I'm tired of giving religionists a pass

[No Time]

Man, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

They feed you the lies and you take it from there is that how it works? you are being played and you can't see it,
either that or you prefer not to see it.

You are a creationist because you were raised by creationists, don't you think it's time that you wised up?

 

[Kazenoryu]

Sorry, you have to start at the beginning. You have to establish that the universe was created. You ask, what proof? Let's see, Einstein's theory of General Relativity, Says the universe had a beginning and that it came into being out of nothing physical. After you establish a creator, then you see who has the best evidence for who this creator is, and Christians have the best evidence. Evolution is not clear. Atheist are the ones who have no proof how the universe came from nothing, no proof for "abiogenesis, no proof how one species evolves into a completely different species. "That's just gonna have to do", because you don't have any proof. And you think Christianity runs on faith. Man, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

Christianity has no proof. It has conjecture from a 3000 year old book of questionable origin and authenticity.

Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang or Abiogenesis. A fallacy Creationists never seem to understand and one that is almost always touted at any creation seminar you can go to.

And actually abiogenesis has been replicated. It was successfully achieved in 2009 at the university of Manchester. Scientists managed to replicate ribonucleotides, the building block for RNA found in your cells. While this does not necessarily explain how it happened on earth, it achieved the task of showing that it was in fact possible.

As far as showing one species evolving into another, it's called the fossil record.

Science at least recognizes that there is not currently an answer to the origin of life or the universe. To claim to know for certain the origin of either with no evidence and barely even a cogent argument is just plain arrogant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity has no proof. It has conjecture from a 3000 year old book of questionable origin and authenticity.

Now that's funny.

The One I use is currently celebrating Its 400th anniversary this year.

 

[Kazenoryu]

Now that's funny.

The One I use is currently celebrating Its 400th anniversary this year.

The King James is hardly the first or even most accurate version of the Bible. It wasn't even the first English translation. To my recollection the earliest versions of the Old Testament found date roughly 500-1000 BC. Could be wrong about that.

Unless you are trying to claim that the KJV is the original version, that does a lot less for your case as that would have the earliest writings concerning Jesus being made 1600 years after his death. Or if the earliest versions of the canon Gospel being indeed dated 100 or so years post mortem, by which logic Jesus lived during the Renaissance.

What exactly are you claiming in reference to the KJV?

 

[Davian]

I can only imagine, but if I really thought that I had an omnipotent deity riding shotgun in my life, why would I have any fears about jumping into an atheist/skeptical forum?

Go for it. What's the worst that can happen?

I hate foul language -- especially when it is used to vent against God.

And it has nothing to do with [progressive] sanctification; I hated it before I was saved, and I still hate it.

In a week's time, I might watch one hour of TV; but that's pushing it.

I have spent a bit of time on skeptical sites (200 posts!), and I noted that, like you did with this post, the subject of 'foul' language is often used for the theist to change the topic, or to avoid attempting further support of their arguments. I don't have much use for profanities in serious discusion, and may have only done so twice in those 200 posts.

(Going back to the thread topic) I think the oddest thing might be for you is having to phrase your posts with "I believe..."; Speaking as if your deity actually exists is pretty much a non-starter on those sites, where it is (not surprisingly) given a free pass here, even in these sciences forums. Having so little exposure to religion in my life, I still find it odd to see.

 

[Jazer]

Christianity has no proof. It has conjecture from a 3000 year old book of questionable origin and authenticity.

There is nothing questionable about the Bible. I am not so sure that your version of revisionism is allowed on this forum. We could ask and find out if you want. But my understanding is your not allowed to attack Christianity.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

There is nothing questionable about the Bible. I am not so sure that your version of revisionism is allowed on this forum. We could ask and find out if you want. But my understanding is your not allowed to attack Christianity.

Pointing out inconsistencies is hardly new or an "attack." Get real.

I actually am of the opinion, after decades of studying the Bible, that it is one of the most specious extant works of literature.

Have you not ever wondered why there is no extrabiblical account of Herod killing two year olds and younger? Or why there is not one extrabiblical account of hundreds of thousands of Israelites living in ten square miles of desert for forty years. Or zero archeological evidence to support the Bible's account?

If you haven't asked yourself these questions as an adult, maybe it's time.

 

[AV1611VET]

(Going back to the thread topic) I think the oddest thing might be for you is having to phrase your posts with "I believe..."; Speaking as if your deity actually exists is pretty much a non-starter on those sites, where it is (not surprisingly) given a free pass here, even in these sciences forums.

Well, I'm not going there anyway, so I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[gaara4158]

Now that's funny.

The One I use is currently celebrating Its 400th anniversary this year.

That's not proof, it's a source. An astrology book doesn't prove astrology, the Quran doesn't prove Islam, and Harry Potter doesn't prove witchcraft. Why would the Bible prove Christianity?
Science doesn't prove anything 100%, but instead of demanding blind faith on penalty of eternal torture, it encourages scrutiny and adjusts to new data.
How can the Bible compete with that?

 

[Kazenoryu]

There is nothing questionable about the Bible. I am not so sure that your version of revisionism is allowed on this forum. We could ask and find out if you want. But my understanding is your not allowed to attack Christianity.

My thanks to the others addressing this, but if I may, I hardly find threats of banning to be constructive to conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity has no proof. It has conjecture from a 3000 year old book of questionable origin and authenticity.

Now that's funny.

The One I use is currently celebrating Its 400th anniversary this year.

That's not proof, it's a source. An astrology book doesn't prove astrology, the Quran doesn't prove Islam, and Harry Potter doesn't prove witchcraft. Why would the Bible prove Christianity?

Oh, now this is solid aurum, gaara.

I didn't even address the "proof" remark.

Had I done so, I would have called him out on "science can't prove anything."

But I didn't address the 'proof' remark, now you're going to nail me on it?

I'll try to watch that from now on, and bring it to you guys' attention, whenever you start yakking about "proof" -- okay?

In short, this irks me.

I've probably called you guys out on your word choices a hundred times in the past five years; but the one time I let it go -- (and I didn't even let it go; I just didn't address it) -- you nail me on it.

Your whining about proof would be better served, if this post was directed at Ryu, not me.

But -- you know -- I'm a Christian, so I guess that makes me the target, eh?

 

[Kazenoryu]

Oh, now this is solid aurum, gaara.

I didn't even address the "proof" remark.

Had I done so, I would have called him out on "science can't prove anything."

But I didn't address the 'proof' remark, now you're going to nail me on it?

I'll try to watch that from now on, and bring it to you guys' attention, whenever you start yakking about "proof" -- okay?

In short, this irks me.

I've probably called you guys out on your word choices a hundred times in the past five years; but the one time I let it go -- (and I didn't even let it go; I just didn't address it) -- you nail me on it.

Your whining about proof would be better served, if this post was directed at Ryu, not me.

But -- you know -- I'm a Christian, so I guess that makes me the target, eh?

Can't address the post, so you play semantics. Just read proof as demonstrable evidence and contribute something, then.

And forgive my mathematical brain. The one field where proofs are an actual thing.

 

[Astridhere]

Kazenoryu says

Christianity has no proof. It has conjecture from a 3000 year old book of questionable origin and authenticity.
Let's remember that the bible is best seller and you likely have one. The bible speaks to many scientific facts that writers of the day knew nothing about proving a higher intelligence was involved. You may quibble as much as you like about whom wrote what and when. The point being that Genesis was still written prior to todays modern science and shows incredible insights many of which have been relatively recent discoveries.
101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life


Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang or Abiogenesis. A fallacy Creationists never seem to understand and one that is almost always touted at any creation seminar you can go to.
The thread calls for evidence of creation and does not specify what sort of evidence that should be. We all know evos have segregated abiogenesis from evolution because the slack was too hard to handle.
And actually abiogenesis has been replicated. It was successfully achieved in 2009 at the university of Manchester. Scientists managed to replicate ribonucleotides, the building block for RNA found in your cells. While this does not necessarily explain how it happened on earth, it achieved the task of showing that it was in fact possible.
You are guilty of misrepresentation just like the researchers you mimick. Scientists have made nothing that meets the definition of life. This is just straw grabbing. The building blocks of life are scattered throughout the universe yet there is not so much as a bacteria to wave back at us.

A living cell is a complex system and the term 'simple cells' has no meaning other than in the minds of those that need to explain how a complex system poofed into existence by itself.

As far as showing one species evolving into another, it's called the fossil record.
The fossil record demonstrates apes and mankind and families of kinds and no intermediates such as coelecanth the walking fish that wasn't, tiktaalik dethroned with fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395myo. Modern Bird footprints dated to 212mya pasted onto some dinosaur as some ridiculous explanation. Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned as direct human ancestors. The list is long. The lack of chimp ancestors supports my assertion that every ape like creature that cannot be exactly identified in todays species is thrown into the human line as flavour of the month., until it is ousted. I'll provide more links if you are unaware of the research I speak to above.

Science Literature - Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist

Science at least recognizes that there is not currently an answer to the origin of life or the universe. To claim to know for certain the origin of either with no evidence and barely even a cogent argument is just plain arrogant.
I have provided research on wave theory that is as robust as the nonsense put up to uphold Big Bang. Your assertation that I have not provided evidence as robust as yours demonstrates arrogance as well as ignorance.

Then if you admit your researchers have no real answers to the beginning of the universe, you will agree that the evidence I provided on wave theory that suggests earth is in the centre of the universe is as credible as any of the evidence for otherwise.

Also that bird footprints dates to 212 is bringing the creation date for birds closer to the devonian as spoken to in the bible.

That tetrapod footprints dated to 395mya demonstrates the sudden appearance of terrestrial life prior to the ancestors they were meant to evolved from. No intermediates is a creationist prediction that is contiunally validated.


For me it is about the weight one wants to give to any research. I choose to align with a book that demonstrates superior intelligence as a guide than with unstable theories and reasonings that are in evolution themelves.

I choose to align with the research that supports a book that has been proven to be scientifically accurate as opposed to a stream of ever changing theories invented by mankind that are challenged, unresolved and unstable.

Evidence for Creation
Creation Evidence and Evolution Myth
Creation | Observable Evidence of Creation | Evolution

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

To suggest that creationists are the ones given some sort of free pass is humorous to say the least. We can most certainly provide as much evidence for our views which is just as credible as the stuff you call evidence that is really no more than flavour of the month.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't address the post, so you play semantics. Just read proof as demonstrable evidence and contribute something, then.

Fine -- I'll address it then.

Christianity has no proof.

And neither do you -- "proof" is for mathematics and alcohol; so don't play the science card on me and call it "proof" at the same time.

It has conjecture from a 3000 year old book of questionable origin and authenticity.

3000 years old, huh?

Try AD 96, when It was completed.

With the accuracy you're displaying in your venting, should I really go on with this?

But I will -- I'd hate to see you pout about it.

Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang or Abiogenesis.

No kidding? I've only been agreeing with this for some five and a half years now.

A fallacy Creationists never seem to understand and one that is almost always touted at any creation seminar you can go to.

I'm a little different than the average creationist, newbie.

Some would even call me "backwater" -- a term I worked hard to earn.

And actually abiogenesis has been replicated.

I don't care if you guys can create Adam & Eve in a laboratory, it doesn't ... prove ... a thing.

Like I've said here before: during the Tribulation, the Antichrist is going to link abiogenesis with evolution so effectively -- even demonstrating it -- that scientists are going to flock to get his number on their right hand or forehead.

In my [right to have an] opinion.

It was successfully achieved in 2009 at the university of Manchester.

Ya? Well, it'll be routinely repeated by a superscientist that is about to show up.

Scientists managed to replicate ribonucleotides, the building block for RNA found in your cells.

If you say so.

While this does not necessarily explain how it happened on earth, it achieved the task of showing that it was in fact possible.

Okie-doke.

As far as showing one species evolving into another, it's called the fossil record.

The fossil record can take a hike.

All the fossil record is, is a game of connect-the-dots.

Science at least recognizes that there is not currently an answer to the origin of life or the universe.

Then science recognizes bologna.

To claim to know for certain the origin of either with no evidence and barely even a cogent argument is just plain arrogant.

What you call "arrogant", we call "faith".

The sooner you learn the difference, the sooner you'll learn.

 

[gaara4158]

And neither do you -- "proof" is for mathematics and alcohol; so don't play the science card on me and call it "proof" at the same time.

Which is why I took the time in my previous post to explain why the scientific method for examining the world is far more reliable than the text in a book with some pretty outrageous claims it doesn't back up at all.

3000 years old, huh?

Try AD 96, when It was completed.

It doesn't matter if it's 100 years old or 10000. It's still of questionable origin and authenticity. That's a very serious problem when you're claiming it trumps anything that contradicts it.

The fossil record can take a hike.

All the fossil record is, is a game of connect-the-dots.

It's not, but even educated guesswork is better than arbitrarily choosing a myth to believe.

What you call "arrogant", we call "faith".

The sooner you learn the difference, the sooner you'll learn.

Right, it's called "faith" when you presume to know better than the experts in a field you've never studied.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't matter if it's 100 years old or 10000. It's still of questionable origin and authenticity.

Questionable origin and authenticity to whom? you?

If all I have to do is question your birth certificate to make you of 'questionable origin and authenticity', then you've been watching too many spy movies.

 

[gaara4158]

Questionable origin and authenticity to whom? you?

If all I have to do is question your birth certificate to make you of 'questionable origin and authenticity', then you've been watching too many spy movies.

You can easily confirm the authenticity of my birth certificate by checking state records.
Try to actually confirm anything that's in the Bible. Can't be done. Questionable.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can easily confirm the authenticity of my birth certificate by checking state records.
Try to actually confirm anything that's in the Bible. Can't be done. Questionable.

I can't confirm Jerusalem? Egypt?

Let me ask you this:

Israel is known as the Promised Land, no? if so, who promised it?

 

[Psudopod]

Let's remember that the bible is best seller and you likely have one. The bible speaks to many scientific facts that writers of the day knew nothing about proving a higher intelligence was involved. You may quibble as much as you like about whom wrote what and when. The point being that Genesis was still written prior to todays modern science and shows incredible insights many of which have been relatively recent discoveries.

Such as? What insights are solely from Genesis (or any other part of the bible) that weren't known by any other equivalent culture?

The thread calls for evidence of creation and does not specify what sort of evidence that should be. We all know evos have segregated abiogenesis from evolution because the slack was too hard to handle.

You won't be able to back that up because it's not true. Abiogenesis has never been part of evolution, evolution is completely independent of the orgin of life. In fact evolution works on non-living imperfect replicators, for example genetic algerithms and evolving circuits.

The fossil record demonstrates apes and mankind and families of kinds and no intermediates such as coelecanth the walking fish that wasn't, tiktaalik dethroned with fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395myo.

Define kind, in such a way that the term is usable rather than a handwavy assertion. You'll be the first creationist who has. Given that you don't understand classification, and think that speech and language abilities in humans mean they are not apes, I'm not holding up much hope.

Finally, tiktaalik is exactly what is has always been claimed to be: an intermediate. It shows features from two distinct groups. It may not be the first intermediate, it may not even be on the chain that eventually lead from fish to amphibians, but that doesn't matter, it doesn't change why tiktaalik is important.

fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395myo. Modern Bird footprints dated to 212mya pasted onto some dinosaur as some ridiculous explanation.

As you are clearly far more knowledgable than the people working is this field, please explain why the footprints dated 395myo must be fully terrestrial and why the footprints dated 212myo must be modern birds.

Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned as direct human ancestors.

Why is this important? They're still transitional, so what if they are not part of the direct human linage? How does creationism explain all the branch species that did not become ancestrial?

No intermediates is a creationist prediction that is contiunally validated.

We have lots of intermediates. You've mentioned three yourself in this very post. Creationism falsified.

Also that bird footprints dates to 212 is bringing the creation date for birds closer to the devonian as spoken to in the bible.

Where in the bible does it speak of the Devonian period?

 

[Jazer]

You can easily confirm the authenticity of my birth certificate by checking state records.
Try to actually confirm anything that's in the Bible. Can't be done. Questionable.

My mon went back to scotland to confirm some of the records and it turns out there was a fire and the records were lost. This is what happened in Jerusalem in 70 ad when the Romans destroyed the Temple. They burned all the birth records. Good that Luke and Matthew had already made a copy for our Bible before the Romans destoryed them. Paul talks about the disputes the genealogies caused in his letter to Timothy. So with everyone fighting over them, it is no wonder that God allowed the records to be burned in the fire.

1 Tim 1 "teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."