God vs. Science

quote:

---

That would probably never be forthcoming. Since their concept is based on faith not evidence. To further complicate matters, they cannot understand why we can't see where they are coming from and why we need positive evidence.

---

I know you guys won't take this as real, and there'll probably be around 20 different comments to this, so just don't worry about it. If you want, I'll start a new thread. However, here it is:I feel that the grass is evidence. You and me are evidence. The earth and all the other planets are evidence. The whole universe, its nebulas, galaxies, quasars, are evidence for God. The fact that you are alive, breathing, and reading this message is evidence for God.

quote:

---

No, you don't know these things.

​

You believe them.

​

There's a difference.

---

Oh, just like you don't know evolution happened, you only believe them.

quote:

---

Why is it that you get to claim how God works when something good happens to you, but when something bad happens to other people in spite of their appeals to God, you suddenly claim complete ignorance know how God does anything?

---

How about this?I know how God works.I do not know why God does what He does.

quote:

---

It is an official document which states that the person who's name is on it has completed the requirements that this particular institution of higher education has set for the degree stated on the diploma.

---

A diploma can be forged.

quote:

---

I have an even better story.

​

Christian: god is all powerful and all knowing.
Atheist: can god stomp his own toes?
Christian: well, yes, but I don't think he'd do that.
Atheist: so god can stomp his own toes?

​

Christian begins to cry like a little baby, and scream "stop making fun of my faith."

---

How is that an accurate representation of atheists and christians.Here:Would you want to stomp your toes? So why would God? Yes, God can, but why would he?

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

quote:

---

Oh, look, he's caught an Evolutionist in a giant contradiction!

​

...wait, no he hasn't. You observed the river for all of five days, genius, and every other river has debris flowing down it. Assuming that your river does not ever have debris because of 5 contiguous days of observation is idiotic.

---

Okay, let's put this into context. Lets say that:

1 river = 1 life-supporting planet

1 day = 10 years

​

First, we've only been to three spherical celestial bodies (earth, moon, mars). We've only found life on one. So, we've only observed one 'river'.

​

And, I'd observed the river (remember we've excluded every other river because we only know one world) for five days (or fifty years). Now if an evolutionist saw that this stalactite grew only a half of a centimeter in fifty years, he'd think that the 2-meter-tall stalactite would be 200 years old, right. Yet, I'm not allowed to do that?

​

Sure, using knowledge of other rivers would disprove my theory of that 'watery black hole', but if we ever visit worlds outside of our solar system and if we find life on them, then our knowledge would expand.

​

Now, we know that seasons can affect a river's flow. And those changed quite possibly would put debris into the river. But, if one only observed the river for five days during a calm, debris-free period (and had no knowledge of seasons' effect on rivers), one would think that absolutely nothing floated down the river but fish and water.

​

Who knows if the Milky Way doesn't have seasons? What if it does, but we've only been alive (or recording) for a 'five-day period' and have had no knowledge of these galactic seasons that may have affect on the earth's clock.

​

Personally, I think that a 'galactic season-change' will be here soon (within five years, to be more exact).

​

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Soter

​

Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

quote:

---

What you're saying is identical to claiming the existence of a knife proves Bob killed Jim.

​

The knife alone proves nothing other than a knife exists...especially if Jim was shot, or better yet, is still alive. A knife with Jim's blood, Bob's fingerprints, and a dead Jim would be evidence for Bob killing Jim...but without those bits of evidence, the conclusion from the knife's mere existence is a gigantic non sequitur.

---

Well, if Jim is laying dead with blood still seeping from a knife wound and Bob is the only other person (let's assume that the detectives don't exist), then we could logically assume that Bob killed Jim.I'm saying that Bob killed Jim.You're saying that the wind blew the knife off of the magnetic knife holder, it bounced twice on the counter, went into a toaster which popped up, and threw the knife into Jim who happened to be fixing a bowl of cereal next to the toaster and that Bob never existed.P.S. Jim is dead, because we're alive. I assumed that the death of Jim referred to the beginning of life.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

quote:

---

I can check all of the evidence for Evolution against reality if so choose, using that same method.

---

What happened to the dodo? What is happening to the whales? How come ever since man started to record things, we've only seen species go extinct. We've never seen a new species emerge.So, if species are only going extinct, the farther back in time you go, the more species you'd get. However, according to evolution, everything has descended from a freak accident cell, [i]one single species[i]!So evolutionists can't explain the decreasing species numbers. But I can. The wisest and richest man in the world a long time ago wrote something. He was the guy that had the ability to do anything, have anything, etc. and he realized it was all for rot. Here's what he wrote: Edited by Ichthus, : More information.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

quote:

---

Wow, that was fun! Let me try.

​

Let's say that

​

# My backyard = the entire universe
# 5 minutes (the amount of time I wasted trying to find a point in the post I'm responding to) = the age of the universe

​

I've spent the age of the universe watching the entire universe and saw no sign of the presence of god. Therefore, not only is there no god, I've demonstrated that anyone who thinks there is even any evidence for the existence of god is demonstrably wrong.

---

That's nice, but how does those five minutes have anything to do with anything? My time periods were actually in relation, because somebody tried to put that river with the world, so I expounded. You expounded on nothing. You just pulled numbers out of mid-air.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

quote:

---

A much more interesting question to ask would be how many times do we have to tell a creo that speciation has been observed in a laboratory setting and in the natural world before the creo will stop spreading the falsehood that we've never seen a new species emerge?

---

If new species are emerging, how come we're worried about others going extinct. According to you, these new species are better that the last ones, so shouldn't we be attempting to help evolution create the perfect animal.Just for clarification, humans aren't the perfect animal.

Sorry, I tend to do that.Yes, I admit that microevolution is an inevidable chemical process. However, abiogenesis is not inevitable. It is a huge leap of extreme proportions, just like somebody jumping from the lunar orbiter to the moon (and surviving).

Well, according to evolution, the surviving species/changing species are better. Thus, you have humans, the better form of all of our animal ancestors. Well, humans were the perfect animal, but back then all animals were perfect also. However, when man (and woman) detered from God's plan, we became imperfect.

God gave us the ability to chose to turn away from Him and therefore, be imperfect.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

I'm actually surprised that you didn't argue that scientists have already 'created' life (cloning, genetic engineering, etc.) I was all prepared to break out in a speech about how that's not creating life, but altering it.However, as such that I haven't the need to do so, I'll answer your question.I personally believe that either

science will never be able to do that

​

or

in the time it would take for science to do so, God will have come.

​

However, under the event that science does prove that life could be created from non-living matter, I would probably want to know what the precautions were to make sure the robot sent to Titan (under the extreme case of trying to create life from non-living matter) didn't have any life on it that might mar the experiment.

​

Then, if I was sure that it was correct and science created life, I'm not sure what I'd do. I would probably (actually would) admit that aboigenesis would be possible, but that doesn't prove that the cell(s) created could, in any way, shape, or form, could become something as complex as humans even in hundreds of millions of years.

​

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Soter

​

Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

Yes, but what if there are huge walls that you can't possibly get through between you and the next 'house'? Just like in biology, you could assume that the distances between, say, a chimp and a human as the distance between two houses. However, I'm thinking (THINKING) that there are boundaries that won't allow a chimp to reach the human 'house' because of this giant, impassable wall between the two.Remember Mendel's laws....

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.