I'm tired of giving religionists a pass

[Jazer]

Excuse me... which of the six moons were created by God?

There is very weak evidence that the moon was a peice of the earth. There most likely was a crash of some sort. So the moon needed to be recreated from the parts and peices that were a part of fields created by gravity.

 

[Jazer]

So, in effect, would you say you jettisoned the idea that life came from Life, in favor of saying that life came from non-life?

Is a seed alive or non-life?

 

[Jazer]

I think you're just doing what religious people without answers do every day, try not to talk about it just in case they start to see how ridiculous their beliefs really are.

As compared to what? Non religious people who do not care how ridiculous their beliefs really are?

 

[Willtor]

Is a seed alive or non-life?

A seed is a form of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is a seed alive or non-life?

John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

 

[Jazer]

Either they are lying or are delusional.

That is a pretty big claim to make. But they do accuse themselves when they write books called: "The God delusion". So when they accuse theists as being delusional, perhaps they are guilty of the very thing they accuse others of.

 

[Jazer]

Oh do you mean like researchers exaggerating and misrepresenting research trying to make news headlines to get more research grants and stay employed?

That sounds like something I would say.

 

[Jazer]

Really? Can you tell me where I might read this research, or do I just have to accept its existence on faith.

"New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some early 21st century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1] The phrase is commonly associated with five writers: Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor J. Stenger." Wiki

Wait, hold the press. The Atheists wants to be critical of anyone that makes money off of Theism. But somehow it is ok to profit and make money off of Atheism? Isn't this what they call a double standard? Perhaps Richard Dawkins should make his books public domain so we know that he is not just trying to profit off of his so called beliefs.

AV1611VET how much profit have you made off of selling theism?

 

[Jazer]

the end of the world in 2036.

Do you mean the end of the world order?
After all Berlin has been through I would think they would be happy with 1000 years of peace.

Berlin in 1986

 

[Jazer]

Any one of us non-believers can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists on any and all the same grounds you claim your God exists.

No you can't.

 

[ivebeenshown]

John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

...very interesting, because if you think about seeds, it's as if they are 'frozen' or 'dormant' life, assuming the seeds in question are internally capable of developing further.

 

[Naraoia]

Where is the proof there are any atheists? Talk is cheap right? I suspect there really are NO atheists, no such thing, it's a myth. Either they are lying or are delusional.

Would you be just a tad offended if I substituted "Christians" for every instance of "atheists" in the above?

There is an equal amount of evidence behind both assertions. That is, zero.

 

[Phred]

Phred: Strange, I didn't get the impression that people get a free pass for bringing a god into the discussion. Not in the way you describe, anyway. If your problem is that they get a free pass for believing in gods... we'll just have to agree to disagree whether it's a problem. I for one am here to defend science, not to attack people's faith.

For example...

(and this has happened numerous times on this very forum)

Statement: life came from non-life

Rebuttal: That's not possible. Life cannot come from non-life. God is required.

Rebuttal to rebuttal: That's silly, you're just moving the line back a generation. Then where did God come from?

Rebuttal to rebuttal of rebuttal: God is eternal and needs no creation.

You can't just throw this kind of thing out there without evidence to support it. I don't care a whit if someone wants to believe in a god or gods or Ashton Kutcher. I care that they get to start outlining properties of this deity with nothing to support them.

 

[Astridhere]

That sounds like something I would say.

Hi Jazer

Don't you just love these thread that face off one theoretical assumption against another. What is entertaining is seeing researchers smacking each other with their own mythical scenarios, discrediting and challenging each other, and calling this irrefuteable science. Then seeing others using this myth in blind faith while it lasts.

I found this which you may find interesting.

Over the last decade, the mineralogical analysis of small hardy crystals known as zircons embedded in old Australian rocks has painted a picture of the Hadean period “completely inconsistent with this myth we made up,” Dr. Harrison said.

A New View of the Early Earth, Thanks to Australian Rocks - NYTimes.com

The picture at right is an artists depiction, based on recent evidence, of the earth around 4.5 billion years ago. Remember the waters were separated from the waters. As usual the data aligns with biblical scriptures. We can see what the bible writers, without scientific language, were trying to describe.

These researchers have no idea what the universe looked like 4.5 billion years ago. There could well have been another sun warming our planet, God could have sustained vegetation through other means. After all He is God. The point being there is no need to think that bible that is so accurate about so many scientific points is not accurate in all of them. It is just a matter of time. Atheists and those that have accepted the reasonings of man live in an unstable scientific world. We, on the other hand, see even data that is biased continue to validate the scriptures.

Also moon water and comet water is not the same as earth water. Researchers are still in a quandry over how our beautifull planet, so ordinary as they say, got all this water and managed to keep it.
Water on moon originated from comets

That the Earth's water originated purely from comets is implausible, as a result of measurements of the isotope ratios of hydrogen in the three comets Halley, Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp by researchers like David Jewitt, as according to this research the ratio of deuterium to protium (D/H ratio) of the comets is approximately double that of oceanic water.
Origin of water on Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even I was starting to believe these researchers at least knew a few things about the formation of the earth. It turns out it is all mythical science when it comes to the theoretical. Any rabbit can be pulled from a hat and heralded as evidence for whatever they want really. One can almost always find an equally robust refute. That is the beauty of theoretical science. Regardless of atheist claims to the contrary they require strong faith in mankinds reasonings and ongoing changing scenarios of explanation.

Here is an article speaking to the earth possibly being in the centre of the universe. The bible does not say it has to be, but how privledged would we be to know that even our galaxy is at the centre of the universe, let alone our little planet.

Personally, regardless of how it turns out, I think one element of all of this is just rich. In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route


You, I and others can see the evidence for God and place faith in a book that has shown insight and scientific accuracy that surpasses todays scientific knowledge and spoke to many sciences before mankind had even thought of them. Should we look elsewhere for the truth. The answer is a loud... No. Should we be swayed by non plausible and changing scenarios offered as a refute....again the answer is No.

 

[Naraoia]

That still makes you a 'religionist'.

In fact, there's no such thing as a 'non-religionist' -- in my opinion.

Here we go with the semantic games again.

So you think that theists are one sort of a Lemming and atheists are another sort of a lemming? They just march to the beat of a different drummer? In the end the objective is to save the Lemmings.

No, I think lemmings are little rodents that live on the tundra.

And also an old computer game I hated to pieces

That is a pretty big claim to make. But they do accuse themselves when they write books called: "The God delusion". So when they accuse theists as being delusional, perhaps they are guilty of the very thing they accuse others of.

"They" accuse "themselves"? Since when does Richard Dawkins represent all atheists? I can speak for myself, thank you very much.

 

[Phred]

Where is the proof there are any atheists? Talk is cheap right? I suspect there really are NO atheists, no such thing, it's a myth. Either they are lying or are delusional.

You are an atheist. You don't believe in Zeus or Allah. I simply disbelieve in one more god than you do.

 

[Phred]

As Mr. Hovind so aptly points out, it takes more faith to be an evolutionist, than it does to be a creationist.

After all, evolutionist accept the idea that life originated from non-life; whereas creationists believe that life came from [the] Life.

and this is exactly what I'm talking about. "the life" with no evidence that "the life" exists or is real.

You like to say that evolution requires faith but that's simply so you can continue to hold your position. Anyone who has been exposed to the reality of it all, like the judge in the Dover case, comes rapidly to the same conclusion I have come to. Life evolved and continues to evolve.

 

[Jazer]

Life evolved and continues to evolve.

As long as everyone agrees on the dictionary definition for "evolved" then there really is no problem. The only problem is to agree on the meaning of the word "evolved". Even evolutionists do not agree among themselves. They really have more disagreement amount themselves then they do with Creationists.

 

[Jazer]

And also an old computer game I hated to pieces

It was a lot better then Pac Man & Tetris. I use to spend hours trying to save those little guys from following each other into destruction and oblivion. I just could not stand to see them perish and it felt so good to see them saved.

 

[Naraoia]

It was a lot better then Pac Man & Tetris. I use to spend hours trying to save those little guys from following each other into destruction and oblivion. I just could not stand to see them perish and it felt so good to see them saved.

Don't you badmouth Tetris when I'm around!