Author Topic: Does the God of the Bible exist  (Read 4123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2765
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2012, 01:00:17 AM »
On second thought you are right.  Evolution did not originate life.  I believe that was my opinion when I dismissed it on my first post.

So if evolution did not originate life then what are the other alternatives?

Who cares? Creationists always want to keep the subject on evolution, and never want to address how deluded their own view is.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2012, 01:03:33 AM »
How the word is commonly used?  Galaxies, cultures, etc. do not evolve?

Is that what you're saying?

How are galaxies mentioned in Genesis?

You just want to argue that evolution has flaws, therefore your religion doesn't.

Well to me it just depends on how big are the flaws.

Galaxies are not specifically mentioned in Genesis as such.  I don't even think the word galaxy is ever in the Bible.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #60 on: April 27, 2012, 01:07:20 AM »
Who cares?

Who cares how life originated?  Anyone wondering if we were created or evolved.

In my OP I stated I come to my conclusion through the process of elimination.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2012, 01:09:55 AM »
Should we be waiting for the moderator?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #62 on: April 27, 2012, 01:11:46 AM »
Jstwebbrowing, trust me, this isn't going to end well. Accept my one-on-one offer now. It'll be less humiliating.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2012, 01:18:07 AM »
In my OP I stated I come to my conclusion through the process of elimination.

Yes, and you've aptly demonstrated this process for us.

1. Strawman science can't explain everything.
2. Therefore, Jesus!

How fitting that you'd present an argument from ignorance as your foremost piece of evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:23:02 AM by Aspie »

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2012, 01:28:58 AM »
Should we be waiting for the moderator?

Well I am just wondering since I was smited for "Good luck with not being moderated within 20 posts"

But yes I accept your offer.  I just assumed I had to satisfy the moderator first.

I hope you are better than my smiters.  The whole thread has been a debate over terminology.  The point in my OP is does science have a satisfying answer for the begginging to the end.  How did the universe originate, how did life originate, the whole nine yards.  Evidently I can't call it the Theory of Evolution so I will call it the "Stupid Theory".

If you have a better term then we'll use it.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2012, 02:05:49 AM »
There is no such theory, because each theory explains one thing and one thing only. So pick one and we can debate that.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2765
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #66 on: April 27, 2012, 04:33:45 AM »
The point in my OP is does science have a satisfying answer for the begginging to the end.

The point of this thread was for you to prove that "Does the God of the Bible exist". This can't be achieved by "elimination".

The only way you can do this, is to show that Genesis offers a genuine way of seeing the universe with scientific peer reviewed backing, or that some other facet of God-like behaviour can be proven. This is generally done by bringing up lame prophecies.

Unless you are some kind of genius, you will just be rehashing old territory. People have believed that the Bible was a heap of dung, way prior to evolutionary theory. There is no requirement to debate evolution in a process of "elimination". Your Bible offers a few very bent verses in Genesis. If it were not for that, evolution would be being taught happily in US schools, and you would have no objection to it.

Quote
How did the universe originate, how did life originate, the whole nine yards.  Evidently I can't call it the Theory of Evolution so I will call it the "Stupid Theory".

You don't give a flying pig's arse about any of the above.

Why would you want people to debate who are better than your smiters? I don't think you can win an argument that the sun was created on day 4 against a monkey.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #67 on: April 27, 2012, 05:10:08 AM »
The Oxford English Dictionary is probably the most authoritative source in the English language. It describes theory thus
Quote
Theory (n.) 4. a.
(i) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena;
(ii) a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts;
(iii) a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
Readers may wish to compare the meanings of,
(a) "He had a theory on how he could escape from jail." and
(b) "The Theory of Gravity was first described mathematically by Sir Isaac Newton."

The word theory in Theory of Evolution falls into category (b) above.

From the same OED, the word, Evolution, had an interesting origin
Quote
1.a. Mil. and Navy. A manoeuvre executed by troops or ships to adopt a different tactical formation.

1616   J. Bingham in tr. Ælian Tactiks xxviii. 132   The nature of this Evolution is clearely to leave the File-leaders in front, and Bringers-up in reare.
However, this gave way to the commoner meaning that it has today. This new meaning still involves a change from one thing to another:
Quote
8. a. Biol. The transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations; the transmutation of species (cf. transmutation n. 3f); the origination or transformation of an organism, organ, physiological process, biological molecule, etc., by such a series of changes. Also fig. Cf. evolve v. 7, development n. 3b.

The application of the theory of evolution to the natural world was regarded as one of the principal discoveries of 19th-cent. science. The idea of organic evolution had been proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. In the early 19th cent., Lamarck (see Lamarckian adj. and n.) proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell's demonstration that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.
 
Darwin does not use the term evolution in the first edition of On the Origin of Species (1859), perhaps because of its association with the notion of preordained design (cf. senses 3   and 5), though evolved appears once (as the last word in the book). However, the word soon became established in this context, partly through the influence of Spencer (see note at sense 10).
 
The supposition that biological evolution necessarily involved progress or advance from the simple to the complex (cf. sense 10) was persistent in 19th-cent. thought, often involving direct analogy with embryological development (cf. sense 5a), or through reinterpretation of the ‘chain of being’ as an orderly unfolding of events through geological time (cf. sense 3a). However, most biologists now regard progress not as an inherent principle of the evolutionary process, but as a contingent effect of the continual adaptation of organisms to their environment.

1832   C. Lyell Princ. Geol. (ed. 2) II. 11   The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution, were improved into those inhabiting the land.
1854   Notices Proc. Royal Inst. Great Brit. 1 429   The earnest desire?to discover a law or scheme in arrangements of Nature, has given origin to many speculations?. Hence have arisen the hypothesis of an evolution of all organized types, during the course of time, from one rudimentary prototype; that of the succession of distinctly originating forms of animals and vegetables in order of the progression within their respective series; [etc.].
1863   E. V. Neale Anal. Thought & Nature 185   The diversity of species has arisen by the evolution of one species out of another.
1873   C. Darwin Origin of Species (ed. 6) vii. 201   At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form.
1880   Pop. Sci. Monthly Feb. 559/1,   I should regard a teacher of science who denied the truth of evolution as being as incompetent as one who doubted the Copernican theory.
1893   E. D. Cope in Monist 3 637   The process of evolution may be either progressive (Anagenesis) or retrogressive (Catagenesis).
(My bolding for emphasis)

You will see that the great minds of the 19th century had no difficulty with the concept of evolution. They understood that evolution is not part of some great plan but is a word for describing a change from one state to another.

The process of evolution may be compared to 10 people who enter a maze: If 2 people make it out the far end, it does not mean that something has acted upon them by guiding them at each junction - it just means they were lucky enough to make it to the far side. The eight who are lost might have been better people, but they lost anyway. There is no design, plan or aim in evolution, although once evolutionary processes occur, some will survive to breed or develop futher and others will not.

I hope this clears up any confusion.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 05:15:44 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3858
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #68 on: April 27, 2012, 05:56:07 AM »
JWB your lack of knowledge of the theory of evolution is astounding, I think you are in no position to make judgements about it, not until you at least educate yourself properly on the matter. How you've engaged in discussion is unfair and unbalanced, please re-read the rules and maybe you will understand how you should be engaging the forum.

The main misconception people have is that evolution isn't proven because it's only a theory. A theory in scientific terms is NOT the same as a theory in laymans terms. In laymans terms you might say, "In theory Steve will remember to buy my a Cornetto", you've got absolutely no evidence he's going to do it, but you feel that he might. That is not how it is meant in science. If evolution is a 'guess', a 'hunch', a 'hypothesis' or whatever, then so is gravity, or as mention by somebody else, germs. However, these are theories even Creationists accept without question. Particularly on the germ theory it's kind of amusing because the bible has its own view on pestilence. Many times in the bible pestilence was caused and spread by God as a punishment, yet germ theory requires no God and it's got lots of proof to say that germ theory is in fact correct.

However, Creationists will not accept the Theory of Evolution to be fact, even though science proves it. And when they try and debunk it they do it understanding so little about the theory it's just pathetic. Repeating the same fallacies and the same misunderstanding and so many authorities on Creationism misrepresent evolution that misinformation spreads like a disease.

Now, somebody may argue that 'germs' are merely the method by which God using to spread pestilence. When Darwin came up with evolution, it was not seen controversial because it was a challenge to the existence of God because people could reason that evolution was the means Gods used to develop human life - so he started with single celled organisms and had evolution to take place. There are Christians that accept the theory of evolution.

Also, on scientific theory:



On that chart, Creationism and where Creationists think evolution is at is 'hypothesis', you make an observation and then try and come up with a hypothesis to explain it. The difference here is with Evolution, this is tested and tested and tested and tested, even when the evidence supports the hypothesis it remains to be tested and repeated by different people with piles and piles of evidence building and even though it's become a theory, its still being tested and tested because one of the things with science is "whilst we may know something is fact, we do not know everything about it and thus we must learn more and more to strengthen the theory."

Creationism doesn't work this way. It starts with the conclusion.



Unfortunately the 'facts' Creationists try to find is pseudo-science, because they do not actually use the scientific method above, they use what sounds like science to make it sound compelling to Creationists. Not that Creation science should exist because isn't belief on God based on faith?
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #69 on: April 27, 2012, 06:35:01 AM »
Who cares how life originated?  Anyone wondering if we were created or evolved.

In my OP I stated I come to my conclusion through the process of elimination.

Can I play? Through the process of elimination I came to the conclusion that you are an ignorant theist. That, or a troll.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #70 on: April 27, 2012, 07:26:16 AM »
The point in my OP is does science have a satisfying answer for the begginging to the end.  How did the universe originate, how did life originate, the whole nine yards. 

Cripes, man, you aren't asking for much are you?  "I want a complete answer to EVERYTHING from science, and if I don't get it, down to every last detail, even if I cannot understand most of it, then I'll just go with 'goddidit'."

Do you understand that we have been doing science for a relatively short period of time?  That any given scientist is only good for about one discovery in his life time, if he's lucky?  That while his or her one discovery may lead in the right direction, it probably will not be completely correct and will need dozens of other scientists to use their one-per-lifetime-discoveries to work it out?  Science is slow and your expectations are preposterously high. Perhaps if you applied some of the skepticism you use on science toward the bible, you could actually get somewhere.

Our problem in this thread is a fundamental one that has several roots.  First, and please don't take this the wrong way, you know very little about the topics you are trying to talk about.  Almost nothing, in fact. You cannot accurately describe the scientific method, define the word "theory" when used in a scientific context or understand what constitutes a good source for information. 

Second, we aren't science teachers.  A couple of us are actually scientists, but that does not make them experts on cosmology or aboigenesis.  It is a very specialized profession.  Nobody's title is "scientist".  So while we are generally way more knowledgeable than you, we aren't experts.

Third, the disparity in knowledge base makes communication very difficult.  When one person knows a lot more about a subject than the other, talking about that subject is not going to go well.  We have no base of understanding in common, no common language.  You lack even the basics of science.  Most of us are not qualified or have the patience and time to teach you the basics from the ground up. So any discussion of science with you is doomed to be either at a 3rd grade level or a pointless waste of time. 

Fourth, you ask a question as if you are curious.  Then when someone gives you an answer, you argue.  If you were actually interested in learning, you wouldn't do this.   And what is really frustrating is if you really wanted to know the answers to these questions, you could have found out from better sources than us already.  In fact, I suggest you do that.  Go learn actual science properly.  Then come back and talk to us.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #71 on: April 27, 2012, 08:03:55 AM »
How the word is commonly used?  Galaxies, cultures, etc. do not evolve?

Is that what you're saying?
This thread of yours has been absolutely dreadful to observe. How could you possibly get that from what was said? No. That is not what anyone here but you is saying.

The general term "evolution" can refer to a gradual series of change for many kinds of systems/things. Kind of like how the word "religion" is a general term to describe belief systems that are based on fictitious books. Now, in regards to living things, it is called biological evolution. Just as Catholicsm is called catholicism, not religion. Broad definition vs the specific definition that is being discussed here. It is essential that you understand this difference. Another example would be Richard Dawkins, who is an Evolutionary Biologist, not an "Evolutionist".

I realize that just because a majority holds an opinion, it doesn't make it necessarily correct. However, perhaps you should consider the possibility, given that everyone here thinks that you are totally misrepresenting evolution, that you are wrong.

I think it is amazing that believers who can manage to come on the internet and post information on a forum can be so willfully ignorant as to what scientists mean when talking about things like "theories" and "evolution".  Why are you people not this skeptical of the theory of gravity, or germs, or electromagnetics? The validity of the theory of evolution is as obvious as any of those. You would run into a great deal of difficulty if you suddenly did not trust all other branches of science. But all of those other sciences you embrace because they make your life easier, and wouldn't necessarily contradict your faith. However, when it comes to evolution, believers have to be entirely ignorant, because if they actually understood it and saw that it was going on, and acknowledged that there is even evidence of it in their own bodies (tail bone, appendix) they would have to admit that man evolved to its current form, rather than being created as such as described in the Bible.

Yet the evidence is clear that Genesis, the founding story for the Abrahamic Trilogy, is an absolute lie. A fabrication. Entirely made up. Fraudulent. You're not going to find the Garden of Eden on Google Earth, because it never existed to begin with. No original sin, no talking snakes, no magical trees, no rib woman. Adam did not name every single living creature. Note that penguins are pretty scarce in the Middle East, especially in Bronze Age times. Penguins are never mentioned in the Bible. Nor is the platypus, or the North American Bison, or the capybara, nor is there any mention of actual prehistoric animals. Yet, there are dragons and giants mentioned in the Bible. Bats are birds, and insects have 4 legs.  Animal blood cures disease. Plants were present before sunlight. If you seriously look to a book that says such things for answers regarding biology, you can only come up with wrong answers.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #72 on: April 27, 2012, 09:30:19 AM »
Jst, since science supports the BBT and evolutionary theory, I think you need to immediately stop using your computer, which uses the same science, modern foods which use the same science, modern medicine, etc, or demonstrate yourself as a willfully ignorant hypocrite. 

And waiting for evidence that *your* god did anything, anything at all.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2012, 09:30:53 AM »
How far up ones ass must their head go before they willingly pull it out and own the problems that they have created for themselves ?  &)

I mean for fuck sakes--JWB immediately moved the goalposts in the OP ! :...
Quote
My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

You just knew at this early point that he was in for a rough ride. And then to top it off he soon reveals his ignorance of the theory. Not good.

Oh well....this is what we get when we try and have meaningful discussions with individuals who think with their feelings and emotions--and not with logical reasoning.

Process of elimination ? Indeed he did--and proceeded then to eliminate that which was logical and kept that which tickled his fancy and his feelings.

He's very atypical of the "new" theists who at least have enough common sense to accept the fact of biological evolution. He's a stubborn, arrogant, and ignorant holdout that brings shames on himself.

I hope he hangs around though--and at the very least gains a new respect for analytical thinking.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 09:32:56 AM by gonegolfing »
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2012, 09:32:50 AM »
How far up ones ass must their head go before they willingly pull it out and own the problems that they have created for themselves ?  &)

You mean like this?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2012, 09:33:28 AM »


LOL !!!!

Awesome mate !!
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2012, 10:50:40 AM »
In my OP I stated I come to my conclusion through the process of elimination.

heh.  Let's play the "I got it from the dictionary" game.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elimination
Quote
the act of discharging or excreting waste products from the body

I realize you didn't come to your conclusion by taking a dump.  Probably.  But I hope that illustrates the dangers of relying on the dictionary in a discussion about science.  You will not come to the correct understanding of what the theory is even trying to say going that route.  And if you don't understand it, how can you reject it as false or unscientific?

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #77 on: April 27, 2012, 10:57:41 AM »
I hope you are better than my smiters.  The whole thread has been a debate over terminology.

No, there was no debate over terminology. There was a discussion to determine whether you even know what that terminology is.

The point in my OP is does science have a satisfying answer for the begginging to the end.  How did the universe originate, how did life originate, the whole nine yards.

This is not what was stated or hinted at in your Op. You stated that you eliminated evolution as being possible because it did not seem like a real scientific theory. Which, by the way, we have established are not concepts that you can even properly define to the level of a elementary student. Much less posses knowledge on.

You then stated that evolution was mathematically impossible via your link. Since I was very busy last night I only skimmed it. Now having more time, allow me to point out how epically this link fails.

First and foremost it outright lies in it's claims about the mathematical probability of evolution, Penrose has never made such a calculation or claim. The calculations that it quotes are those that he made regarding the probability of our universe coming into being with our particular set of physical properties. However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent.

The quote that it uses for Penrose is taken out of context from his book. It is in relation to a different set of calculations that he was making, not the ones used above. Also it's use of a creator was a hypothetical creator he was using as an analogy. Not his claim of a real creator (Penrose is an atheist).

Furthermore it also quotes Harun Yahya. However it does so right after it quotes Penrose and never says that it is quoting someone else. This is obviously an attempt to make it look like this is something that Penrose has said as well. Rather than admit that he is now using a quote from an entirely different person.

Harun Yahya is actually better known as Adnan Oktar, an Islamic creationist.

So your link lies, misquotes, quote mines, and misleads, as well as being factually wrong.

The point is however, that you are lying as well with your claim that your link was meant to raise questions about the universe from beginning to end. Nothing you put in the post did that, nor has anything you said since. It was an attempt to use fallacy to make a case for your god. Without bothering to take the time to understand the subject matter.

Now to step into mod mode for a minute.

Can you describe the theory of evolution and scientific theory? What they actually mean, not what you want to think that they mean.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #78 on: April 27, 2012, 11:09:50 AM »
Any discussion about whether or not evolution or any field of science is 'valid' is in its entirety a red herring.

Demonstrating X to be false, doesn't mean that Y is true.

We can give the benefit of the doubt and simple say ok.. all of science is wrong, now HOW is your religious claim correct?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #79 on: April 27, 2012, 11:15:04 AM »
Any discussion about whether or not evolution or any field of science is 'valid' is in its entirety a red herring.

Demonstrating X to be false, doesn't mean that Y is true.

We can give the benefit of the doubt and simple say ok.. all of science is wrong, now HOW is your religious claim correct?
We all know that the answer to that, whatever form it takes, will be "Goddidit, the Bible says so!".
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2012, 03:25:00 PM »
You are right about my knowledge of evolution.  I do actually realize that the Big Bang is separate.  It's just that a certain dogmatic someone gets under my skin.  I didn't realize there was a middle theory between that and evolution.  So it is improper to lump them all together.  However the theories I refer to still exist.  But instead of anyone simply saying what Lucifer said, "There is no such theory, because each theory explains one thing and one thing only. So pick one and we can debate that", we have a huge battle over words.  I guess no one but Lucifer was smart enough to figure this out and simply make a minor correction in my thinking.  I mean it's not like each theory doesn't ride on the back of the other. And all these theories must be true to replace creation unless there are other alternatives.

My study of evolution mostly has been the study of other people's opinions, people much more educated on the subject than I.  If all these theories were as cut and dry as it's supporters act then there would not be so many debates. 

A quick search of "scientific impossibility" immediately brings up topic after topic about evolution.  What?  The keyword evolution is not even in the search!  Which part is unscientific?  Well according to my own knowledge it is not observable, which is part of the scientific method posted above.  In fact, it's the very first step.  Sure some of it can be observed, species have variance.  I guess this is what keeps it scientific.  But the parts that could help end the debate are not.  So you people should not go around and tout it as fact and bash me for not agreeing because like it or not people far more educated in the matter than I believe this also.

Using my simple search I also came up with this:

Quote
From this we can make a short list according to their criteria of what ‘science’ involves.
 
1-Observational data
 
2-Accurate predictions
 
3-Logical
 
4-Open to criticism
 
5-Accurate information

6-No presuppositions

I will skip to #4

Quote
4-Open to criticism
 
The newly released documentary "Expelled" blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.
 
The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple of days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms (he proposed this so that they could be countered!)."

http://creation.com/is-evolution-scientific

I definitely can observe this on this site.  Actually we can't even get to this point.  I can see most, if not all, on this site are not here for truth, but rather only to win debates in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  I wonder how many are lawyers.  I mean I don't say we can't debate the Bible because you don't call God by his real name or that you don't call the OT more correctly the Hebrew scriptures.  It's ridiculous.  Or maybe it's just that Lucifer and I are the only ones smart enough to deduce what people mean.
 
I am even bashed for using process of elimination?  That's absurd.  If A and B are not correct then C, however improbable, must be correct unless there's a D, E, and F.  I believe evolution supporters use this to conclude evolution is correct, at least according to what I have read here so get off your high horses.

But you are right.  I should stick to what I know which is the Bible because the reverse is also true.  In order for all of the evolution, and related theories, to be true then God and the Bible must also be eliminated.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2012, 03:29:17 PM »
Jstwebbrowsing, I'm still waiting for you to choose one single theory to discuss with me. You can pick multiple, of course, but in separate threads. I do not recommend it, though.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2012, 03:38:00 PM »
Why would you want people to debate who are better than your smiters? I don't think you can win an argument that the sun was created on day 4 against a monkey.

The sun was not created on day 4.  The creation of the entire universe is covered in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Everything else is the preparation of the earth for life and the creation of life.




Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #83 on: April 27, 2012, 03:38:56 PM »
Jstwebbrowsing, I'm still waiting for you to choose one single theory to discuss with me. You can pick multiple, of course, but in separate threads. I do not recommend it, though.

Okay we can start with the Bible.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2012, 03:41:13 PM »
Okay we can start with the Bible.

The Bible is composed of approximately 66[1] books. Which topic would you like to address? Its supposed inerrancy? Is there a specific event you had in mind?
You gotta be a little more clear than that.
 1. One more six and...
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #85 on: April 27, 2012, 03:56:51 PM »
With all due respect Jst, I’m trying to figure out exactly what you are saying here. 

So evolution is a lie.  It is a conspiracy?  A worldwide, multigenerational conspiracy to promote the false concept of evolution?  Are ALL scientists involved?  The scientists who study gravity and chemistry and ecosystems?  Are they all in on it?  Or is some science true?  Like the science that tells us that the earth is round and the science that lets us make plastic and the science that tells us that conception occurs when a sperm fertilized an egg?  What about nogodsforme’s example of germs.  Do you believe in the science that bacteria and viruses cause illnesses? 

Or is it just the evolutionary scientists who are in on the conspiracy?  And if so, how are they recruited?  From birth?  Or does a secret worldwide organization pull them out of school and recruit them into the secret world of evolutionary fraud?  How do they keep all of the other, honest scientists from discovering this conspiracy to defraud humanity?

And what is the goal of this frightening movement?

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does the God of the Bible exist
« Reply #86 on: April 27, 2012, 03:59:04 PM »
Okay we can start with the Bible.

The Bible is composed of approximately 66[1] books. Which topic would you like to address? Its supposed inerrancy? Is there a specific event you had in mind?
You gotta be a little more clear than that.
 1. One more six and...

I'm a big fan of Deuteronomy myself.  But all the Books of Moses are so full of content, you are bound to have fun with whichever one you chose.