Scotteh Scotteh

What if Religion had admitted it was wrong? (Part 2)

▼

What if Religion had admitted it was wrong? (Part 2)

from JoeUser Forums

In the first part of this article i discussed how people consider religion as a means of teaching us how to act responsibly.

I received some interesting comments, mostly about how how people felt they obtained their morality from sources other than religion. Perhaps the most interesting comment, and entirely unrelated was a comment from senior stubbyfinger, who informed us he had a large sexual organ. Congratulations stubby...

Right so Religion, morality, back on track. Lets look at the title of this article, "What if religion had admitted it was wrong?". Firstly i'd imagine we'll have some people asking how religion is wrong exactly. Which you know, if you've been sleeping under a rock since Darwin was around, is a highly appropriate question.

1)God made the world in 7 days Genisis etc.

The earth roughly 6,000 years old? I believe that's the figure provided by most creationists i speak with. Well we now know as a FACT (fact as in 1 + 1 = 2. You get me. FACT? Just like the fact you are going to die, just like the fact i'm mashing my keyboard with my fingers as a write this a not my toes - FACT), the earth is much older. The earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. It's difficult to compute exactly as due to the nature of how it was formed. The oldest rocks found to date are 3.9 Billion years old.

The obvious question to follow is 'How exactly did we get here?'. A puzzling question indeed answered by Darwin in his famous book 'Of the Origins of the Spieces'. I won't go into detail for fear of sending you to sleep and wanting to get to my point, but he believed small genetic mutations which happen every generation of a specicies led to how we developed from small microbes in to full fledged humans. Far fetched? What's even more far fetched is the serious amount of evidence that backs this up (galapagos!).

2)Christianity also said that the Earth was the center of the universe.

That the sun revolved around the earth. So when some bloke from tuscani said otherwise, they were quite unpleased! Even after proving that the observation of the planets and the sun suggested that Galleo (yes i'm talking about Galileo here, re the guy from tuscani not Pope Leo I) was right, they had the audacity to turn around and go 'No no no wait you misunderstand us! It may _LOOK_ like the earth orbits the sun, and maths may dictate it, but it infact doesn't! They just appear that way!'. Yes because that's a helpful approach in a reasonable discussion.

We now know of course that earth isn't the center of the universe and that we do revolve around the sun.

So there's two examples for people to consider why i personally think religion has been wrong in the past. On two MASSIVE issues.

Now if i may move on. What i'd like to consider is what if religion had turned around and said:

 'You know what, were based on texts wrote thousand of years ago, when our understanding of the world was very different and people needed a different kind of reassurance. I think it's time we adapt a little more to society'.

I'd guess the next obvious question is what would you change?  I'm not sure, i'm no council of nicaea. I dare say the word religion itself would need a reclassifcation. What is it? If it's not just a story about god and his son, is religion morality? Is it just faith in something?

I've always admired some of the charitable teachings in Islam and Christianity. Yet i also detest how they've been the cause of so many wars and suffering in the past. Do we need religion to do amazing things for one another?

One thing is for sure though while we are unable to prove that God isn't going to smite us all for not wearing condoms, someone should not have the power to continue the spread of aids in one of the most desperate continents in the world by saying using them is indeed sinful.

Nor should preachers be able to convince people to attach bombs on to themselves in the hope of a paradise waiting for them on the other side.

I hope i've not genuinley offended someone with this, well so long as your not offended by just the notion of someone questioning your religion, in which case your ignorant and i'm glad i've offended you.

religion darwin creationisim evolution islam christianity judaism morality science intelligent design
50,313 views 129 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
The simple explanaton is all life comes from God.


Okay, I have no problem with that statement. It can be neither proved nor disproved.


The proof that all life comes from God is by faith and reason.


ARTISYM POSTS:
I take issue with the idea that he would essentially break the laws
of physics to create a planet from scratch with functioning ecosystem in 6 days.


God created nature, including all its laws. He's the Creator, we are the created. He knows and we discover what He wants us to know. We are only going to learn x amount on this side of eternity.


ARTISYM POSTS:
I do have a problem with the fact that you state a literal interpretation of the bible in that the earth and humanity was created in 6 days.


If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read Genesis 1 which provides a panoramic view of the unfolding of Creation.

Again, for clarity, I mentioned:
It's definitely a literal account of creation; it's just that there is still some differences as to the interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom" or day, the 24 hour period of time.


The question of whether the word "yom" for "day" could be interpreted as a 24 hour day or a longer period of time is still left open. As for me, I'm content with the literal understanding on the interpretation of Genesis which I believe is the Word of God Himself through the Holy Spirit. I say this becasue if the days of Creation are really "geologic ages" of millions of years then the Gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, work and suffering, before the Fall of Adam and Eve.


Artisym,

It is possible to interpret the Hebrew word for day as meaning a period of indefinite length. However, it seems to me that Moses (who is considered to be the sacred writer), had in mind "days", with mornings and evenings, as we know them. He used these days to typify the objective reality of God's creative work and above all, for us to remember that the main purpose was to show that God is the Author and Lord of all things. In its religious significance, the account makes use of the 7 ordinary sections of the week, and bids mankind to worship God and rest upon the 7th. Scientifically, each "day" applies to a correlative objective period required for the astronomical and geological formation.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
The simple explanaton is all life comes from God.


Okay, I have no problem with that statement. It can be neither proved nor disproved.


The proof that all life comes from God is by faith and reason.


ARTISYM POSTS:
I take issue with the idea that he would essentially break the laws
of physics to create a planet from scratch with functioning ecosystem in 6 days.


God created nature, including all its laws. He's the Creator, we are the created. He knows and we discover what He wants us to know. We are only going to learn x amount on this side of eternity.


ARTISYM POSTS:
I do have a problem with the fact that you state a literal interpretation of the bible in that the earth and humanity was created in 6 days.


If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read Genesis 1 which provides a panoramic view of the unfolding of Creation.

Again, for clarity, I mentioned:
It's definitely a literal account of creation; it's just that there is still some differences as to the interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom" or day, the 24 hour period of time.


The question of whether the word "yom" for "day" could be interpreted as a 24 hour day or a longer period of time is still left open. As for me, I'm content with the literal understanding on the interpretation of Genesis which I believe is the Word of God Himself through the Holy Spirit. I say this becasue if the days of Creation are really "geologic ages" of millions of years then the Gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, work and suffering, before the Fall of Adam and Eve.


Artisym,

It is possible to interpret the Hebrew word for day as meaning a period of indefinite length. However, it seems to me that Moses (who is considered to be the sacred writer), had in mind "days", with mornings and evenings, as we know them. He used these days to typify the objective reality of God's creative work and above all, for us to remember that the main purpose was to show that God is the Author and Lord of all things. In its religious significance, the account makes use of the 7 ordinary sections of the week, and bids mankind to worship God and rest upon the 7th. Scientifically, each "day" applies to a correlative objective period required for the astronomical and geological formation.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #53 from Stardock Forums Top

First of all, Zoo, you have gone from saying evolution history is right there in the earth for all to see and it's hard science and factual data and here you saying that "logic would dictate" that similiarities in chromosomes shows we evolved from apes? 

One small clue in a pile of evidence. Let's not forget the fossil record, DNA similarity in 90th percentile between other apes, and yadda yadda yadda...I've said this all before. If facts and logic based on those facts make no sense to you then there's no hope.

Zoo,

Think critically.

Regarding macro evolution, you've gone from evolution history is hard science, and factual data, to logic would dictate to one small clue...

Macro-evolutionists would have us believe their theories that over a vast period of time one species evolved into a different one...that we humans evolved from apes.  Yet, they have provided absolutely no conclusive evidence.

Let's not forget the fossil record,

Oh goodness. After 150 years of excavations, millions of fossils have now been discovered all over the world enough to provide a thorough analysis of the fossil record. the buried evidence points against evolutionary explanation. 3/4 of the land's area has a huge amount of sedimentary (water-borne) rock strata covering it ranging in depth down to an enormous 10,000 meters  deep known as the Cambrian strata or Cambrian explosion.

the fossil evidence found there is consistent with sudden burial; huge death pits containignvast numbers of different animals creatures frozen in mid motion overcome by violent flood and wind.

the presence of frozen muck full of plant and animal remains in relatively fresh condition demonstrates a sudden and permanent temperature drop. Hippos, saber-tooth tigers, elephants, and other low latitude animals are found buried freshly preserved. As you well know, fossils don't form when plants and animals simply die and rot away on the surface of the ground or on the bottom of the sea.

To be preserved as a fossil, a plant or animal must be buried rapidly under a heavy load of sediment which must also harden rapidly to exclude oxygen and bacteria. Otherwise, scavengers, or forces of erosion and decay would destroy the specimen.

The Cambrian strata indicates a colossal amount of eroded sediment must have been dispersed fairly rapidly over and not over eons of time. The field evidence is consistent with the idea of an enormous flood of world wide dimensions and evoltuionary theory is confounded by the evidence.

DNA similarity in 90th percentile between other apes, and yadda yadda yadda...I've said this all before.

Yes, yadda, yadda, yadda! ;) We've been up, down and all around this topic a few discussions now.

For whatever reason, you can believe you evolved from an ape. I don't becasue it doesn't even come close to making sense. Major advances and discoveries in recent years on molecular biology have shattered the hopes of evolutionists.  Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny. The Creator's design of DNA will not allow macro evolution to occur.

Even though we know for certian that the basic design system of the cell is essentially the same of  all living things, we also know that they are so complex; so far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutley without parallel, that there is not the slightest empirical hint of an macro-evolutionary sequence among all the cells on earth.

Good day to you too, and good luck on those final exams. ;)  

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #54 from Stardock Forums Top

And if the fossil was found, would you accept it as such or claim it "was not human" or just a "short hunched over human"? What kind of fossil would be evidence to you? It happens that all the fossils that have been found so far are either 100% human DNA or 100% ape DNA. As for DNA evidence between ape and man...there's an extra chromosome in apes, we have one less. If you take a look at one of our chromosomes (the second, I believe) you'll see that it's actually 2 fused together(there's an end piece code in the middle). Logic would dictate that somewhere along the line a pair of chromosomes joined and we sprung forth from that. Truth is the proof that evolutionists need is REAL evidence of species change not similarity of chromosomal structure or function.

SetarcosNous posts:

So, in other words, there is no potential fossil evidence that you would consider proof. I'll ask again, what would constitute evidence of species change to you?

I don't want to seem rude or disrespectful, but the question is really moot.

there simply is no proof any where out there that one species has changed into a new and different one. God created us all according to "Kind" and the only change that occurs over time is within "Kind".  

Macro-evolution is not science at all rather it is a world-view; an ideology.  

 

 

Reply #55 from Stardock Forums Top

...macro evolution is not occurring now and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.

 

SETARCOSNOUS POSTS:

Bzzt, sorry but even if the fossil record did not reveal macro evolution occurring as you vehemently believe, it would not mean it "revealed" that it didn't occur.

Well, I suppose the most we can say is that, at this time, the fossil evidence has provided zip, nada, nothing  for the evolutionists as evidence of macro-evolution.

  

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, in other words, there is no potential fossil evidence that you would consider proof. I'll ask again, what would constitute evidence of species change to you?

I don't want to seem rude or disrespectful, but the question is really moot.

The question isn't moot, you just can't or don't want to answer it. Either you don't know what you would consider proof, or there is nothing that could possibly be discovered that you would consider proof. The way you avoid the question, I almost wonder if you are afraid someone already has what you would consider proof, and you are just afraid it would be pointed out to you.
Reply #57 from Stardock Forums Top

What do you mean these have nothing to do with evolutionary theory? Of course ET has given us their version of the origin of the universe, the world, and how living cells came about.

SETARCOSNOUS POSTS:

 Apparently, you seem to think your categorization/definition of evolutionary theory is the only one that counts. If you want to debate abiogenesis, earth's formation, or the beginnings of the universe fine, but don't call them evolutionary theory. It is almost like you want to attack evolutionary theory but can't so you attack its "relatives and friends" (so to speak) in hopes of proving it guilty by association.

there are a lot of evolutionary theories out there...they all seem to attempt an explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of all living things, including man.

 

One  ET formula for making the universe is:

nothing + nothing = 2 elements + lots and lots of time = 92 elements + a lot more time = all phyical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, stars, planets, systems, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

The ET formula for life is:

Dirt + water + lots of time = living creatures.  

Another is dirt + water + lots of time = frog + kiss = prince.

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently, you seem to think your categorization/definition of evolutionary theory is the only one that counts.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm fully aware of the way the world works

If you think it preposterous that the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time, and that some supernatural force just willing it into existence is a more likely explanation, then you apparently aren't aware of the way the world works. You see, one of the ways it "works" is gravity, which will "work" on you whether you believe in it or not.


Actually, I think it's contrary to the truth to think the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time.

Since there is no proof that it happened, it takes faith to believe it. I'd rather place my faith in Almighty God than random process of Evolution.


I am aware of the way the world works...like all the laws of nature, Almighty God made gravity. If you disagree, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how Evolution Theory explains gravity.  :LOL: 

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
Evolution theory essentially is a set of ideas promoting the Godless view...

SETARCOSNOUS POSTS:
Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of god(s), anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Its insights and ideas may run counter to certain literal interpretations of certain ancient texts, but it in no way attempts to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings.


I think we are discovering that the word "evolution" is confusing. Perhaps it's time for you to give your definition of ET.

What I meant by the above is that Evolution Theory is an atheistic idea that attempts to explain the origin of the universe and all life, plant and animal, including humans without God involved. At this point, Evolution Theory has become atheistic dogma, a world-view.

When you think about it science has no proof at all to contradict the Judeo-Christian religion and the idea of God Himself. What has happened is science is under the bond of atheism and is being used against religion and against God Himself. It's tendency is attempt to replace religious truth with an outlook on a universe where God no longer has any place.

Lula posts:
...and after millions of years afterward humans evolved from apes.

Again, still haven't shot it down, just disputed it; and in case no one has told you before, an argument from incredulity is not a valid one.


OK, I'm willing, in fact, I'm delighted to have you describe in detail exactly how humans evolved from apes....perhaps you can start by explaining the mechanism by which this happens. And how come there have been no fossils found of these transitional half man/half ape creatures? Or explain that if humans evolved from apes, why then are there still apes on the earth? It's my understanding that even within the different ape kinds, they cannot mate and produce offspring. Why? It's the differences in DNA, the barriers that prevent this from occurring.

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
scientific theory about origins tends to favor the Creationist version than the Evolutionist one.

Please do tell. What is this scientific theory that favors the Creationists' version?


As I've already outlined what the scientists have discovered about the Cambrian fossil record favors the Great Flood as described in Genesis.

Extensive sceintific evidence which is quite obvious in the sedimentary strata as well as land forms on earth today point to the Genesis flood and that's why it is ignored. It's not scientific to accept part of physical evidence in nature while ignoring another very large part.


Science has developed radiodating and Carbon-14, yet, because strata, fossil and radioactive evidence is useless, there is no reliable evidence of billions and millions of years for earth's history.


The following are from Gerard Keene's Creation Rediscovered.


The great variety and complexity of the solar system design defies iniformitarianism...how could the solar system like this arise from a big bang explosion?

Planets/moons dual rotation and their simultaneous opposite direction rotation suggests intentional Design rather than the results of explosions.

Janus & Epimetheus (satellites of Saturn on 30 miles apart) these two swap places every four years instead of colliding. I'd say they were programmed to behave this way by Creator GOd, to thwart uniformitarianism.

The so called SHepherd satellites accompanying rings of giant gas planets has such precise functioning is evidence of intentional Design and not of a random big bang explosion.

Explain how Pluto and it moon Charon spiral around a center of gravity which lies between them result from a big bang explosion?

Short period comets should not exist if the universe is billions of years old. Where is proven evidence for the "Oort Cloud"?

Earth's finely balanced distance from the sun is so delicately and precisely located to allow life on earth....simply good Evolutionistic fortune or designed by omnipotent Creator God?

Why are spiral galaxy arms not wound up if the universe is billions of years old?

Galaxies rotating in various localized directions would not result from a big bang explosion point, but are explicable in the Day 4 Creation scenario.

Entropy in the universe---time's arrow...pointing downward to disorder and eventual total loss of energy...the universe surely had a beginning.

Speed of light and vast distances in the universe....were stars and light waves created in nanoseconds throughout the universe? Is there a time warp in the universe, making possible vast distances within a "young" universe?





Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saying something is supernatural is claiming you know something you cannot possibly know. It is claiming you know what you don't know.


It's called having the gift of supernatural faith. That's why theology is the highest science. Think about it.
Reply #63 from Stardock Forums Top

I've provided a summary of lula's counter to my arguement, along with my own thoughts on the new issues raised here.

 

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
can enlighten me as to how Evolution Theory explains gravity.

It doesn't, why should it? Does the bible tell me temperature at 1.325 atmospheric pressure at which water boils? Does it tell me how to search through an ordered set in log(n) steps? Why is it you think evolutionary theory should have an answer for everything, when it makes no claims to do so? Quit fighting a strawman.

Perhaps it's time for you to give your definition of ET.

life+time=new life

Actually, I think it's contrary to the truth to think the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time.
Since there is no proof that it happened, it takes faith to believe it.

Actually, it runs contrary to your thousands year old book. There is no proof yesterday happened by your reasoning.
Here is a scenario:
You go away on vacation for a week, leaving your car at the airport. When you return, you find the end of your car facing the parking lot smashed in. Do you think:
A) a supernatural being came in and smacked it,
or
b) another vehicle hit it while you were gone?

One ET formula for making the universe

There is no evolutionary theory for making the universe

What I meant by the above is that Evolution Theory is an atheistic idea that attempts to explain [...] without God involved.

Like I say about atheism not being disbelief in god(s) but rather a lack of belief in them, evolutionary theory (like ALL sciences I might add) merely explains things without the need for god(s). It (again like ALL sciences) says nothing about the existence or non-existence of such beings, because by their "(super)nature" they are outside the realm of science.

What has happened is science is under the bond of atheism...

Science is inherently atheistic (or at very least agnostic), it is not "under the bond of atheism".

It's tendency is attempt to replace religious truth with an outlook on a universe where God no longer has any place.

I would substitute the word "truth" with "teachings" myself. The outlook does not leave "no place" for God, it just removes the necessity of him being there. Even then, one could claim it doesn't even go that far. While we know gravity holds things together, and dark energy might hold some things apart, we still can't say why either does what it does. It is possible, though completely unprovable, that gravity is nothing more (nor less) than the will of some god(s).

Again, still haven't shot it down, just disputed it; and in case no one has told you before, an argument from incredulity is not a valid one.

...I'm delighted to have you describe in detail exactly how humans evolved from apes....

Did I claim I could? No. Any explanation/evidence I could give would be feeble compared to what others like Zoo have already detailed to you. I was merely pointing out that you have not debunked anything as you claimed you had. I don't claim to have all the answers, nor does science. That is the domain of religion. Besides, for me to prove it to you, you would have to tell me what you would consider proof, and since you are unwilling/unable to do that, then that is a moot point.

Science has developed radiodating ... radioactive evidence is useless

I think the majority of the scientific community (not just evolutionary biologists), who I am sure understand such methods better that you, would disagree.

iniformitarianism

???

Planets/moons dual rotation and their simultaneous opposite direction rotation suggests intentional Design rather than the results of explosions.

How so?


Janus & Epimetheus (satellites of Saturn on 30 miles apart) these two swap places every four years instead of colliding. I'd say they were programmed to behave this way by Creator GOd...

I'd say if they were orbiting in a manner that caused a collision that we wouldn't be seeing them do this to have this discussion. If you put a shot glass outside when it is raining and some water gets in it, do think that is a miracle too?

The so called Shepherd satellites accompanying rings of giant gas planets has such precise functioning is evidence of intentional Design

What function would that be?

Explain how Pluto and it moon Charon spiral around a center of gravity which lies between them

All objects with such interactions orbit around a center of gravity. As some post I read before somewhere tried to salvage an argument against a heliocentric solar system put it, heavily paraphrased, "technically the Earth doesn't orbit around the Sun, they both orbit a point at the middle of their combined center of gravity". The thing is, when items are staggeringly different sizes, the center of gravity is usually still inside (and near the center of) the larger of the two. In the Pluto-Charon case, if I am not mistaken, their masses aren't all that different.

Earth's finely balanced distance from the sun is so delicately and precisely located to allow life on earth...

Yes, and if it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion...or we'd be completely different beings thinking that life couldn't possibly evolve on planets that are the distance ours actually is from the sun.

Galaxies rotating in various localized directions would not result from a big bang explosion point

And you know this how?

Entropy in the universe---time's arrow...pointing downward to disorder and eventual total loss of energy...the universe surely had a beginning.

Again, your point?

Speed of light and vast distances in the universe....were stars and light waves created in nanoseconds throughout the universe? Is there a time warp in the universe, making possible vast distances within a "young" universe?

That's something required by young earth creationists to explain our ability to see stars/light sources that are more that 6000 light years from earth.

It's called having the gift of supernatural faith. That's why theology is the highest science.

Faith is not knowledge, it is at best belief. Theology is not the highest science, it is not even science. Do you even understand the ideas behind science?
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula posts:
I am aware of the way the world works...like all the laws of nature, Almighty God made gravity. If you disagree, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how Evolution Theory explains gravity.



If you think it preposterous that the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time, and that some supernatural force just willing it into existence is a more likely explanation, then you apparently aren't aware of the way the world works. You see, one of the ways it "works" is gravity, which will "work" on you whether you believe in it or not.



Lula posts:
can enlighten me as to how Evolution Theory explains gravity.


SETARCOSNOUS POSTS:
It doesn't, why should it?





Well, when you consider the context of the discussion, my question is reasonable. There are two schools of thought as to the origin of the universe and all that's in it including gravity.

One is Creation which teaches God made all the laws of nature including gravity and the other is Evolution Theory which teaches everything over a long period of time made itself....
thus my question.

Perhaps it's time for you to give your definition of ET.

life+time=new life


So does this mean dog plus time equals cat? or ape plus time equals humans?


Actually, I think it's contrary to the truth to think the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time.
Since there is no proof that it happened, it takes faith to believe it.


Actually, it runs contrary to your thousands year old book.


If here, you are referring to the Holy Bible, I'd say that that Genesis (which has God as it's principal Author working through the human writer) offers an explanation of how the earth was formed that science has in many ways confirmed not contradicted...It takes faith to believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Evolution Theory postulates the earth formed by itself over billiions of years by random chance yet has offered no proof of that. Since there is no proof, it take faith to believe in ET.

There is no proof yesterday happened by your reasoning.


yes, there is becasue yesterday happened in measurable real time.

Whereas the origin of the universe and all that's in it happened when no one of us were around....God is the only eye-witness and He is very trustworthy as He cannot deceive or be deceived.


There is no evolutionary theory for making the universe


Ever hear of the Big Bang or Stellar Evolution theories?

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, when you consider the context of the discussion, my question is reasonable. There are two schools of thought as to the origin of the universe and all that's in it including gravity.

One is Creation which teaches God made all the laws of nature including gravity and the other is Evolution Theory which teaches everything over a long period of time made itself....
thus my question.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, that is not evolutionary theory.
(wishing for an animated smiley of head hitting brick wall, I know I've seen them out there.)

So does this mean dog plus time equals cat?

Possibly, but more likely (more "generic" mammal)+time+(different survival pressures) = dog and cat

Genesis ... offers an explanation how the earth was formed that science has in many ways confirmed not contradicted

If science didn't contradict it, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

It takes faith to believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Which is why I say one must have faith in a book before one has faith the god whose existence it supposedly reveals.

Evolution Theory postulates the earth formed by itself over billions of years by random chance yet has offered no proof of that.

Again, this is not a part of evolutionary theory, and the theories of earth formation have little to do with random chance. They have to do with things like the laws of gravity causing the sun to catch stray matter traveling through the galaxy and simple logic dictating that things in unstable or colliding orbits will not stay in such a state for long.

There is no proof yesterday happened by your reasoning.

yes, there is because yesterday happened in measurable real time.

Did it? Prove it to me. Keep in mind that you could be remembering things wrong. Perhaps some supernatural being implanted memories in you and I to think yesterday happened. Heck, maybe the whole universe was created by this being 1 minute ago and I didn't even really type the first half of this post. So, seriously, since we cannot use time travel to go back to yesterday and observe it, how can we prove it happened? How do we "measure" yesterday?

God is the only eye-witness and He is very trustworthy as He cannot deceive or be deceived.

According to your old book written by people that thought thunder, lightning, sickness, etc... were signs of some supernatural being's temper tantrums.


There is no evolutionary theory for making the universe

Ever hear of the Big Bang or Stellar Evolution theories?

The big bang is in no way evolutionary theory; and to speak of theories related to the development of stars (even if such theories could be described as evolutionary) as "Evolutionary Theory", when the general assumption of all readers will be to think of "Evolutionary Theory" as it pertains to the origins of species, is borderline intellectually dishonest. You seem to be trying to lump together disparate parts of science in order to make a broader target to hit, and even then the best you can come up with is an argument from incredulity or ignorance(in the formal logic sense). The OP made no mention of evolution in the species sense of it, yet you seem determined to somehow bring that into the discussion and when are called on it proceed to move the goal posts to some other "evolution".

If you are unable to accept the logical explanations for the formation of the earth and stars, then you cannot honestly accept statements of anything that occurred before your first memory.

Still waiting for what you would consider proof of evolution in any sense of the word.

Reply #67 from Stardock Forums Top

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

So, seriously, since we cannot use time travel to go back to yesterday and observe it, how can we prove it happened?

God gave us something called an intellect with which we can think and reason. With these we can be certain that yesterday happened.

 

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
God gave us something called an intellect with which we can think and reason. With these we can be certain that yesterday happened.


No you can't. You've deluded yourself into believing that this esoteric concept of 'yesterday' exists.

You cannot, under any circumstances, prove that yesterday exists. If your best rebuttal is 'I think it exists, therefore it does', you've proven nothing.

If the simple fact that you imagine something exists was enough, I would imagine a million dollars under my bed right now.

Didn't happen.

MYTH BUSTED!
Reply #70 from Stardock Forums Top

 

God gave us something called an intellect with which we can think and reason. With these we can be certain that yesterday happened.

No you can't. You've deluded yourself into believing that this esoteric concept of 'yesterday' exists.

I know that objective truth exists and that God has created human beings giving us a specific nature, namely we are made in the image of God. Just as the laws of nature clearly have objective existence, objective truth can be shown to exist.  I am in possession of objective truth when I say that we can be certain that yesterday happened.

The root meaning of existence stands for presence or being present or appearance of something in any category whether this be in nature as material existence or in mind where it is known as ideal existence.

I know yesterday existed becasue I existed yesterday. In saying this I am preeminently exerting an actualization of reality.

 

 

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know yesterday existed becasue I existed yesterday.


You still can't prove it. That entire reply was a bunch of flowery nothingness.

You cannot under any circumstances prove that yesterday exists. Heck, you can't even prove to me that YOU exist.

Because you don't. I just made you up to hurt myself.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know yesterday existed because I existed yesterday.

Generously assuming a perfect and infallible human memory, how can you "know" the days before you were born ever happened?

Heck, you can't even prove to me that YOU exist. Because you don't. I just made you up to hurt myself.

Oh man that is hilarious...I am glad a created you. :LOL:

Reply #73 from Stardock Forums Top

Generously assuming a perfect and infallible human memory, how can you "know" the days before you were born ever happened?

 

I trust my parents, my family,  the greater community, and finally society itself whose public records make it all a part of history.  

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
I trust my parents, my family,


These are the people who lied to you constantly as a child. Easter bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, where babies come from . . . and those are the people you're trusting about whether or not things existed? What if they're as delusional as yourself?

finally society itself whose public records make it all a part of history.


History is the most subjective thing on the planet. There is NO SUCH THING as objective history. So history is also delusional about the existence of time past - since nothing existed before myself, in 1983. Everything that supposedly happened before is simply a construct of my fertile mind.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
I trust my parents, my family,


These are the people who lied to you constantly as a child.


SC,

I shall not respond to any more of your "off the wall" comments such as these latest ones.