said:
> 
> There was nothing hidden in what you said though, and now you don't want to admit it.


I said it pretty darn clear, you're right.
I'm also going to make you eat your words.
Let me spell it out for you, the way you never have the guts to do.
I used God's own words to make my point, per the book of Proverbs written by Solomon, arguably the wisest man on earth.

"Only a fool, in his heart, says there is no God."
That is a summary of the beginning of the book of Proverbs. Interesting though, that scripture above comes from Psalms 14, presumably from his father David.
The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.


If you can ever bring yourself to give straight answer to a simple question, "Bearfoot, do you say there is no God?", I'll be more than happy to give you my reply, telling you whether or not you are a fool.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to say openly what my opinion is when asked directly.
Several posters on this thread have indicated they have no faith, trust nothing they cannot see, and in general, are miserable people to try and have a conversation with, their common trait being, they don't believe in God and think the Bible is a myth.
I think those people are fools and their lack of happiness is self evident and the cause of it is clear.

Are YOU one of those people?


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> No eyewitness, by we can see the aftermath. Also there were no eyewitnesses to God saying 'let there be light', but you have no problem believing that.
> And as I mentioned about 40 pages ago, its pretty pointless debating or even discussing this with you, you've already shown you know very little about what is meant by 'the Big Bang'. You started this threat not to discuss anything, but to mock a widely accepted scientific theory that you've shown very little knowledge about. And as usual, you can offer nothing in the way of an alternate explanation for the state of matter and being we observe today,except for vague scriptural allusions and lot of veiled threats and insults to those who would dare question ancient Judeo cosmology.


Widely accepted scientific theory? It sure is and at the end of the day it is still a theory based upon the best that can be done. It still does not make it absolutely true but if you want all your eggs in that basket go ahead. 

One more time....Ask and you shall receive.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Several posters on this thread have indicated they have no faith, trust nothing they cannot see, and in general, are miserable people to try and have a conversation with, their common trait being, they don't believe in God and think the Bible is a myth.
> I think those people are fools and their lack of happiness is self evident and the cause of it is clear.


Happiness comes from within. It can be found. It is not necessary for it to come from any one religion. It is a state of mind; it is a place in the mind; it is a journey, a destination, progression, it is so many things.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> Several posters on this thread have indicated they have no faith, trust nothing they cannot see, and in general, are miserable people to try and have a conversation with, their common trait being, they don't believe in God and think the Bible is a myth.
> I think those people are fools and their lack of happiness is self evident and the cause of it is clear.


Is that really what you think of people like me? My goodness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I said it pretty darn clear, you're right.
> I'm also going to make you eat your words.
> Let me spell it out for you, the way you never have the guts to do.
> I used God's own words to make my point, per the book of Proverbs written by Solomon, arguably the wisest man on earth.
> 
> "Only a fool, in his heart, says there is no God."
> That is a summary of the beginning of the book of Proverbs. Interesting though, that scripture above comes from Psalms 14, presumably from his father David.
> The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
> 
> 
> If you can ever bring yourself to give straight answer to a simple question, "Bearfoot, do you say there is no God?", I'll be more than happy to give you my reply, telling you whether or not you are a fool.
> 
> Unlike you, I'm not afraid to say openly what my opinion is when asked directly.
> Several posters on this thread have indicated they have no faith, trust nothing they cannot see, and in general, are *miserable people to try and have a conversation with*, their common trait being, they don't believe in God and think the Bible is a myth.
> *I think those people are fools* and their lack of happiness is self evident and the cause of it is clear.
> 
> Are YOU one of those people?


There you go *again,* saying anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a "fool" or they are "stupid", and you're trying to claim it's not you saying it.

I'm not going to play your silly word games.

You already know what I think, and it makes no difference to me what you think.

Just don't pretend we can't see it, and don't pretend you are somehow morally superior to anyone

If you're truly "miserable" trying to have this conversation, then don't do it.
I think it's all theatrics


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Widely accepted scientific theory? It sure is and at the end of the day it is still a theory based upon the best that can be done..


 Perhaps you should understand what 'scientific theory' actually means, its not a wild guess, or someones speculation based on nothing. Its not 'faith based'... its fact based. 



> In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. *Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative* (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis').


 Through all your mocking you have yet to explain WHY you think science is wrong about the formation of the observable universe. No scientist that I am aware of delves into the question of whether 'direct involvement of a diety' led to the 'Big Bang', they leave that up to the theologians. Either way, it doesn't change the observations.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Perhaps you should understand what 'scientific theory' actually means, its not a wild guess, or someones speculation based on nothing. Its not 'faith based'... its fact based.
> 
> 
> 
> Through all your mocking you have yet to explain WHY you think science is wrong about the formation of the observable universe. No scientist that I am aware of delves into the question of whether 'direct involvement of a diety' led to the 'Big Bang', they leave that up to the theologians. Either way, it doesn't change the observations.


You are hung up on the mocking thing.
2+2=4. That is absolute truth. That will not change.
Can a theory change? Can it be modified? Can it be proven false?
No...science does not get a special designation for the term therory.
We'll call it just shy of the absolute truth... based upon assumptions that cannot be proven.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> You are hung up on the mocking thing.
> 2+2=4. That is absolute truth. That will not change.
> Can a theory change? Can it be modified? Can it be proven false?
> No...science does not get a special designation for the term therory.
> We'll call it just shy of the absolute truth... based upon assumptions that cannot be proven.


Nothing is absolute. In order for 2+2 to = 4, we have to agree that addition is putting parts together. Further, in an organ system, adding 2 organs to 2 organs results in a system much greater than 4 organs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> You are hung up on the mocking thing.
> 2+2=4. That is absolute truth. That will not change.
> Can a theory change? Can it be modified? Can it be proven false?
> No...science does not get a special designation for the term therory.
> We'll call it just shy of the absolute truth... *based upon assumptions that cannot be proven*.


Just like religion?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> Nothing is absolute. In order for 2+2 to = 4, we have to agree that addition is putting parts together. Further, in an organ system, adding 2 organs to 2 organs results in a system much greater than 4 organs.


For the example I gave if I have two apples...and aquire two more apples...then I have four apples.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just like religion?


It may be...not being religious I am not sure what different religions truly believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> It may be...*not being religious* I am not sure what different religions truly believe.


You seem to be going back and forth on that point:

Post 1314:


> Right...*as a Christian*...more my personal relationship with Him...I still fall short..and I am flawed regardless if some here may have mistaken me for a perfect human being.


Both those can't be true


----------



## FourDeuce

"We'll call it just shy of the absolute truth"

IF you ever find some absolute truth(and can prove you've found it) you should share it with the world.:idea:


----------



## Fennick

> IF you ever find some absolute truth (and can prove you've found it) you should share it with the world.:idea:


I have an absolute truth to share. :idea: 

*There is no such word as therory in the English language.*

Sorry, couldn't resist any longer so flame me for being the obsessive spelling police. I just had to take advantage of the opportunity provided to object to something that's been bugging me about this thread.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be going back and forth on that point:
> 
> Post 1314:
> 
> 
> Both those can't be true


In a manner of speaking, yes they can. Jesus and the disciples speak of fellowship but that does not mean going to Church, many of the churches in Jesus's time were corrupt beyond belief. Jesus calls us to have a relationship with Him and Him alone. He offers to be our intermediary...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *In a manner of speaking*, yes they can. Jesus and the disciples speak of fellowship but that does not mean going to Church, many of the churches in Jesus's time were corrupt beyond belief. Jesus calls us to have a relationship with Him and Him alone. He offers to be our intermediary...


No, they can not

You're talking about "going to church" and "fellowship"

That's not the same thing as being "religious", and has nothing to do with what was stated

One can not honestly, logically claim to be a "Christian" and "not religious".



> reÂ·liÂ·gious
> [r&#601;&#712;lij&#601;s]
> ADJECTIVE
> relating to or believing in a religion:





> A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word ChristÃ³s, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach.


"Fellowship" is a popular word with religious types, but the word itself has no strict religious connotations:



> felÂ·lowÂ·ship
> [&#712;fel&#333;&#716;SHip]
> NOUN
> friendly association, especially with people who share one's interests:


A gang of crackheads on a street corner can be having "fellowship" as long as they aren't fighting

Words have meanings that don't change just because you want them to say something else


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Words have meanings that don't change just because you want them to say something else


Sadly our language does not seem to contain the words necessary to describe a persons relationship with our creator. It does not require a religion to be on a one on one basis with God.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sadly our language does not seem to contain the words necessary to describe a persons relationship with our creator. It does not require a religion to be on a one on one basis with God.


That can be true also, but if one *says* they are a "Christian" they are by definition "religious"

I'd call what you're describing more as "spiritual"


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go *again,* saying anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a "fool" or they are "stupid", and you're trying to claim it's not you saying it.
> 
> I'm not going to play your silly word games.
> 
> You already know what I think, and it makes no difference to me what you think.
> 
> Just don't pretend we can't see it, and don't pretend you are somehow morally superior to anyone
> 
> If you're truly "miserable" trying to have this conversation, then don't do it.
> I think it's all theatrics


I'm not miserable, but nice 180 on that one.:banana:
There were two questions in that post, both could be answered with "yes" or "no".
Since you won't even do that much, carry on and "no thanks".




Bearfootfarm said:


> That can be true also, but if one *says* they are a "Christian" they are by definition "religious"
> 
> I'd call what you're describing more as "spiritual"





Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they can not
> 
> You're talking about "going to church" and "fellowship"
> 
> That's not the same thing as being "religious", and has nothing to do with what was stated
> 
> One can not honestly, logically claim to be a "Christian" and "not religious".
> 
> 
> Words have meanings that don't change just because you want them to say something else


Nope.
YH knows the truth..........:thumb:
Probably because he didn't rely on Wiki for the definition of something so important.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sadly our language does not seem to contain the words necessary to describe a persons relationship with our creator. It does not require a religion to be on a one on one basis with God.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sadly our language does not seem to contain the words necessary to describe a persons relationship with our creator. It does not require a religion to be on a one on one basis with God.


It does if one defines God as being the one described in a specific religous belief. Believing in the god of Abraham requires religion, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Believing in a god is quite different.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> That can be true also, but if one *says* they are a "Christian" they are by definition "religious"
> 
> I'd call what you're describing more as "spiritual"


The word religious and religion are used in many ways
My belief is religion is man made.
My belief is God is not religion.
Even though I have stated on another thread that I don't identify with being a Christian...and here I said more to the point my personal relationship with Him...I am sure that can be interpretated many ways.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> The word religious and religion are used in many ways
> My belief is religion is man made.
> My belief is God is not religion.
> Even though I have stated on another thread that I don't identify with being a Christian...and here I said more to the point my personal relationship with Him...I am sure that can be interpretated many ways.


You claim to have a belief in a specific god. It's a god who has been defined by yourself and others with a specific set of beliefs and rules. That is religion. 

I'm open to the possibility there is a god or gods. Which of the countless gods exists who have spoken to countless people over the centuries I don't presume to know. Perhaps some day I'll find out for sure. That's spirituality.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> You claim to have a belief in a specific god. It's a god who has been defined by yourself and others with a specific set of beliefs and rules. That is religion.
> 
> I'm open to the possibility there is a god or gods. Which of the countless gods exists who have spoken to countless people over the centuries I don't presume to know. Perhaps some day I'll find out for sure. That's spirituality.


Close to agnostism, I think. Isn't that where one just sits on the fence and enjoys life instead of making any decisions? 



Bearfootfarm said:


> That can be true also, but if one *says* they are a "Christian" they are by definition "religious"
> 
> I'd call what you're describing more as "spiritual"


Words have definitions which don't change, but their interpretations and their usage transitions through the ages. The words we use today had many different definitions a couple centuries ago. So using the dictionary to define the argument really doesn't work that well.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Close to agnostism, I think. Isn't that where one just sits on the fence and enjoys life instead of making any decisions?
> 
> 
> 
> Words have definitions which don't change, but their interpretations and their usage transitions through the ages. The words we use today had many different definitions a couple centuries ago. So using the dictionary to define the argument really doesn't work that well.


I've made plenty of decisions in my life. Some have even revolved around religion(s). I've been in my share of places of worship and have talked to and listened to people of a wide variety of beliefs and faiths. All true believers believed only their beliefs were the truth. Nothing has convinced me that any were. Not choosing is a choice in and of itself. It doesn't mean I haven't looked at many things and seen things I can't explain using science and logic. But none have convinced me of the "one true god" many speak of.


----------



## roadless

My journey continues with my definition of and belief in a God .
What I am sure of is that I don't have all the answers , I try to have an open mind and heart.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sadly our language does not seem to contain the words necessary to describe a persons relationship with our creator. It does not require a religion to be on a one on one basis with God.


 Actually, our language contains many words for that. Delusion is the first that comes to mind.:idea:


----------



## roadless

Geeze, that was harsh.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Actually, our language contains many words for that. Delusion is the first that comes to mind.:idea:


Depends on the delusion. 

I don't like to eat without giving thanks.

That is eating stolen food.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> Depends on the delusion.
> 
> I don't like to eat without giving thanks.
> 
> That is eating stolen food.


Stolen food? My kids ate without thanking me, but I never considered that to be stealing.

But if God created us and put us on earth, doesn't God have an obligation similar to a parental obligation to provide basic needs for us? It would be criminal for a parent to fail to provide basic needs for a child. Wouldn't God be just as wrong for failing to provide for man? Why would we need to thank him for acting in a humane way?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Stolen food? My kids ate without thanking me, but I never considered that to be stealing.
> 
> But if God created us and put us on earth, doesn't God have an obligation similar to a parental obligation to provide basic needs for us? It would be criminal for a parent to fail to provide basic needs for a child. Wouldn't God be just as wrong for failing to provide for man? Why would we need to thank him for acting in a humane way?


He said He would provide...I hardly believe giving thanks would be a problem.
I don't sit and wait to be provided for...I use my God given talent and ability.
Same as asking and receiving...I don't sit and wait for UPS to deliver.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> He said He would provide...I hardly believe giving thanks would be a problem.


That's not what you said. You said that not giving thanks was stealing.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> That's not what you said. You said that not giving thanks was stealing.


I didn't. That is Biblical. However I have been wrong before.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> I didn't. That is Biblical. However I have been wrong before.


Then how should I interpret this:

_I don't like to eat without giving thanks. That is eating stolen food.

_


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Then how should I interpret this:
> 
> _I don't like to eat without giving thanks. That is eating stolen food.
> 
> _


Any way you want....we always gave thanks for our crops and our food.
I have ate without giving thanks too.
Tonight I will be focused on the ribeye that I have not had time for yet.
And be thankful.


----------



## FourDeuce

roadless said:


> Geeze, that was harsh.


Harsh? Only if you consider the dictionary harsh. :gaptooth:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Actually, our language contains many words for that. Delusion is the first that comes to mind.:idea:


Nope. Delusion is not even close.... I would put it at the extreme incorrect end of the scale. In my case I am far more convinced that God is very real than I am that two and two make four.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope. Delusion is not even close.... I would put it at the extreme incorrect end of the scale. In my case I am far more convinced that God is very real than I am that two and two make four.


I am certain..without doubt..that my truck has lockout hubs. Same as 2+2=4.


----------



## Evons hubby

elevenpoint said:


> I am certain..without doubt..that my truck has lockout hubs. Same as 2+2=4.


And I am far more certain that God exists than I am that our system of mathematics is accurate.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> I am certain..without doubt..that my truck has lockout hubs. Same as 2+2=4.


 And you know that because you observed it. Same thing with the expanding universe. Its been observed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I'm not miserable, but nice 180 on that one.:banana:
> There were two questions in that post, both could be answered with "yes" or "no".
> Since you won't even do that much, carry on and "no thanks".
> 
> Nope.
> YH knows the truth..........:thumb:
> Probably because he didn't rely on Wiki for the definition of something so important.


The definitions of words don't change depending on the source.

You used the word "miserable" so there's no "180" other than your attempt at one

Your games are redundant and tiresome as always


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> And you know that because you observed it. Same thing with the expanding universe. Its been observed.


Greg...I like science...really fascinating...medicine...cell phones are beyond my comprehension much less a smart phone...were more than likely all on the same page..at least in the same book...so much is unknown we will never know.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> And you know that because you observed it. Same thing with the expanding universe. Its been observed.


Nope... Observation is not quite the right word,,, more like I experienced on a much higher level than our five senses could interpret... More like being immersed/absorbed. Again, our language seems to be lacking a proper word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> The word religious and religion are used in many ways
> My belief is religion is man made.
> My belief is God is not religion.
> Even though I have stated on another thread that I don't identify with being a Christian...and here I said more to the point my personal relationship with Him...I am sure that can be interpretated many ways.


You can pretend the words mean something different when you use them but it's not true. 

It's just the only way you can rationalize your contradictory statements


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
> Close to agnostism, I think. Isn't that where one just sits on the fence and enjoys life instead of making any decisions?
> 
> Words have definitions which don't change, but their interpretations and their usage transitions through the ages. The words we use today had many different definitions a couple centuries ago. So using the dictionary to define the argument really doesn't work that well.


None of the posts here were written centuries ago, so the current common definitions apply. 

It's a standard ploy by a few here to claim the words they use "mean something different" when called on statements.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope. Delusion is not even close.... I would put it at the extreme incorrect end of the scale. In my case I am far more convinced that God is very real than I am that two and two make four.


Too bad the amount of certainty a person feels has nothing to do with the truth of their opinion.:idea:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And I am far more certain that God exists than I am that our system of mathematics is accurate.


Me too.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can pretend the words mean something different when you use them but it's not true.
> 
> It's just the only way you can rationalize your contradictory statements


Call it so it pleases you...you have an answer you want but wont get it.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of the posts here were written centuries ago, so the current common definitions apply.
> 
> It's a standard ploy by a few here to claim the words they use "mean something different" when called on statements.


I said ask and you shall receive.

Don't believe that?

Your problem.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> Greg...I like science...really fascinating...medicine...cell phones are beyond my comprehension much less a smart phone...were more than likely all on the same page..at least in the same book...so much is unknown we will never know.


 So then what are your scientific objections to the 'Big Bang' theory?


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> So then what are your scientific objections to the 'Big Bang' theory?


Lets not call it Big Bang maybe...many in the scientifific community think of it expanding.
Is there any truth there was a "Big Bang"?
Not really.
See...we don't know exactly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Call it so it pleases you...you have an answer you want but wont get it.


Wrong again.
I don't expect any answers from you



> I said ask and you shall receive.
> 
> Don't believe that?
> 
> Your problem.


You've said lots of things I don't believe.
There's no "problem" though


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of the posts here were written centuries ago, so the current common definitions apply.
> 
> It's a standard ploy by a few here to claim the words they use "mean something different" when called on statements.


Your misinterpretation of words, or trying to use their definition to indicate a flawed argument, are themselves rather annoying arguments. Logical fallacy logical fallacy - just because someone makes a logical fallacy doesn't negate their argument completely.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> And you know that because you observed it. Same thing with the expanding universe. Its been observed.





elevenpoint said:


> Lets not call it Big Bang maybe...many in the scientifific community think of it expanding.
> Is there any truth there was a "Big Bang"?
> Not really.
> See...we don't know exactly.




In looking thru some of the different Bible verses, I found one set that was interesting, referring to the expanding universe.
:idea:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Wrong again.
> I don't expect any answers from you
> 
> 
> You've said lots of things I don't believe.
> There's no "problem" though


Have you asked yet?
That is when you will receive.
Why would you come to me for answers...a mere man ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Your misinterpretation of words, or trying to use their definition to indicate a flawed argument, are themselves rather annoying arguments. Logical fallacy logical fallacy - just because someone makes a logical fallacy doesn't negate their argument completely.


Words mean what they mean. 
Sorry reality annoys you

Feel free to show the definitions of any words I "misinterpreted"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Have you asked yet?
> That is when you will receive.
> *Why would you come to me for answers*...a mere man ?


Did you miss the part where I said I don't expect any answers from you?
You quoted it. Didn't you read it?


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> In looking thru some of the different Bible verses, I found one set that was interesting, referring to the expanding universe.
> :idea:


 Sure, the Hindu/Vedic scriptures talk about it too, and they predate the Christian bible by about 2000 years. So why are some folks so resistant to the idea? I haven't heard any scientific objections, just vague religious ones.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Sure, the Hindu/Vedic scriptures talk about it too, and they predate the Christian bible by about 2000 years. So why are some folks so resistant to the idea? I haven't heard any scientific objections, just vague religious ones.


I don't have an answer as to why other people think the way they do.:shrug:
But I thought the Vedic scriptures were amazingly ahead of their time. Modern science is STILL trying to catch up with them, lol.
Looking back thru the changes in scientific theories of the times, it's easy to forget that more people have been wrong that right. 
I think that goes to the core of why objections are quickly voiced, no matter what the prevailing thoughts are.

I mentioned that very early on in discussing Einstein. For all his brilliance, he was the first to admit that what we DON'T know pales in comparison to what we think we know. 

Since quite a bit of the Bible doesn't refute what we know by scientific "PROOF" and actually affirms it, I don't have a problem learning about new discoveries - only in believing that there is a final, concrete one, particularly when it asserts that the possibility of a Creator is null and void.

We may not have found evidence of everything, but when you start thinking that proves something beyond all doubt, look out......:lookout:


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> Your misinterpretation of words, or trying to use their definition to indicate a flawed argument, are themselves rather annoying arguments. Logical fallacy logical fallacy - just because someone makes a logical fallacy doesn't negate their argument completely.


It does mean their argument fails logically.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> It does mean their argument fails logically.


Darn, I thought you had come back to explain how you decide whether a bridge is safe to cross.


----------



## FourDeuce

mmoetc said:


> Darn, I thought you had come back to explain how you decide whether a bridge is safe to cross.


I'll do that when(or if) you learn what the burden of proof means. :idea:


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> I'll do that when(or if) you learn what the burden of proof means. :idea:


I know what it means. You stated you have lived a life that relies on no faith. I'm asking you to prove that statement true by answering a simple question. How do you decide to cross a bridge without having faith that the bridge is safe to cross. The burden of proving your statement true is on you. Explain your thought process. You're quite adept at explaining how others think. It shouldn't be a stretch to explain how you do.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> I know what it means. You stated you have lived a life that relies on no faith. I'm asking you to prove that statement true by answering a simple question. How do you decide to cross a bridge without having faith that the bridge is safe to cross. The burden of proving your statement true is on you. Explain your thought process. You're quite adept at explaining how others think. It shouldn't be a stretch to explain how you do.


He's saying that the reason the burden of truth is on you is because you've said, initially, it requires faith to cross the bridge. Thus, you can't ask him how he uses faith to cross the bridge since he has, according to him, absolutely none. 
Let's try something else. 
Both cases are completely philosophical, which is probably why he's having so much trouble answering. Philosophy is inherently illogical.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> He's saying that the reason the burden of truth is on you is because you've said, initially, it requires faith to cross the bridge. Thus, you can't ask him how he uses faith to cross the bridge since he has, according to him, absolutely none.
> Let's try something else.
> Both cases are completely philosophical, which is probably why he's having so much trouble answering. Philosophy is inherently illogical.


Actually what he said was that my scenario was a false dichotomy fallacy. Another statement he hasn't proven. I claimed and offered two solutions. Until a third solution is offered there is no proof of a fallacy. There may only be two possible solutions as I presume. If you claim I'm wrong the burden of proof lies with you.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> He's saying that the reason the burden of truth is on you is because you've said, initially, it requires faith to cross the bridge. Thus, you can't ask him how he uses faith to cross the bridge since he has, according to him, absolutely none.
> Let's try something else.
> Both cases are completely philosophical, which is probably why he's having so much trouble answering. Philosophy is inherently illogical.


I'm not having any trouble answering. I never waste my time when a person tries to shift their burden of proof. Philosophy is not at all illogical. In fact, philosophy is only properly done when it is logical.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Until a third solution is offered there is no proof of a fallacy. There may only be two possible solutions as I presume."

Wrong. You presume that there ARE only two possible solutions. That is your claim. Until you prove that claim, it fails, as all unproven claims fail. That proves you don't understand how the burden of proof works.


----------



## FourDeuce

mmoetc said:


> Actually what he said was that my scenario was a false dichotomy fallacy. Another statement he hasn't proven. I claimed and offered two solutions. Until a third solution is offered there is no proof of a fallacy. There may only be two possible solutions as I presume. If you claim I'm wrong the burden of proof lies with you.


If you claim you are right(by making a claim), the burden of proof for your claim lies with you.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Actually what he said was that my scenario was a false dichotomy fallacy. Another statement he hasn't proven. I claimed and offered two solutions. Until a third solution is offered there is no proof of a fallacy. There may only be two possible solutions as I presume. If you claim I'm wrong the burden of proof lies with you.


I think the burden of proof is now on the donkey over there, far away, with absolutely nothing to do with conversation anymore.



FourDeuce said:


> I'm not having any trouble answering. I never waste my time when a person tries to shift their burden of proof. Philosophy is not at all illogical. In fact, philosophy is only properly done when it is logical.


That's your opinion. 



FourDeuce said:


> "Until a third solution is offered there is no proof of a fallacy. There may only be two possible solutions as I presume."
> 
> Wrong. You presume that there ARE only two possible solutions. That is your claim. Until you prove that claim, it fails, as all unproven claims fail. That proves you don't understand how the burden of proof works.


Why don't you just tell him how you cross a bridge and get it over with?:idea:


----------



## FourDeuce

For the same reason parents are not advised to allow children to do whatever they want.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Why don't you just tell him how you cross a bridge and get it over with?:idea:





FourDeuce said:


> For the same reason parents are not advised to allow children to do whatever they want.


???

You mean, if you tell him how you cross a bridge, he might try it your way, fall and break his neck?

:shrug:


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> ???
> 
> You mean, if you tell him how you cross a bridge, he might try it your way, fall and break his neck?
> 
> :shrug:


I'm really not sure about it. Maybe some people just literally cannot cross a bridge. :rock:


----------



## coolrunnin

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm really not sure about it. Maybe some people just literally cannot cross a bridge. :rock:


I had a horse once that couldn't cross a bridge...lol


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> ???
> 
> You mean, if you tell him how you cross a bridge, he might try it your way, fall and break his neck?
> 
> :shrug:


Nope, I mean if I play the game he wants to play and go along with his logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof, I'll be enabling him to continue being ignorant of how logic works.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm really not sure about it. Maybe some people just literally cannot cross a bridge. :rock:


And others just literally cannot learn how basic logic works.:gaptooth:


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> And others just literally cannot learn how basic logic works.:gaptooth:


Mmmmm.... But of course, you have?


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> Nope, I mean if I play the game he wants to play and go along with his logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof, I'll be enabling him to continue being ignorant of how logic works.


In a manner of speaking, this one has a commitment complex. Even though he does it on a regular basis, he will not analyze his trust of a bridge and it's capacity to pass him in his conveyance, he just does it. This violates the principle of looking before you jump - I would surmise...

For logic to work, one must understand that there is a premise at hand, a trustable premise - for one to believe that this premise is in play with each and every bridge then one must have faith in that premise.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> Mmmmm.... But of course, you have?


I've learned to recognize the logical fallacies foolish people try to substitute for logical arguments.


----------



## FourDeuce

Shine said:


> In a manner of speaking, this one has a commitment complex. Even though he does it on a regular basis, he will not analyze his trust of a bridge and it's capacity to pass him in his conveyance, he just does it. This violates the principle of looking before you jump - I would surmise...
> 
> For logic to work, one must understand that there is a premise at hand, a trustable premise - for one to believe that this premise is in play with each and every bridge then one must have faith in that premise.


I don't know where you get the silly idea that logic requires a "trustable" premise, but that's wrong. Logic only requires a premise. 
Aside from that mistake, you can't speak for what everybody must do.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> I've learned to recognize the logical fallacies foolish people try to substitute for logical arguments.



I've learned to just recognize "fools".
:boring:


----------



## mmoetc

It's not my bureden to prove myself wrong. There are only two ways to decide whether a bridge is safe to cross. Do sufficient examination to satisfy oneself of its safety or have some modicum of faith that it has been built and maintained safely. I have thought about it it and see no third solution that doesn't require some sort of faith in one of its many forms. I've set the premise. I've defined the solutions that satisfy that premise. If you wish to claim the premise or the solutions are false it is you who must offer proof of why they are wrong. I cannot defend my premise against air, which is all you've offered. 

And even a parent is wrong on occassion. A good parent will admit that to themself and their children and use it as an opportunity from which all can learn.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> I've learned to recognize the logical fallacies foolish people try to substitute for logical arguments.


You've learned to avoid actual discussions.



mmoetc said:


> It's not my bureden to prove myself wrong. There are only two ways to decide whether a bridge is safe to cross. Do sufficient examination to satisfy oneself of its safety or have some modicum of faith that it has been built and maintained safely. I have thought about it it and see no third solution that doesn't require some sort of faith in one of its many forms. I've set the premise. I've defined the solutions that satisfy that premise. If you wish to claim the premise or the solutions are false it is you who must offer proof of why they are wrong. I cannot defend my premise against air, which is all you've offered.
> 
> And even a parent is wrong on occassion. A good parent will admit that to themself and their children and use it as an opportunity from which all can learn.


A robot can cross the bridge without faith. However, the robot is not a person, and has been programmed to have no faith, if that's something even programmable. Instead of having faith in the bridge crew or total lack of it, I simply assume that, based on the extremely low statistical probability of something happening as I cross the bridge, the fact that others are crossing the bridge, and that engineers are very smart, I can safely cross the bridge. Deduction, not faith.

On the other hand, if you're lost in the middle of the woods, and you need to get to the side of a gorge, and you encounter a hobo who made a bridge out of twine and no one has crossed it, then crossing that bridge would almost certainly require faith.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> You've learned to avoid actual discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> A robot can cross the bridge without faith. However, the robot is not a person, and has been programmed to have no faith, if that's something even programmable. Instead of having faith in the bridge crew or total lack of it, I simply assume that, based on the extremely low statistical probability of something happening as I cross the bridge, the fact that others are crossing the bridge, and that engineers are very smart, I can safely cross the bridge. Deduction, not faith.
> 
> On the other hand, if you're lost in the middle of the woods, and you need to get to the side of a gorge, and you encounter a hobo who made a bridge out of twine and no one has crossed it, then crossing that bridge would almost certainly require faith.


But your deductions are based on faith that the engineers are indeed smart, the construction crew followed their directions and that statistics will continue to hold (many people in Minnesota had that same faith in probability until the bridge collapsed) . You even have faith in your own deductive reasoning abilities, do you not? Faith comes in many forms and many manifestations. Most decisions aren't overt, faith based decisions but no one I know goes forward without at least some faith that the path they're on is the correct one.


----------



## FourDeuce

"It's not my bureden to prove myself wrong."

Great. You're halfway there. Once you learn it is your burden of proof to prove yourself right, you'll be there.:rock:


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> But your deductions are based on faith that the engineers are indeed smart, the construction crew followed their directions and that statistics will continue to hold (many people in Minnesota had that same faith in probability until the bridge collapsed) . You even have faith in your own deductive reasoning abilities, do you not? Faith comes in many forms and many manifestations. Most decisions aren't overt, faith based decisions but no one I know goes forward without at least some faith that the path they're on is the correct one.


Well we're back to agreeing again. It was a fun sprint, though.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Well we're back to agreeing again. It was a fun sprint, though.


And I have faith a certain member will never share with us how he decides a bridge is safe to cross.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> And I have faith a certain member will never share with us how he decides a bridge is safe to cross.


I have faith that logic is a superior thinking tactic to faith.


----------



## FourDeuce

"You've learned to avoid actual discussions."

I don't consider using logical fallacies "actual discussions". Neither does logic. That's why they made a list of logical fallacies, so people who consider them logical arguments can see that they fail so often they were given names.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> "You've learned to avoid actual discussions."
> 
> I don't consider using logical fallacies "actual discussions". Neither does logic. That's why they made a list of logical fallacies, so people who consider them logical arguments can see that they fail so often they were given names.


You keep making this fallacy an awful lot for someone schooled in logic:

The Fallacy Fallacy



> You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
> It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.
> Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.


----------



## FourDeuce

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."

Since I didn't presume that at all, your argument is a Straw Man Fallacy. When a claim is made but not proven, it is neither proven right nor wrong, but it does fail logically due to lack of proof. You cannot use an unproven premise to prove anything. You might want to find a list of the logical fallacies so you don't try to use one again.


----------



## Heritagefarm

This thread WAS interesting. Here's stuff from Fox discussing the possibility that maybe the Big Bang and Creation are actually the same thing:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/06/02/science-vs-bible-reconciling-genesis-big-bang.html


----------



## FourDeuce

Since the Big Bang Theory is science and doesn't say anything about any gods, they're not even close to the same thing.
"God created the universe in six days. Science says it took 15 billion years."

That's a sneaky way to try to get a lie into the discussion. It looks like science says it took 15 billion years for god to create the universe. That's a fallacy of ambiguity. Science doesn't say gods did anything.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> Since the Big Bang Theory is science and doesn't say anything about any gods, they're not even close to the same thing.
> "God created the universe in six days. Science says it took 15 billion years."
> 
> That's a sneaky way to try to get a lie into the discussion. It looks like science says it took 15 billion years for god to create the universe. That's a fallacy of ambiguity. Science doesn't say gods did anything.


That's because science doesn't know how it happened.
Or is that another logical fallacy?


----------



## rzrubek

Science says time doesn't flow the same everywhere either.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Since the Big Bang Theory is science and doesn't say anything about any gods, they're not even close to the same thing.
> "God created the universe in six days. Science says it took 15 billion years."
> 
> That's a sneaky way to try to get a lie into the discussion. It looks like science says it took 15 billion years for god to create the universe. That's a fallacy of ambiguity. Science doesn't say gods did anything.


It can't prove that they didn't do anything, either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

rzrubek said:


> Science says time doesn't flow the same everywhere either.


How 'bout them Heels?


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> That's because science doesn't know how it happened.
> Or is that another logical fallacy?


Nope. That's just science working the way it's supposed to work. Ironically, many religious apologists consider that evidence that science doesn't work. They often try that argument using the tools of science, like the internet and computers. If a person really believes science doesn't work, it's hypocritical to use tools of science to try to argue that point. If science doesn't work, why not use some other tools to show it? :idea:
If you want to know what the logical fallacies are, there are plenty of lists online.


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> It can't prove that they didn't do anything, either.


It doesn't need to, just like it doesn't need to prove Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole and Harry Potter doesn't attend Hogwarts Academy. That burden of proof thing is heavy.


----------



## mmoetc

For anyone still interested, the person who is credited with coming up with the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest. http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

He didn't see a conflict between the religous and secular views.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> For anyone still interested, the person who is credited with coming up with the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest. http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
> 
> He didn't see a conflict between the religous and secular views.


*"It is tempting to think that LemaÃ®treâs deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet LemaÃ®tre clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, LemaÃ®tre was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
âAs far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Beingâ¦ For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with Godâ¦ It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.â
In the latter part of his life, LemaÃ®tre turned his attention to other areas of astronomical research, including pioneering work in electronic computation for astrophysical problems. His idea that the universe had an explosive birth was developed much further by other cosmologists, including George Gamow, to become the modern Big Bang theory. While contemporary views of the early universe differ in many respects from LemaÃ®treâs âprimordial atom,â his work had nevertheless opened the way. Shortly before his death, LemaÃ®tre learned that Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson had discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation, the first and still most important observational evidence in support of the Big Bang."*


That was a cool article
You never know the things you'll learn next, if you keep your mind and eyes open.







FourDeuce said:


> Nope. That's just science working the way it's supposed to work. Ironically, many religious apologists consider that evidence that science doesn't work. They often try that argument using the tools of science, like the internet and computers. If a person really believes science doesn't work, it's hypocritical to use tools of science to try to argue that point. If science doesn't work, why not use some other tools to show it? :idea:
> If you want to know what the logical fallacies are, there are plenty of lists online.




I never once said science doesn't work. If done properly, it *should*.
Just as it is a good idea to remind believers in God that they don't know everything, the same advice should be given to those of science who don't.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> For anyone still interested, the person who is credited with coming up with the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest. http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
> 
> He didn't see a conflict between the religous and secular views.


It's not necessary for there to be a conflict. The conflict is largely created by a perceived attack on their faith. Then, people lose faith in science because they've just rejected evolution. Then they move onto rejecting climate change, blahblahblah.



FourDeuce said:


> It doesn't need to, just like it doesn't need to prove Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole and Harry Potter doesn't attend Hogwarts Academy. That burden of proof thing is heavy.


If there IS a God, then it stands to reason (you'll find something to say about that) that he'd, or it, would be able to completely control the laws of physics (go ahead) and hide all evidence of it's construction (fire away).


----------



## FourDeuce

"Just as it is a good idea to remind believers in God that they don't know everything, the same advice should be given to those of science who don't."

Anybody who needs that advice shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy.


----------



## farmrbrown

Very true.
Or science, for that matter.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Only an idiot claims to know everything, implicitly or otherwise.


----------



## roadless

Heritagefarm said:


> Only an idiot claims to know everything, implicitly or otherwise.


That much I do know!
The rest I fumble through.


----------



## farmrbrown

Old joke:

One guy says to the other, "You know what? Between you and I, we know everything there is to know in the world."

"How's that?"

"Well you know everything except you're a darn fool.........and *I* know *that!*"


----------



## Evons hubby

All this talk about "proof" vs faith and burdens.... Since it cannot be proven that anything even exists I fail to see how anyone can really state that anything is actually known. For all I know you all might just be figments of my own imagination just like the rest of the universe is!


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All this talk about "proof" vs faith and burdens.... Since it cannot be proven that anything even exists I fail to see how anyone can really state that anything is actually known. For all I know you all might just be figments of my own imagination just like the rest of the universe is!


You need a better imagination.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All this talk about "proof" vs faith and burdens.... Since it cannot be proven that anything even exists I fail to see how anyone can really state that anything is actually known. For all I know you all might just be figments of my own imagination just like the rest of the universe is!


Actually a famous philosopher argued this. How do we know we are real? Well, since all indications point to there being real life, I choose to accept that the Matrix doesn't exist. "I think, therefore I am," or something like that.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All this talk about "proof" vs faith and burdens.... Since it cannot be proven that anything even exists I fail to see how anyone can really state that anything is actually known. For all I know you all might just be figments of my own imagination just like the rest of the universe is!


That problem has been discussed in philosophy for a long time. Religious apologists like to try to bring up that problem as an attempt to change the subject from their inability to prove their claims. Like all Red Herrings, it fails, but it sometimes fools some people.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> That problem has been discussed in philosophy for a long time. Religious apologists like to try to bring up that problem as an attempt to change the subject from their inability to prove their claims. Like all Red Herrings, it fails, but it sometimes fools some people.


Interesting..... It's ok for one person to demand proof of someone's faith but when the table is turned asking for proof of their own faith is a red herring? The only reason it fails is because you have no evidence to prove the basis of your faith. "I think therefor I am" doesn't prove squat... At best it might explain to one individual that they seem/appear to exist.

My point? It requires a leap of blind faith to beleive anything.... Science or religion.


----------



## FourDeuce

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never asked for proof of anybody's faith. I asked for proof of their claims. If anybody wants to ask for proof of another person's faith(a pretty silly thing to do), first they need to demonstrate that the other person has faith. 

"The only reason it fails is because you have no evidence to prove the basis of your faith."

Since I have no faith, it can't have any basis.

"It requires a leap of blind faith to beleive anything.... Science or religion."

I agree. That's why I don't believe anything. Aside from that, science doesn't require any belief. That's why science has no need of faith.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting..... It's ok for one person to demand proof of someone's faith but when the table is turned asking for proof of their own faith is a red herring? The only reason it fails is because you have no evidence to prove the basis of your faith. "I think therefor I am" doesn't prove squat... At best it might explain to one individual that they seem/appear to exist.
> 
> My point? It requires a leap of blind faith to beleive anything.... Science or religion.


He claims to have no faith, which I interpret to put the burden of proof on him. We can debate burden of proof all day, but in the end it accomplishes nothing aside from pointing out logical inconsistencies in the arguments. News flash - we're not logical beings!:idea:


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never asked for proof of anybody's faith. I asked for proof of their claims. If anybody wants to ask for proof of another person's faith(a pretty silly thing to do), first they need to demonstrate that the other person has faith.


Faith can be defined as high confidence in something. I.e., the statement "I have faith this bridge will not collapse" is the same as "I am confident this bridge will not collapse." Further, it is impossible to prove if someone has or has no faith.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never asked for proof of anybody's faith. I asked for proof of their claims. If anybody wants to ask for proof of another person's faith(a pretty silly thing to do), first they need to demonstrate that the other person has faith.
> 
> "The only reason it fails is because you have no evidence to prove the basis of your faith."
> 
> Since I have no faith, it can't have any basis.
> 
> "It requires a leap of blind faith to beleive anything.... Science or religion."
> 
> I agree. That's why I don't believe anything. Aside from that, science doesn't require any belief. That's why science has no need of faith.


"That's why I don't believe anything." That's probably the truest statement you've made here.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never asked for proof of anybody's faith. I asked for proof of their claims. If anybody wants to ask for proof of another person's faith(a pretty silly thing to do), first they need to demonstrate that the other person has faith.
> 
> "The only reason it fails is because you have no evidence to prove the basis of your faith."
> 
> Since I have no faith, it can't have any basis.
> 
> "It requires a leap of blind faith to beleive anything.... Science or religion."
> 
> I agree. That's why I don't believe anything. Aside from that, science doesn't require any belief. That's why science has no need of faith.


im glad we cleared up there is no more basis for a beleif in science than a beleif in God.


----------



## FourDeuce

Now all you need to do is learn basic science. You should cover it in elementary school.


----------



## FourDeuce

mmoetc said:


> "That's why I don't believe anything." That's probably the truest statement you've made here.


 IF I ever look for somebody to tell me what is true, I'll keep your name in mind(along with the thousands of other people who have offered to take over that job for me). I'm 58 now, though, and since I've been making that decision up to now, I don't expect that'll be changing any time soon.:lonergr:


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> Faith can be defined as high confidence in something. I.e., the statement "I have faith this bridge will not collapse" is the same as "I am confident this bridge will not collapse." Further, it is impossible to prove if someone has or has no faith.


If your last statement is true, it's very foolish of one person to claim another person has faith, isn't it? That's what I've been saying all along. :rock:


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> He claims to have no faith, which I interpret to put the burden of proof on him. We can debate burden of proof all day, but in the end it accomplishes nothing aside from pointing out logical inconsistencies in the arguments. News flash - we're not logical beings!:idea:


Making a claim "puts" the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It does nothing for the original claim when another person claims somebody else has faith. That burden of proof doesn't move.
Some people are not logical. Other people at least try to be logical.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> If you last statement is true, it's very foolish of one person to claim another person has faith, isn't it? That's what I've been saying all along. :rock:


Fine, you win that one. 



FourDeuce said:


> Making a claim "puts" the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It does nothing for the original claim when another person claims somebody else has faith. That burden of proof doesn't move.
> Some people are not logical. Other people at least try to be logical.


You make implicit claims when you disagree with something. However, you've made very few explicit claims. Mostly you just attack the logic of the arguments, which could be viewed as a red herring in that manner.


----------



## FourDeuce

"You make implicit claims when you disagree with something."

No, I don't. When I disagree with something, that's all I do.

"However, you've made very few explicit claims."

Yeah, I think it's silly to make other claims while waiting for another person to prove their claims. Doing that tends to muddy the waters and distract attention from the claim that was made.

"Mostly you just attack the logic of the arguments, which could be viewed as a red herring in that manner."

Not by anybody who understand what a red herring is.


----------



## Heritagefarm

In order to disagree with something, you have to believe something else.


----------



## FourDeuce

Nope(at least I haven't had to so far, but then I'm only 58. Maybe I will have to do that when I get older). Many people make that mistake. If I say I have a million dollars in my pocket, you can either accept my claim as true or decide not to accept it. If you decide not to accept the claim, then you can decide to believe something, but that's entirely separate question from whether or not you accept the claim. 
That's where many people get confused with atheism. An atheist is a person who does not accept claims of gods existing. Some atheists also say gods don't exist, but that's not required for being an atheist.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> Nope(at least I haven't had to so far, but then I'm only 58. Maybe I will have to do that when I get older). Many people make that mistake. If I say I have a million dollars in my pocket, you can either accept my claim as true or decide not to accept it. If you decide not to accept the claim, then you can decide to believe something, but that's entirely separate question from whether or not you accept the claim.
> That's where many people get confused with atheism. An atheist is a person who does not accept claims of gods existing. Some atheists also say gods don't exist, but that's not required for being an atheist.


Or I could ask you to prove such a claim. But based on whst I've seen here you'd then make the argument that since I claimed you didn't have it the burden of proof would be on me to prove you didn't. I could then attempt to wrestle you to the ground in an effort to turn your pockets inside out but like much else in dealing with you that seems like much too much bother so I'll just let you go on believing ( or is it not believing?) whatever it is you do (or don't)


----------



## FourDeuce

mmoetc said:


> Or I could ask you to prove such a claim. But based on whst I've seen here you'd then make the argument that since I claimed you didn't have it the burden of proof would be on me to prove you didn't. I could then attempt to wrestle you to the ground in an effort to turn your pockets inside out but like much else in dealing with you that seems like much too much bother so I'll just let you go on believing ( or is it not believing?) whatever it is you do (or don't)


Yeah, just about anything is easier than proving YOUR claims, right?


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Nope(at least I haven't had to so far, but then I'm only 58. Maybe I will have to do that when I get older). Many people make that mistake. If I say I have a million dollars in my pocket, you can either accept my claim as true or decide not to accept it. If you decide not to accept the claim, then you can decide to believe something, but that's entirely separate question from whether or not you accept the claim.
> That's where many people get confused with atheism. An atheist is a person who does not accept claims of gods existing. Some atheists also say gods don't exist, but that's not required for being an atheist.


We all have things we believe. Perhaps you believe Fords are better than Chevy. Since there is little evidence to win the debate, maybe you believe this. There are things in life that require some form of belief system.


----------



## FourDeuce

"We all have things we believe."

Yeah, somebody already made that claim. They didn't prove it either.

"Perhaps you believe Fords are better than Chevy."

Nope.

" Since there is little evidence to win the debate, maybe you believe this."

Nope.

"There are things in life that require some form of belief system."

There is nothing in my life that requires any belief.


----------



## mmoetc

FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, just about anything is easier than proving YOUR claims, right?


I believe you haven't disproven anything I've said. Nor proven many of claims you've made. I believe you believe in the rules of logic without really understanding what they mean or how they're properly applied. The proof for that is here for all to read. I believe I'm done with this line of discussion. The proof of that is yet to come.


----------



## rzrubek

Bearfootfarm said:


> How 'bout them Heels?


Did they win the championship? I been busy and haven't heard.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> I believe you haven't disproven anything I've said. Nor proven many of claims you've made. I believe you believe in the rules of logic without really understanding what they mean or how they're properly applied. The proof for that is here for all to read. I believe I'm done with this line of discussion. The proof of that is yet to come.


Ah, but you'll need to prove he hasn't disproven anything you've proven because the burden of proof is on you for proving his approval of your disapproval and.. Oh Lord. Need more coffee.:grin:


----------



## FourDeuce

"I believe you haven't disproven anything I've said."

Of course not. I know how the burden of proof works. I don't need to disprove anything you said. You need to prove it. It would be silly of me to waste my time trying to disprove your claim.

"Nor proven many of claims you've made. I believe you believe in the rules of logic without really understanding what they mean"

I obviously understand the burden of proof better than you do.

"or how they're properly applied. The proof for that is here for all to read. I believe I'm done with this line of discussion. The proof of that is yet to come."

Yeah, that burden of proof is heavy when you make claims you can't prove.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> Right. That's why nobody has ever built an ark using biblical instructions and floated it in water. A wooden boat built that large couldn't float.:bash:


You've made a claim that a wooden boat that large could not float. The burden proof is now on you to prove a wooden boat "that large" cannot float.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

rzrubek said:


> Did they win the championship? I been busy and haven't heard.


Yes, they won by 4 points, and didn't take the lead until the last few minutes of the game. 

It wasn't certain they would win until they hit two free throws with 2.5 seconds on the clock

I was born and raised about 25 miles West of you in Graham


----------



## FourDeuce

Heritagefarm said:


> You've made a claim that a wooden boat that large could not float. The burden proof is now on you to prove a wooden boat "that large" cannot float.


That's easy. Do a quick google search on the largest wooden ships ever built. None of them were as big as the ark was(according to the bible). The largest wooden ships they built were so fragile that they were not considered sea-worthy. They required constant pumping to get rid of all the water that came in because wood flexes.

Now, got any proof for YOUR claim? I indulged this distraction, even though I probably shouldn't have.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Very well, I accept your answer. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships
The list of very large ships does not look very good. I still disagree with your debate tactics.
Therefore, I will indulge my claim. Since you did not specify, I will choose the one where I said everyone has beliefs. I partially rescind that comment. It think it's possible that, if one tries very, very hard, it may be possible to purge beliefs and only rely on evidence, statistics, science, and logic to run one's life. I do not accept that this is the best method, but I accept that it is one way of thinking. I think it is safe to say, however, no wars have been fought over logic and common sense, but I could be wrong.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I still disagree with your debate tactics."

Then your argument isn't with me. It's with logic.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FourDeuce said:


> "I still disagree with your debate tactics."
> 
> Then your argument isn't with me. It's with logic.


Your use of logic is to disrupt the argument instead of actually discussing it, in general.


----------



## FourDeuce

If logic "disrupts" the discussion, it isn't a rational discussion.


----------



## Elevenpoint

If He can part the Red Sea...He can make any boat float. His wisdom knowledge and power are not comparable to mans.


----------



## FourDeuce

You skipped a step. Before you claim he parted seas or did anything else, you need to prove he exists.


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> You skipped a step. Before you claim he parted seas or did anything else, you need to prove he exists.


True...right back to big bang....therory.


----------



## FourDeuce

Nope, the Big Bang Theory doesn't even mention any gods.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Now all you need to do is learn basic science. You should cover it in elementary school.


Yep, we covered the faith requirements involved with science several times in school. In order for science to work at all one must place a certain amount of faith in what is known as the scientific method. Then comes the faith in our mathematic system.


----------



## FourDeuce

"we covered the faith requirements involved with science several times in school."

I hope that wasn't a public school. I know people speak badly of public schools, but any public school teaching that science requires faith is failing to teach the students properly. I went to public schools and while Louisiana has a reputation for a bad education system, at least they taught us basic science.
Of course, school is only responsible for what you learn while you're there. Anybody who wants to learn the truth can do it after school if they really want to learn.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "we covered the faith requirements involved with science several times in school."
> 
> I hope that wasn't a public school. I know people speak badly of public schools, but any public school teaching that science requires faith is failing to teach the students properly. I went to public schools and while Louisiana has a reputation for a bad education system, at least they taught us basic science.
> Of course, school is only responsible for what you learn while you're there. Anybody who wants to learn the truth can do it after school if they really want to learn.


Let's put it another way.... One of the basic building blocks of the scientific method is observation... In order to observe anything and form any conclusion one must have faith in their own power of observation. They have to beleive what they are observing even exists.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> Nope, the Big Bang Theory doesn't even mention any gods.



That's true.
The authorship of the Big Bang theory also points to another Truth, that faith in God doesn't automatically exclude a knowledge and practice of science........

*"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges LemaÃ®tre, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest."*




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let's put it another way.... One of the basic building blocks of the scientific method is observation... In order to observe anything and form any conclusion one must have faith in their own power of observation. They have to beleive what they are observing even exists.



You may have hit an uncomfortable paradox that will help to understand the "burden of proof" dilemma for the opposing sides - both of them. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


----------



## FourDeuce

"In order to observe anything and form any conclusion one must have faith in their own power of observation."

I don't know who this "one" you are speaking for is, but it isn't me.

"They have to beleive what they are observing even exists.'

"They" may, but rational people don't.


----------



## FourDeuce

"The authorship of the Big Bang theory also points to another Truth, that faith in God doesn't automatically exclude a knowledge and practice of science........"

Why are you worrying about "another truth" when the claim being discussed hasn't been proven? 

"You may have hit an uncomfortable paradox that will help to understand the "burden of proof" dilemma for the opposing sides - both of them."

There is no paradox or dilemma involved in the burden of proof. It's a simple concept.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "The authorship of the Big Bang theory also points to another Truth, that faith in God doesn't automatically exclude a knowledge and practice of science........"
> 
> Why are you worrying about "another truth" when the claim being discussed hasn't been proven?
> 
> "You may have hit an uncomfortable paradox that will help to understand the "burden of proof" dilemma for the opposing sides - both of them."
> 
> There is no paradox or dilemma involved in the burden of proof. It's a simple concept.


So, since their is no proof of the Big Bang why bring it forward to begin with?


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "In order to observe anything and form any conclusion one must have faith in their own power of observation."
> 
> I don't know who this "one" you are speaking for is, but it isn't me.
> 
> "They have to beleive what they are observing even exists.'
> 
> "They" may, but rational people don't.


The "one" I am referring to is anyone attempting to sell their scientific theory to the general public.

I think most rational people beleive they and the universe exists.


----------



## FourDeuce

"So, since their is no proof of the Big Bang why bring it forward to begin with?"

Who said there was no proof of it? Aside from that "mistake", I didn't bring it forward.

"The "one" I am referring to is anyone attempting to sell their scientific theory to the general public."

So you are trying to speak for people you don't even know?

"I think most rational people beleive they and the universe exists."

So you believe you have psychic abilities that tell you what most "rational people" believe?
Rational people don't need to believe anything. You keep claiming otherwise, but claims without proof are worthless.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> There is no paradox or dilemma involved in the burden of proof. It's a simple concept.


The "burden" is simple, but "proving" anything under your definition of rational is impossible.............



FourDeuce said:


> "In order to observe anything and form any conclusion one must have faith in their own power of observation."
> 
> I don't know who this "one" you are speaking for is, but it isn't me.
> 
> *"They have to beleive what they are observing even exists.'
> 
> "They" may, but rational people don't.*



????
Unless your quote is in error, according to you, rational people don't have to believe what they see, exists.........?




FourDeuce said:


> Rational people don't need to believe anything. You keep claiming otherwise, but claims without proof are worthless.


If that is true, why have a discussion with a so-called rational person?
They don't have to believe anything, even things they see.

I wouldn't call that rational, but it would definitely be a short, meaningless conversation.


----------



## FourDeuce

"The "burden" is simple, but "proving" anything under your definition of rational is impossible............."

Of course it is, since I don't make up my own definitions.

"I wouldn't call that rational,"

You've already shown that you're not qualified to determine what is rational.

"according to you, rational people don't have to believe what they see, exists.........?"

No, that's according to logic.

"If that is true, why have a discussion with a so-called rational person?"

You prefer having discussions with irrational people?

"They don't have to believe anything, even things they see."

Because rational discussion doesn't require belief, just like science.


----------



## Heritagefarm

*yawn*


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> You prefer having discussions with irrational people?


Not at all.
See ya..............


----------



## Evons hubby

Heritagefarm said:


> *yawn*


I agree! *yawn*


----------



## FourDeuce

farmrbrown said:


> Not at all.
> See ya..............


So you don't want to have discussions with rational people and you don't want to have discussions with irrational people. Must be lonely for you.:lonergr:


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> So you don't want to have discussions with rational people and you don't want to have discussions with irrational people. Must be lonely for you.:lonergr:


Can we discuss how you cross a bridge?
Blind?
I do cross a bridge different than most.
You?


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> Can we discuss how you cross a bridge?
> Blind?
> I do cross a bridge different than most.
> You?


How do you cross a bridge differently? Drive in reverse?:banana:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> How do you cross a bridge differently? Drive in reverse?:banana:


No...
If it spans a creek I am looking at the fishing opportunities.
Otherwise I don't care as most are low water crossings anyway.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Those low water crossings are dangerous at 50 MPH. You can bust a tire on the frequently awkward concrete. So, I don't have much faith in low water crossings. LOL


----------



## Heritagefarm

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8[/ame]

A video detailing some of the things left over from human evolution. Who needs ear muscles?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> Those low water crossings are dangerous at 50 MPH. You can bust a tire on the frequently awkward concrete. So, I don't have much faith in low water crossings. LOL


If you take a low water crossing at 50mph...better have a prayer beforehand:grin:


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> If you take a low water crossing at 50mph...better have a prayer beforehand:grin:


 Instead of praying, probably better to just slow down first.


----------



## Heritagefarm

In my defense, it was someone else who drove our truck that fast over the bridge. Then I had to buy a new tire.


----------

