glk1: There was no 6 day creation or Noah flood simphi: we take certain things literrally... others spiritually.. etc simphi: for instance... spiritually: god created the earth in 7 periods of time! glk1: There is no 6 periods in earth history simphi: im talking about the creation... it wasnt 6 days then he rested... glk1: There was noi creation. it is mythology simphi: it was 6 periods of time... however long that was? we dont know... but we do know creation happened during that time and evolution simphi: i believe in the big bang glk1: The Bible stories are mythology in Genesis simphi: jesus created the earth simphi: formed the heavens and then the earth simphi: using the elements glk1: The solar system formed naturally 4.55 billion years ago simphi: by god glk1: The big bang was 13.7 billion years ago simphi: you cant create something from nothing glk1: Where did you get that law? simphi: jesus had to use the elements that was there... glk1: That is mythology simphi: even god has to obey the laws of physics and science glk1: Gods are not observed glk1: That is fantasy Servetus: glk3 what makes you an expert on religion? glk3: I have been taught religion by listening to hundreds of preachers, some famous Servetus: glk3 and that makes you an expert Holeweet: ElNooboStupido, then your ideas about God relate only to your own ideas, from your head, and you can accept and reject anything that you wish because you have nothing to be considered a primary necessity, such as written law or scripture to follow Holeweet: ElNooboStupido, again, I base my faith on written documents that were claimed to be written by people blessed and inspired by God. Your faith comes from your mind, completely, and you reject any rules or laws that govern your ideas for faith. I just can't accept that sort of faith, personally ElNooboStu: Holeweet - you base yorus on the claims of other people - while I base mine on the observations and conclusions of my own rational mind.) glk3: People wrote stories about gods. That does not make the stories true Pastor_Mar: God wrote stories about people, that makes em true! Holeweet: otherwise transcendental meditation would have worked for me glk3: The Bible was written by ignorant superstitious people Servetus: glk3 claiming to listen to "teachers" does not make you a religion expert ElNooboStu: Holeweet - as I can no longer believe other mens unproven mystical theories as truth. Pastor_Mar: elnoobostupido? do you believe in the big bang? glk3: I am a physicist and can judge stories about the physical world. Holeweet: ElNooboStupido, you choose to follow a faith that has no foundation, no rules, and no objectivity whatsoever, including history. That's okay, if you can handle that sort of faith. I need more ElNooboStu: Pastor_Mark - explain what you mean by the big bang please. Servetus: glk3 then you are no expert on religion or philosophy are you?." glk3: The big bang was the orgin of the universe 13.7 billion years ago from a very small hot point Holeweet: ElNooboStupido, the big bang theory, about 50 years ago, would have been rejected by 90% of scientists, but now it is accepted by 99% of them...that is the sort of thing that I can grab hold of and the sort of thing that has meaning for me glk3: The earth supposedly goes around the sun Holeweet: ElNooboStupido, it would be nice to hear from you concerning the big bang theory and how it has sort of been an about face from the scientific world over the past 50 years, and why science doesn't admit that they are forced to make an about face from their past ideas of steady state Holeweet: God said in the Holy Bible that a big bang happened glk3: Lemaitre about 1929 proposed an early form of the big bang. glk3: The Hubble discovery of the expanding universe was the science of that time Servetus: glk3 your constantly quiping "No gods are detected" is propaganda, because you repeat them over and over and over and over ad nauseum Holeweet: and what they are now forced to accept is closer to the words of Genesis than any science ever was previously willing to admit glk3: No gods are detected. Feel free to announce a god was observed. glk3: Genesis and other religions have stories of origins Pastor^Mar: isn't there a rule here, against repearting the same thing too many times? Holeweet: glk3, the more that science searches the more science understands the great mathematics of the universe and creation, up to and now including genetics and quantum physics QuietChild: glk3 You made a claim that "No gods are detected." How do you know? Do you know all of eveyones experiences? Holeweet: glk3, it's like the mirror keeps getting cleaner and some scientists keep throwing mud at the mirror glk3: No gods are observed by the science community. feel free to announce you observed gods. QuietChild: glk3 How do you know someone in the science communiy hasnt detected God? Pastor^Mark observes not only God, but his Spirit AND His Son glk3: None have been reported in the professional science literature yet. glk3: I am old and wise glk3: I claim gods have not been observed by the science community yet QuietChild: glk3 How do you know that the sceince community hasnt detected God, or someone in it at least? glk3: They have not been reported in science journals yet. Holeweet: Scientists are now chatting about 11 dimensions, one of these dimensions able to demonstrate how God can hear everyone at the same time and answer all of our prayers in one instant along our timeline, and it wasn't even Christian science that brought about the potential for these extra dimensions. Similarly, it wasn't even Christian scientists who initiated the potential of a big bang. This tells me that yes there remain scientists w Pastor^Mar: I promise i'll not belabour it anymore than he does.. okay? glk3: Science models do not include god stories. QuietChild: glk3 give me a reason a scientist would report a theological event in a science journal Holeweet: glk3, only because any scientist who would be crazy enough to say "God" would be ostricized glk3: Lemaitre was a Catholic priest/scientist Servetus: glk3 exactly, you are talking science, not religoin Holeweet: glk3, if a scientists wants to lose both his job and his credibility all that he has to do is say "God did it" and that's the end of the matter. It is little wonder why some scientists are not prepared to do this, even if reason dictates the fact SageRider: In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” glk3: Scientists long ago incliuded Bible assumptions, like the Noah flood and fixed species and creation. These were eliminated in the 1800s as more and better data was discovered Holeweet: SageRider, the question isn't, did this happen, the question is why other scientists didn't jump on it and follow the idea Holeweet: The answer for this is clearly that they would have been committing professional suicide SageRider wonders what the difference is between the Big Bang and "let there be light" glk3: Lemaitre proposed an initial world egg, like a big atomic nucleus was the origin. glk3: The Bible has no light until the earth formed Holeweet: SageRider, that's a question I'd love any scientist to answer Q___: SageRider: the Big Bang as proposed is a natural occurrence. "let there be light" is a purported supernatural occurrence. Holeweet: What's the difference between a "big bang" and a "creation" glk3: Light was a product of the early big bang Pastor^Mar: oh yes.. all known matter popping out of nothing for no reason is much more credible, that God causing it QuietChild: glk3 Sorry, but science is,even today, realising the truth in religion, more and more will. Holeweet: was there a "late" big bang Q___: Pastor^Mark: oh yes, all known matter popping out of nothing because some mysterious being went "POOF!" sure glk3: They do ntot know the origin of the big bang, Nothing thinkable describes the origin glk3: What truth in religion? List them? Servetus: Big Bang theories don't disprove the existence of God glk3: Gods are outside of all science so science ignores all gods. glk3: Atomic decay is not caused Q___: Servetus: that is true. there is a possibility of a creator being. it is not likely, but not impossible. glk3: Cause assumes laws and a time sequence Q___: Pastor^Mark: science doesn't know how the universe began. This does not imply that a supernatural being did it. Pastor^Mar: Q, the Big Bang is an uncaused event, Diviner Creation is much more rational as a CAUSED event glk3: no data supports any gods doing anything in the physical world SageRider: glk3 cause no one has invented a God detecting machine yet glk3: No gods are included in any science model. QuietChild: glk3 data does support that Holeweet: glk3, the very word, God, demands faith, so your argument is mute SageRider: and never will glk3: They only add complexity pastorofmu: Holeweet; god does not reside in a higher physical dimension. QuietChild: glk more data supports creation by God than a naturalistic event glk3: Gods are not the default explanation for a science mystery Q___: Pastor^Mark: not knowing what caused the big bang does not imply that a supernatural creator god did it Holeweet: glk3, then don't use the term, Gods glk3: List data supporting gods and their creation glk3: List science data supporting any gods glk3: People keep tellimg me gods did things Q___: QuietChild: the fact that no one knows how the universe began means "we don't know how the universe began." Servetus: glk3 list anyone that observed the big bang glk3: Thge results of the bb are widely observed in the cosmic background radiation, the expanding universe and the ratio of light isotopes. Holeweet: pastorofmuppets, that isn't even a choice from my Christian perspective Pastor^Mar: so WHY does Science assume that the very origins of all matter is an UNCAUSED event??? glk3: Cause assumes laws and a time sequence glk3: Laws and time are a product of the universe. Servetus: glk3 who observed the big bang to assume those are evidences of the big bang? Q___: Pastor^Mark: I don't know what makes you believe that science assumes that. Scientists do not know what caused the big bang (or, the beginning of the universe, if you prefer). That does not imply that there was NO cause. It simply means they don't know. glk3: The expanding universe was the initial evidence for the big bang Servetus: how do you know it was the result of the bb and not something else? pastorofmu: you're a committed christian. how can you possibly say that you're objective. Servetus: like "pressure" from two colliding planes? glk3: God stories have no predictive value and are worthless to science Pastor^Mar: Science cannot even conceive of a cause for the Big Bang... sounds fairly uncaused to me! Servetus: God stories are religoin, not meant to be science Q___: QuietChild: the bible is not evidence; it is testimony. Evidence would be physical, testable events or information, etc. It is basically the same as Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion's myths. glk3: Cause assumes laws and time sequences Holeweet: the question is this, does "scientific discovery" seem to be gravitating towards what the faith idea of scripture has been saying all along Servetus: who observed the big bang? glk3: No science points toward scripture claims Holeweet: science, as it moves, seems to be verifying what these prophets and writers of scripture have been saying all along Q___: Servetus: no one. we observe its physical remnants. Holeweet: including "big bangs" Pastor^Mar: well, Q.. untill they figure it out, I'll stick with the rational answer, an intellegent cause glk3: The results of the bb are observed. That is how science works Holeweet: and the idea that this universe is one mathematical creation from a Divine Being called God glk3: What science agrees with the Bible stories? Holeweet: DNA carries this verification even further Servetus: Q___ how do we KNOW we are observing it's physical remnants and not the renmants of something else? QuietChild: Q___ Then I suggest you rethink evidence, there are many types of evidence, all are valid if used properly. The bible IS Empirical evindece since it is based on the observations of a number of people. The test is in the documents claims and those of other sources glk3: That is not science, claims of gods. Holeweet: and I'm sure that it will just continue as it has been for the past 20 years Q___: Pastor^Mark: a hindu could just as easily say "until they figure it out, I'll stick with my story of Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu as the most likely explanation." Hindus would base that conclusion on the same evidence as you do yours, and you cannot refute their claim. Holeweet: science verifying the ancient message of God in scripture glk3: The Bible has stories, some are historical glk3: What science validated what Bible story? Holeweet: glk, I give you credit for being able to at least admit that some of the Biblical stories are actually historical Pastor^Mar: actually the hindu creation story is fairly silly, and does not fit with observed reality Holeweet: glk3, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, barashith bara elohim et hashamyim veet haarits QuietChild: Q___ Answer this, you seem to want to rely on scientific methods as the sole basis of emperical knowledge. If so, that what is your emperical basis for verification of the Scientific methodology you are wanting to use? glk3: The universe was 9 billion years old before the solar system formed Q___: Servetus: ask glk3: he's the physicist. The fact is that what we observe does NOT indicate a supernatural being. At least not so far glk3: Genesis has no sun stars or light until after earth formed Pastor^Mar: if glk's a physicist, he's got to be the most boring one i've ever seen glk3: Science has a long record for making accurate predictions. Religion does not Servetus: Nobody observed the Big Bang , therefore it is conjecture to assume these "evidences" are a result of a Big Bang Q___: Pastor^Mark: really? and a supernatural creator god simply making everything out of nothing "fits with observed reality?" No supernatural occurrences whatsoever are observed in nature. There is no evidence beyond biblical testimony for a supernatural creator god. Unless you happen to have some. Please share it if you do. Servetus: how do you know it was the result of the bb and not something else?t Servetus: glk3 how do you know the results you refer to are results of the bb and not something else? Q___: QuietChild: repeat the question more specifically, please. What "verification of the scientific methodology" are you referring to? Holeweet: Akonyte, I think some scientists out there are more willing to believe that Jupiter "did" do that than believe that Genesis is actually scientific in the first few lines glk3: That is the best science can offer presently Servetus: glk3 that is based on fantasy, nobody observed the big bang Holeweet: glk, you can tell us here what the best of science can do? glk3: No physical evidence supports Genesis glk3: Genesis has earth before sun stars and light Holeweet: glk, the first few lines of the Bible completely supports the common understanding of creation as seen today glk3: Genesis has modern plants before sun moon and stars Holeweet: In the beginning the heavens and the earth "were created" Servetus: Genesis has the earth being REVEALED before the Sun , Stars and moon Holeweet: the word, created, proves this beyond a doubt glk3: The Bible totally disagrees with the science version of events. CancelBot 2 Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. CancelBot 2 Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. CancelBot 2 Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Holeweet: no matter how you think it came about, the word "created" is now a fact glk3: There were stars long before the solar system formed QuietChild: Q___ You place your faith in the results of scientific experimentation. You claime that is all you would use, if I inferred correctly. How do you verify the scienific method? What is the verificaion process? We do know that what they find is constantly changing Holeweet: God told us this thousands of years ago via Moses Servetus: glk3 no there weren't glk3: The science method has hundreds of years of good predictions Holeweet: Some still struggle over it primarily because it is no longer a matter of "what" but a matter of "how" and that all boils down, not to science, but to faith glk3: The earth is NOT older then sun stars and light glk3: Modern plants are not older then sun moon and stars glk3: Animals and people without parents is mythology crucis: science can't even predict tomorrows weather very accurately, at least no more so than 50 years ago. glk3: Science works with observations. None support gods. QuietChild: glk3 false Servetus: glk3 who observed the big bang ? Holeweet: crucis, I have complete faith in many scientific teachings. I believe fully that science is accurate about the big bang, they just don't quite know how to explain it Servetus: Big bangs are not observed glk3: The weather has been predicted very well over about 5 days Holeweet: they know it happened, measurements prove that beyond a doubt crucis: big bang is not science glk3: No parallel between Genesis and science exists except both thave a beginning Servetus: big bangs are not observed glk3: The earth is not older then sun stars and light crucis: science does great when it sticks to observing Holeweet: everything measures out to be exactly like an explosion Holeweet: a big bang, a creation crucis: Faith does great when it sticks to hearing glk3: Modern plants are not older then the moon sun and stars rogerik: nutrenos are not observed either. Their presence is inductivly determined glk3: The big bang eas inflation of space. crucis: ah science is made for the eye and faith for the ear. Holeweet: glk3, now you are jumping into subjectivity glk3: There was no Noah flood rogerik: glk3, actually, therir might have been glk3: Genesis has all life in 6 days. t rogerik: When the med. sea burst though the strip of land by Istanbul glk3: Science has 3.5 billion years of life, starting with bacteria Holeweet: glk3, you are telling us that rain was normal for billions of years crucis: every found society has a flood and boat story, evidence of a single account gotten changed somewhat rogerik: I dunno. The flooding of the entire reigon of the black sea is pretty major. glk3: The filling of the Black Sea was not the Noah flood, which involved rain and eventually went away and covered all the high mountains glk3: No physical evidence supports a Noah flood. there is no water to flood the earth Servetus: pastorofmuppets the bible says "great flood"? glk3: Early cultures lived in river valleys glk3: The Ararat range is 17,000 feet high glk3: There are 420,000 yearly ice layers in antarctica xists to cover the earth glk3: No date fits the story. Bible chronology makes the flood 2300 BC Mennonite_: so... you guys discussing the flood story of Genesis? glk3: The atmosphere can hold one inch of water vapor glk3: There is no place in ther earth for miles of water glk3: Egyptians never noticed the flood Servetus: Egyptians were living too war away e inspired word of god. god is thus inconsistent? doesn't make sense, does it? But you folks choose to overlook that because you want to believe. Yet you call scientists "BIASED?" Come on now ... glk3: Science is self correcting glk3: The Bible has a fire breathing leviathan Q___: Holeweet: first, the influence of god is purported, not known. second, the fact that the gospels are so inconsistent is strong circumstantial evidence that the gospel writers were oblivious to facts and were writing the story the way they wanted to communicate a certain message that they wanted people to believe. Nowadays we have a word for this: propaganda. Mennonite_: glk: and you know this become some atheist researcher did your homework for you? glk3: The Bible has many errors. Servetus: science has many errors Mennonite_: glk: I have read 1st Century literature by early church fathers and they quote extensively from the scriptures, including the gospels... these authors wrote from all over the middle east area... quoting stories they held in common... the gospels crucis: rogerik He has dealt with it primarily at Calvary Q___: Holeweet: the gospels are inconsistent. there are extensive lists of the inconsistensies. Check them out :) glk3: Science has methods for detecting and correcting lies and errors. Holeweet: the differences are exactly what one might expect from 4 witnesses to an accident Holeweet: and that is exactly what has been seen in eye witness accounts of crimes and things of that sort Holeweet: The Gospel accounts are so perfectly innocently accurate, with the imperfections, that they can't be denied because they are just so real Mennonite_: science is its own unobjective area of belief. Every scientist is not as objective as it claims to be. glk3: The more they disagree, the more valid they are? glk3: Science is self correcting and works very well pastorofmu: Holeweet: so, because something is imperfect, we should believe it more. Holeweet: the gospels use that as an account to teach as story Q___: Holeweet: the "family tree" of jesus is different in the gospels. that is not a difference of "eyewitness account." the gospel writers simply wanted to show that there was a connection between jesus and other biblical figures. they didn't care about the "little details" of all the others on the way. They had a foregone conclusion and simply wrote to convince people of it. Again, this is propaganda, not verifiable, honest communication. Mennonite_: For someone who doesn't believe, the bible is a book with many inconcistencies... to one who has been gifted with faith... it is our story, a more truthful story that one can find elsewhere... a story about our Identity and our God. crucis: roger your conclusion assumes that God lost his battle with evil just because in His timing he has not put an immediate end to it rogerik: However, to have the future accounted for requires a lack of free will Holeweet: pastor, yes, that is exactly why many lawyers and judges accept eye witness accounts and reject others glk3: Many innocent people went to prison based on eye witnesses glk3: There is no physical trace of a Noah flood glk3: No geology or history book has a Noah flood glk3: No water exists to flood the earth Mennonite_: glk: I have heard of scientific evidence that does show the likely possiblitiy of a large flood, although not global glk3: No physical trace of a Noah flood is found anywherer glk3: large local flodod in river valleys are known glk3: The south pole ice cap has 420,000 yearly layers *** Signoff: Synaesthesia_ (Quit: So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? ) crucis: rogerik He did IN His Son. And soon all creation will be taken up into His Son excepting the rejecters. glk3: trees far older then the flood story are still alive rogerik: But why wait however long he did and let evil exist? Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, I'd say if one is looking to prove Noah before accepting Christ as an atonement for their sin, then even the atonement probably won't come if Noah is proven to them no-euro: Servetus: his last two statements are false. Servetus: no-euro even if they were, they prove little Q___: Mennonite_Pacifist: you apparently believe that reality changes once you "believe." This is not observed. Your "heart" or "way of thinking" may change after you come to "believe" but reality remains unchanged. You simply think differently. Reality is unaffected by how we think about it. Sorry. That's just a fact. glk3: No physical evidence anywhere on earth shows a noah flood Holeweet: That would be like saying, I'll love you if you give me treats rogerik: So, God has a divine plan? Holeweet: For some reason I just don't think that sort of love is genuine no-euro: SageRider: If they were, it proves that the earth is older than 6000 years and that the flood did not happen 4,400 years ago. glk3: The arctic tundra is still frozen Q___: SageRider: silly, eh? but some tell me that a mysterious supernatural being just went POOF! and created the universe. Talk about "silly ...!" Servetus: "unicorn" is a quirk of translation, not the hebrew Servetus: glk3 yes? so? Holeweet: rogerik, if God doesn't have a plan then nobody does rogerik: Good. rogerik: Thank you Mennonite_: Holeweet: arguing with someone who doesn't believe in God is tricky... because the things you and I take as evidence for God... are not things that a non-believer considers as evidence... same with biblical interpretation... a non-believer looks at the bible without the eyes of faith... wich changes wholly the reading of ti Mennonite_: it glk3: Galaxies 12 billion light years away are observed rogerik: took long enough to get here. Akonyte: there is a species of rhino called the unicorn no-euro: Servetus: Those layers turn out not to be annual, so you can work out what that means. crucis: rogerik umm God has a plan all right, nothing happens that can trip up his intentions rogerik: IF god has a divine plan, he knows the future? Servetus: glk3 I've seen nothing that shows the Noah flood did not take place Q___: Mennonite_Pacifist: evidence is either conclusive or not. that you may happen to "take" it as "conclusive" does not mean it is. Just saying "I believe" does not change the reality around us. No matter what you happen to think. crucis: rogerik Yes he has ordained the future as well as knows it SageRider: Q___ it is more rational to believe in a Creator than to believe it all just fell into place.....how many times can you drop wood mortar and nails from a crane....and have it form a house glk3: The total lack of water to flood the earth is adequate to refute the flood Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, well, if I had that as a difficulty then it would be me who was thinking that I had something to do with this person's salvation and not God, now wouldn't it. I'm a believer in God's sovereignty, completely, so I don't have that problem rogerik: OK. So all of your actions and mine are already known to him? Servetus: glk3 who said anything about flooding the entire earth? glk3: The fact no physical evidence supports the flood is adequate to refute the flodo Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, nothing I do will ever save anyone glk3: All the high mountains were covered, specifically the Ararat range., All life outside of the Arkl died crucis: rogerik yes Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, if God wants to use me, He will rogerik: So if I do good, I am acting in accordance with the way god knows I will act and wants me to act? Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, if I blow it, or do something idiotic, God will brush me away and work it out in another way Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, in other words, God doesn't need me glk3: The Ararat range is 17,000 feet high Holeweet: Mennonite_Pacifist, and He doesn't need you either Mennonite_: Q____ you are quite perceptive... that is exactly what I believe... faith changes reality... it gives us a more truthful picture of God's creation. no-euro: Servetus: Just remember that all of these things he comes up with aren't proofs, but are just one slanted intepretation on forensic findings. eg. the ice layers, the assumption is that they are annual, therefore the interpretation is that there is at least over 400,000 years of history; when in reality, no-one has counted those many individual layers, and they turn out not to be annual anyway. Q___: SageRider: there is no evidence for a creator, nor is there any evidence for "supernatural" occurrences. They don't happen. So, assuming that a mysterious supernatural creator god "created" the universe is a position that is without any evidence whatsoever. YOUR book says one god did it; the Hindus have their book with a different story, and so on for all the religions. None can be disproven, since none are based on verifiable facts. glk3: It would take 2.5 ocean volumes to flood all the earth crucis: rogerik as a fallen human being you cannot do good according to Divine Standards of goodness Servetus: glk3 so what how high they are? glk3: Everest is 29,000 feet hith. Ararat is 17,000 feet high Servetus: glk3 you mean to flood the entire earth above all the mountain peeks of the earth Q___: Mennonite_Pacifist: unfortunately, reality is not changed by how you think about it. Just doesn't happen. Sorry. That you "believe" it does simply means you are blinding yourself to reality in order to hold on to a world-view that you have become committed to. This is the danger of religious thinking in a nutshell :) glk3: Thewre is one inch of water vapor in the atmosphere Servetus: glk3 I think part of the problem is your literal reading of the account Mennonite_: Q___: actually you cannot prove that my understanding of reality is more faulty than yours... no-euro: Servetus: That's no problem - the Bible tells us that the water came from within the earth, and that after the flood, "the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down and the water ran off into the low places" therefore the flood waters that once covered all the earth are now the present day seas. glk3: There is no water source under the earth to flood the earth. Mountains do nto rise suddenly Holeweet: Q___reality isn't changed by how we think about it? If God inspires me to do this or that, my reality changes because God is directing me for this or that reason, and surely my reality will change, won't it? Q___: Mennonite_Pacifist: well, I can. There is no evidence for a supernatural creator god, thus it is irrational to assume that there was or is one. Your thinking is faulty no-euro: glk3: there isn't NOW ;) glk3: mountains are caused by continental crustal plates colliding and inch a year no-euro: glk3: and they don't rise suddenly today. Q___: Holeweet: what god? how do you KNOW for a fact that there is a god? you don't; you just assume there is. But reality itself is not changed by your assumption. It just isn't. Holeweet: Q___, what evidence would you accept? crucis: glk that is assuming the earth has been under the same conditions for thousands of years Holeweet: Q___, I'd like to know what evidence you would actually accept no-euro: but back then, God caused them to rise up and sink down rather quickly, over a matter of months. glk3: The same laws of nature exist now as before Q___: Holeweet: verifiable evidence Mennonite_: Q____: you are right... faith changes one's reality so much that people willingly die for their fiath... ie. martyrs... but, sadly and mistakenly I think, some also think that their new perception of reality can justify them killing someone... I think this is indefensible from a Christian perspective. thus me being a pacifist. Holeweet: put it back into my court, where God is everywhere in my life because I choose to accept His rule Q___: Holeweet: it's YOUR claim. so, convince me with your best evidence. shoot! I'm listening Holeweet: Q___, the problem that you face is exactly that Mennonite_: Q___: yet I believe in God... and so if you want me to not.. or if you want to disprove him.. you are left with a logical impossibility no-euro: glk3: well I'm sure they do, except God has stepped into history to shape this planet, not least the actual creation week itself :) Holeweet: you keep putting God back into the other's court glk3: God stories can save any fantasy Q___: Mennonite_Pacifist: your phrase "perception of reality" tells all. Reality doesn't change; only one's perception of it does. That is the great danger you represent. no-euro: glk3: well, you're not making any dent in the Bible for us, we actually love real and demonstrable science, because it supports scripture. glk3: Demonstrate any science to support these wild stories Q___: Holeweet:I could claim that a great universal force became manifest in the bodies of ancient gods and those gods dipped a sword into the swirling oceans below. the resulting foam congealed into solid masses that became the land and then humanity descended from the offspring of the gods and peopled the land. OK, what evidence would satisfy you that that was a true story? crucis: chance stories can save any delusion Mennonite_: Q____: no.. you are... all we have is perception of reality... the thing is that you think you have slipt out of your particular human skin and have entered into the objective realm... but in reality all you have is your own particular perception of reality that is shaped by things just as much as mine is shaped by faith... don't think you have elevated yourself beyond perception.. then you have cut the only eyes that Holeweet: glk3, science is your god, no matter what God would give you, and that's probably why God isn't giving you anything glk3: I am a physicist. You are not. I have 50 years science experience. You do not. Policastre: There is no demonstratable science to contradict evolution. All the creationists have is pseudo-science, myths, and fables. Holeweet: glk, and 50 years of that has apparently not satisfied you. Hint hint glk3: Give any science observations to support your wild Bible stories Holeweet: glk, you are just so passionate for a scientist, you blow your cover by your attitude glk3: My facts stand no-euro: glk3: The thing is, you've got a brain to be able to think, like the rest of us - you are no more intelligent in that way. But what you've done is that you've entered into a form of 'scientism' which is really a knowledge filter, that you have a set series of beliefs about history, and that you filter everything through that set of beliefs, in order to arrive at a predetermined overall conclusion. Holeweet: glk, someone in your life has done you wrong and they happened to call themself a no-euro: glk3: other than that, you're intelligent like the rest of us. glk3: Not a single one of my facts has been refuted by your faith stories. no-euro: glk3: no, its not, there is no proof either way, and we both operate on belief systems. glk3: Give facts. I ignore emotions, insults and faith claims Holeweet: glk, you ignore emotions? glk3: All science so far refutes these Genesis Bible stories glk3: You have given absolutely NO physical evidence for your Genesis stories Holeweet: glk, you sound like a teenager, how can you be over 50 glk3: I am 71. glk3: Refute my facts Holeweet: wow, I certainly respect that age no-euro: glk3: the fact is we are here, the earth is here, we can observe what we see NOW, but we cannot demonstrate how it got here, because that was back THEN. Therefore, anything that man say happened back then is ultimately a nice guess (simply because we can't witness the past). As Christians, we believe the record that God has given to us, and accept it on faith. glk3: My science reference supports Genesis stories Holeweet: I respect your right to believe anything you wish glk Holeweet: you've been around alot longer than most of us here glk3: Science is far more than a guess. it is vast data from thousands of scientists making millions of observations glk3: You have presented zero evidence for your Genesis stories. glk3: No science or history reference agrees with your Genesis stories Holeweet: glk, then you certainly have a right, as one who is 71, to reject God, and even country, wife, children, and anything else you choose to reject. You've had a long time to think about it no-euro: glk3: yes, the hard sciences of today are, ie. demonstrable with experiment today such as working with things that happen all the time like gravity. But the distant past is another matter, and ultimately whatever theory a man comes up with, its a nice guess and can't be shown. glk3: No gods are detected. I reject all of them glk3: They use physical evidence to understand the distant past glk3: That is how oil companies find oil glk3: Astronomer can directly observe galaxies 12 billion years old no-euro: glk3: Yet we as Christians have accepted the message handed to us and we believe it. We believe that God made all that there is and that he is the ultimate mind behind life and the universe, and we praise him for it. glk3: When your preachers start finding oil fields, like standard geologists do, they are left in the dust of history no-euro: glk3; thats got nothing to do with it no-euro: science works well glk3: You have chosen to believe some stories written long ago by ignorant superstitious people no-euro: so, we stick with real science. Electric_S: lol, a creationist talking about 'real science'. glk3: God stories vary greatly and NONE have any predictive value no-euro: we don't believe that they were ignorant, we believe that they were closer to the source than us Holeweet: glk3, the apostles I have chosen not to call ignorant no-euro: glk3: nor does molecules to man evolution Holeweet: glk3, the writers of the entire Bible, I have chosen, by faith, not to call ignorant glk3: The earth had molecules before life developed 3.5 billion years ago. After bacteria, ther were life forms, multicewll life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mamamls. primates man no-euro: Holeweet: I am so much more knowledgeable about answers to these objections to the Bible today, I really thank the Lord that he has provided the answers and shown them to me through those who actually do the research. :) Holeweet: glk3, it's okay with me if you choose to reject that and not believe, but if you keep calling those people who I have chosen to believe in as ignorant, then I'm going to forget your age glk3: That is molecules to man no-euro: glk3: thats a nice story no-euro: glk3: I can see that down my local museum. glk3: faith is belief without evidence glk3: If you are not ignorant, show your knowledge Holeweet: glk3, ok, here we go no-euro: glk3: but its all on the signs on the walls. no-euro: a nice story no-euro: its not whats actually in the display cases Holeweet: glk, do you have faith in anything? no-euro: so, really, they tell a nice story no-euro: but its a just-so story. glk3: The whole of the fossil record supports evolution Holeweet: glk, do you have "faith" in anything no-euro: and we take it with a large pinch of salt. glk3: Not a single science fact refutes evolution glk3: You have no external evidence for your faith claims no-euro: nothing in science demonstrates it either :) Holeweet: glk, guess what, I don't believe that you are 71 years old glk3: All science so far supports evolution. There are whole sections of the libraries with evolution evidence. no-euro: Holeweet: no, he is that old, but he's hardened his heart greatly, I just its not too late for him. glk3: Evolution has been validated Electric_S: i wish there were more creationists. glk3: No observation over the whole earth so far refutes the fact of evolution no-euro: glk: there are whole sections in the library, its called the fiction section. :) glk3: Go study the earth itself. Collect fossils. None refute evolution glk3: Geological Periods of the Earth. glk3: Pre-Cambrian,(Archean, and Proterozoic), glk3: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, glk3: Pennsylvanian, Permian,/ Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous,/ Tertiary, Quaternary glk3: Science won over 100 years ago no-euro: glk3: science did win, fortunately evolutionism isnt science :) and so most people believe in creation of some kind :) glk3: You can quote no science reference that says evolution is not science.. you are quoting preachers only glk3: The US Federal Courts have ruled evolution is valid science. no-euro: glk3: wow, it must be true then. glk3: The science community agrees evolution is valid science. The only opposition is from religions no-euro: evolutionists would be the first to complain about appeals to the majority :) Mennonite_: crucis: two kingdom theology is overrated. glk3: Religion has no record for making accurate claims about the physical universe. no-euro: not as much as evolutionism does :) glk3: The sum of all science experts are authorities. glk3: That is a valid appeal to authorities, as they have more knowledge than any other group. glk3: You can give no data to refute the fact of evolution no-euro: All of this actually strengthens my faith, I used to be wary of talking about this because I didn't have the answers to what seemed like very sophisticated attacks, but now I realise that this evolutionism is actually nothing more but a made up story to ultimately please the philosophical ideology of those heavily pushing it, and I find myself feeling sorry, especially for those people who are so indoctrinated today by this mindse no-euro: I wonder what percentage of scientists are actually working in the field of evolution. Holeweet: so you just post things without reading them? no-euro: And then of course, they have a vested interest to push evolution. glk3: All science is man made. Evolution is fully validated by all observations so far. Holeweet: why do you post them then no-euro: They aren't out to demonstrate anything that shows even an inkling of design. glk3: You could also claim heliocentric astronomy is a made up story no-euro: so, we can look out and see it going on now, glk. no-euro: we cant look into the distant past and directly see what happened. Policastre: no-euro - Oh right, the 'vested interest' -- because of that vast atheist conspiracy to rebel against God; somehow this angle always seems to slip our minds. glk3: You have given not a single science observation to refute the fact of evolution no-euro: thats the difference between these studies, but many evolutionists don't get it, or don't want to get it. Holeweet: the big bang refutes it Holeweet: evolution demanded a steady state glk3: Since you are not a scientist, your opinions on the matter have no science authority glk3: Give any science data to refute the fact of evolution Holeweet: how did the eye come about Holeweet: why did the eye evolve? Holeweet: the eye needs every single component Holeweet: to work glk3: The big bang is the origin of the universe. Evolution involves living systems Holeweet: irreducible complexity no-euro: Policastrello: no, there isn't a vast conspiracy, it's just a convenient philosophy that has caught the imagination of the Establishment as a whole. glk3: Give facts supporting IC Holeweet: how to you work that one out glk, perhaps in the same way that you post treatises by people you haven't even read on your web site glk3: Eyes evolved many different times in many different species glk3: Light sensitivity has survival value Holeweet: glk, I'm sure you have a paper about that on your web site as well SageRider: Charles Darwin, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances...could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Holeweet: the problem is, you probably don't remember who wrote it glk3: Eyes from sensitive spots to complex systems each has survival value glk3: Then Darwin give stages of eye evolution Holeweet: glk, gimmee a break, irreducable complexity doesn't begin and end with the eye glk3: read his book. Holeweet: glk, Darwin had nightmares about the eye glk3: There is no observed exampe of IC no-euro: glk3: no, its far too complex. Holeweet: glk, that was one of his enemies no-euro: glk3; you must have alot of faith to believe that such things can happen :) glk3: Darwin explained stages of eye evolution. read his book Holeweet: Darwin's hate for the eye isn't new, it's history Holeweet: and I respect Darwin for at least admitting that glk3: These things obey all the laws of nature.That takes no leap of faith no-euro: Darwin made up a story, he never saw it happen, he certainly didnt know how COMPLEX cells actually are - far more complex than the most complex machine that man has EVER made. He thought that a cell was just a blob of plasm with a nucleus :) no-euro: So, lets not refer to the 'wisdom' of Darwin. :) glk3: God stories have no science value and only add complexity no-euro: life is incredibly complex Mennonite_: glk: you sound like a broken record... glk3: Darwin was the greatest scientist of the 19th century. Holeweet: glk, it is clear to me that you really don't like God for one reason or another, but if has nothing to do with rationality, it is a faith based decision that you have made primarily because of something that has happened to you in the past Policastre: crucis - Put the weapon in whomever's hand you wish -- State or individual, my comment does not change. no-euro: more complex than the most complex thing, even anything man has made. glk3: He saw physical evidence for changes in life over great time glk3: I ignore all gods. no-euro: think of computers, the space shuttle - all of those things PALE in comparison to how unbelievably complex living cells are. no-euro: Yet you want to think they came about non-intelligently :) glk3: No science notes any gods doing anything. no-euro: we cant see God no-euro: we see the results of his handiwork no-euro: so we believe Holeweet: glk, the thing that bugs me about your past experience isn't that you don't have a right to believe what you want, but that you are trying to sway others from what I personally consider to be the only "really" important thing in existence no-euro: pretty straightforward. glk3: God stories add no predictive value and only add complexity Akonyte: no-euro if your belief brings you peace in your life, good for you! Holeweet: and I don't give a hoot how old you are, I'm gonna fight you on it glk3: I try to educate others with 21 century science no-euro: we start with complexity, glk, obviously it was intelligently made :) glk3: Where is any intelligence in nature making complexity no-euro: you cant see him Holeweet: glk, you try to sway others with ancient history in science no-euro: you see his handiwork no-euro: thats why we believe no-euro: its pretty straightforward glk3: No gods are noted in science subjects. Holeweet: glk, have you ever followed the trend of quantum physics? Akonyte: glk3 Hobbits aren;t either, but we still enjoy them :) glk3: Science studies modern things and things going back 13.7 billion years ago glk3: I study quantum mechanics Holeweet: glk, do you believe that a 4th or 5th dimension "might" exist Holeweet: glk, that's encouraging no-euro: but is glk were being really honest, he would admit that the reason he doesn't want to accept even the possibility that life was intelligently caused is because of his unwillingness to be subject to this intelligence, who would, ultimately at some point, be God. glk3: As many as 11 dimensions could exist Holeweet: glk, can you explain it a bit for me Holeweet: glk, I said that earlier on Holeweet: glk, tell me a bit about it, just so I know you are not fibbing, if you would be so kind glk3: No gads doing magic tricks in nature is detected. That is why it is not part of modern science Holeweet: glk3, magic tricks, so the particle accelerator now being built in europe is to create a magic trick? glk3: People with little or no science ducation try to educate me on science. Holeweet: glk, so you alone are the scientist glk3: I am the only one here tonight. Thousands of scientists live out there in the world Holeweet: glk, you are the wizard and all of these new scientists are the slaves? Akonyte: hey, I'm friends with two scientists! Akonyte: that should count for something glk3: I am well educated in these matters from decades of experience and study Holeweet: glk, and you, by ignoring quantum mechanics, are saying that they are all magicians glk3: Quantum mechanics works very well. glk3: I do not ignore it Holeweet: glk, you are essentially saying that the new breed of scientist out here today who packs the auditorium listening to the teachings of science today are idiots? Holeweet: glk, what do you say about it then no-euro: its interesting to note that the SETI people are searching for evidence of intelligence in deep space by some simple patterns of signals, and they consider this as a good measure for intelligent life being responsible without actually having to see these extraterrestrials. Yet when they apply this to the cell and the incredibly complex messages and codes therein, it automatically becomes a result of nature! lol Holeweet: does it have an ounce of credibility? glk3: Modern science works very well . None uses God stories for anything. glk3: Cells do not generate pri3me numbers or sine waves Holeweet: glk3, perhaps because even the term God doesn't need to exist, it is so strongly implied, as in DNA structuring itself glk3: Complexity is not equal to intelligent design crucis: Complexity renders chance nearly impossible though Holeweet: Q___, I'm rejecting the rejection of the one who ignores the bursting flower of science no-euro: Akonyte: then show me the difference. glk3: As i said before, religious people keep trying to educate me on science, from faith stories. glk3: No science supports gods or creation at all Holeweet: strongly implying a divine creator Policastre: It is a priori argument to suggest that any kind of complexity is a sign of intelligent design. Since this is the positive claim made by creationists, they have the onus to present a posteriori argument. glk3: Preachers keep making that claim to link their failed system to working successful science. Holeweet: Q___, I don't need math or science to prove that my faith is worthwhile, I'd believe it if we were still in the dark ages. I'm just chuckling that even the unfaithful can't see the trend Holeweet: I know I'm not going to convince you guys Holeweet: I'm just enjoying the game glk3: Faith can have emotional value independent of the validty of the idea. glk3: Look at all the diffferent religions and gods Holeweet: I hope that God will choose you one day crucis: they simply show the odds of a complex entity such as an eye to form by itself and it is astronomically against any reasonable chance that it is worse than blind faith to go with chance. glk3: You need to give more than faith claims to change my opinion Policastre: crucis - Probability has absolutly nothing to do with evolution -- that is a red herring introduced creationists who do not understand that which they oppose. Q___: Holeweet: scientists don't "chuckle" at people who believe things for no reason or who assume things to be a certain way because they "like" that way. Scientists just ignore such people and go on with their important work. Unfortunately, such religious people have insisted that the rest of us respect their myths whether we want to or not, and so we are in this pointless battle. It is the one true shame of humanity. glk3: Evolution has formed all the life forms over billions of years without gods tinkering with things. Holeweet: glk, hey, I'm not looking to turn you into God's child. If God wants you, He will take you glk3: Gods are not observed. Holeweet: glk, as if you know what God can do because you are some 71 year old scientist with a web page crucis: Polica the evidence of design flys in the face of a chance event or series of events producing the design and you know it. Holeweet: glk, and love isn't observed either Holeweet: it's experienced glk3: Think of this. If religion and creation had logical factual value, they would not need a police system to promote it. Policastre: crucis - I just finished saying probablity has absolutly nothing to do with it, yet for some reason you repeated the red herring of "chance". Q___: glk3: lol. good shot there! glk3: I detect no gods. I meet many experts on gods. They differ. Q___: a police system! lol no-euro: So anyway, I find it completely amazing - but to be expected - that these scientists will force interpret whatever codes they are seeing based on their preconceptions: in the case of DNA and the complex codes more complex than anything else in existence, it is purely and a priori a non-intelligent result, and in the case of signals from space, these would be obvious evidence of an intelligent origin. :) glk3: What evidence for design. List details glk3: Science is self correcting. It reports and corrects lies and erroers all the time Mennonite_: see ya Q glk3: DNA is mostly trash left over from a mindless process glk3: Faith stories ahve no science value. get used to it. no-euro: theres no such thing as junk DNA, they are finding this out more and more glk3: You arwe selling 2000 year old stories from the childhood of the race. Holeweet: glk3, you look comfy at your desk, I wouldn't want to change that, and I don't have the power or right to change it anyway...God does, and God will if He wishes no-euro: codes that were previously thought of as 'junk' are now being discovered to be involved in other functions, not previously known, eg. punctuation and error control within the code. glk3: Only a small fraction of all DNA codes for anything. Much is viruses and psuedogenes. no-euro: therefore the 'junk DNA' story is another red herring :) glk3: You pose as an expert on God. I meet them all the time. They differ. no-euro: 'junk' DNA is also called 'psuedogenes'. Holeweet: glk, then survival of the fittest is a bit ridiculous, isn't it glk3: They have found some noncoding DNA does have operating influence glk3: Only survivors breed and pass on DNA Policastre: Creationists make the silly mistake in their "probability" argument -- evolution is not a random process, but a series of reactionary events to an instigating cause. The "odds" of any aspect of evolution only apply if the process is random -- which it is not. But for some reason, creationists are not particular adapt at understanding this simple concept. Policastre: I challenge creationists to amuse yourselves, what exactly the "odds" are against evolution. You'll just get a long string of infinitely large numbers -- none agreeing with the other. no-euro: glad to see you admit that glk no-euro: Policastrello: Oh yes, anything is possible, if you have a large enough imagination ;) GG_Allin: that's not true. some DNA really is non-coding, or 'junk' DNA. this has been tested by cutting out sections of DNA and replacing it with random sequences, the result being no apparent effect on the organisms Holeweet: Policastrello, and when I blink I'm reminded about irreducable complexity glk3: I note religious people usually demonstrate the pope effect. That is a feeling of infallibility all based on the strenght of their faith. Mennonite_: I see no incompatibility with faith and evolution... for myself it only proves God's existence more... but it does so because i believe apriori. Holeweet: glk3, we all have faith, it's just in what glk3: They studied the feline DNA and found long sequences of ... CATCATCAT... glk3: Faith is belief without evidence. Science requires evidence Holeweet: glk3, you have faith otherwise you wouldn't even be discussing this matter because you would already know and discussing it would be foolish glk3: I have evidence. That is sufficient Holeweet: I have evidence of my faith Policastre: no-euro - Red herring. One of the creationists in this channel brought up the argument of "chance" -- debate my arguments based on it's own merits, don't go build irrelevant strawmen. Holeweet: We all have "evidence" glk3: Faith is belief without evidence glk3: It can support ANY thinkable idea Holeweet: glk3, I'm not sure where you got that definition of faith Holeweet: even the disciples were given "evidence" of the resurrection glk3: I got it from a dictionary. get one. glk3: make up your own language if you want glk3: The resurrection stories are not supported by external evidence