Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because they're being discovered, even after the massive attempt to destroy them.
Where does it mention in the bible Adam and Eve's brothers and sisters. where does it say Incest wes not a crime and Cain and Abel married brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews?
So all these people came from Adam and Eve?
You're adding to the bible to make it work in ways that are preposterous. The problem for your debate it it ends at what was written 1,000s of years ago. Knowledge can be added to every day. Blind Faith in a book, ends at the book.
And yet, people who claim it's the word of god, don't abide by all the rules. Blind Faith Christians tend to be very selective about what they believe and don't.
Yes it was a Male dominated society. Do the women in your family still live by those god given laws? Or do you cherry pick them?Actually, surprisingly few women are mention in the Bible.
Incest was not a problem until much, much later. Some have said it was because the gene pool eventually became polluted. However, in the beginning everyone came from Adam and Eve so the gene pool was perfect. Maybe that's why they lived 900 years. The laws of Moses prohibited incest. In the time of Adam and in the time of Noah, how else could the word repopulate?
Recently discovered gospels.Which books are being discovered? What are the names of these books?
My point was that Cain's niece would have been Able's daughter and not that Adam and Eve had brothers or sisters. And yes all these people came from Adam and Eve.
What am i adding to the bible? Your last two paragraphs make no sence. Can you restate them again with examples?
If you can show that you have a workable method of testing it, and you can show how it is falsifiable. Go for it.
You do know that that the net amount of energy observed in the universe is zero, or near so?
I can't prove a negative so that validates your irrational belief that things can magically pop into existence?Your claim that it is impossible remains unsubstantiated. You can't prove it, can you?
lol. Perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with the concept of falsifiability.I do.
We simply need to get core samples from each to demonstrate parenthood; like DNA.
Until it is falsified, it is now a scientific theory.
No, it is something conceived by physicists to explain independently repeatable and verifiable astronomical observations.I know nothing of the kind and neither do you.
That's just something someone made up to try and explain how everything could come from nothing.
lol. I have seen you demonstrate your level of scientific understanding.It's as scientific as the existence of "Minus Land," as documented by Roald Dahl in "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator."
No, but your continued assertion that a negative has been proven validates my opinion that you do not understand the science that you rail against.I can't prove a negative so that validates your irrational belief that things can magically pop into existence?
When a new car pops into my driveway by supernatural origination I will give credence to your absurd notions.When a new car pops into my driveway without any natural origination I will give credence to your absurd notion.
And I will hold your absurd notion of a creator-god to the same standards. As soon as god creates a new car into my driveway without any natural origination I will give credence to it.When a new car pops into my driveway without any natural origination I will give credence to your absurd notion.
To go from the Genesis story, back to the creation of the Universe, or even how life was created on Earth exposes the weakness in your debate.I say just think about those odds, what kind of odds would have to play out for us to come into existence over 14 billion years of atoms floating around space. Science is full of guesses when it come to this, I think so anyways.
I am sure this has been corrected somewhere along this thread but what you are really referring to is MASS (not matter) andenergy. Matter can be created and destroyed but not mass and energy.In the beginning there was nothing. Because there was nothing, there was no energy to generate heat, leaving us with absolute zero. We know scientifically that with absolute zero nothing happens, so since the universe could not rise from nothingness there is still nothing and we don't exist. We know that matter or energy cannot be created only changed in formed, so beginning with that nothingness nothing could arise to disturb it's perpetual existence of non-existence. In a billion, trillion years nothing would change; nothing would shift; nothing would arise from nothingness. We know that there had to be nothingness because we understand the physical properties of the universe mean that everything is in a constant state of deterioration; meaning that from its original state the universe itself is winding down. The stars are burning out. There may be some re-birth from the dying out of stars but in the end the universe will dissolve into a more or less uniform field of useless energy. These are the laws that we understand and know to be true. So how did we get here?
There are many theories of origination, all of which can be disproved by a 7th grade science book. Each gets more ridiculous than the last. The only scientifically viable theory is that external energy interjected itself into the void which sparked the creation of the universe. We call that the Creator. Others call it anything but. However, without the interjection of external energy a field of zero energy remains unchanged in perpetuity. We are, in fact, here, so some force outside of our universe instigated the creation of our universe. Scientists know this, they are just reluctant to admit that we had an outside Creator. they will proclaim that the fact they don't know all the answers doesn't mean they don't know any answers, but the fact remains that in the absence of a Creator there is no explanation for the origination of matter. The autocreation of everything from nothing is a logical absurdity.
So you say the universe has always existed? That goes against observed scientific evidence....unless you are denying the evidence?....Same place the -1 came from.
It was always there as potential within the 0.
This isn't science. It's some sort of metaphysics, with a bit of philosophy of mathematics thrown in.
I'm basically claiming that what we think of as "nothing" or "zero" is wrong. There's not such thing as "nothingness" as we concieve it, and instead it is more like "pure infinity". Zero is not nothing; it's everything. At which point, the problem of origination ceases to exist.
There was no beginning of existence. Existence is eternal.
And your evidence for this is.....what?...your "suggestion"? Somehow I think most of us need a little more than that.Well, that's what we normally think. I'm suggesting we've got this wrong - completely back to front and upside down, if you like. Not only is nothing not nothing, but it's the absolute opposite of nothing.
And if you think about my previous reply....?
"Nothing [or rather, what we think of nothing, but is the opposite] is eternal" is precisely what I am suggesting. :-D
OK then, if you don't believe there was nothing, what was there?....and what is your source and evidence? Come on, support your position just don't throw one liners out there in an attempt to denigrate someone elses opinions or beliefs.Just because you are so concerned with absurdities: Gotta love how you start from the premise "In the beginning there was nothing" and end up with the conclusion "In the beginning there was a Creator."
The evidence of how life was created on Earth is undeniable, to follow the trail from those first cells to today is easy, long reading but it's all there.
Even DNA proves we are the cousins of the Ape family. A god need not create us as cousins, science proves evolution does.
I was pointing out a contradiction, a logical mistake.OK then, if you don't believe there was nothing, what was there?....and what is your source and evidence?
Which position would that be?Come on, support your position
For what I intended to say a one liner was entirely sufficient.just don't throw one liners out there
If you feel that scrutinizing and criticizing an argument amounts to "denigrating a belief"...in an attempt to denigrate someone elses opinions or beliefs.
No he didn't.All that 'common ancestry' proves is that God fashioned us and apes from basically the same stuff and processes (and why wouldn't he?). I have built lots of things out of wood. During the building process I used pretty much the same materials, tools, and techniques for each, but each product is unique and doesn't relate to the others in any substantial way. Of course an evolutionist might observe that I used certain tools on all these projects and declare, "AHAH!" "That birdhouse has evolved into a fishing boat!"
The Beginning of Time - Stephen HawkingI was pointing out a contradiction, a logical mistake.
I don´t have any idea whether and how the universe came into existence - and I don´t need to in order to spot a logical error.
It explains how limited nature is by the way we are created. The god of the bible has no reason to be that limited. Find the program and watch it and ask yourself why would any god go to that trouble. And end up with imperfection.
So all the imperfections, bad things and nastiness, are god's fault.God is saving perfection for the resurrection. Our present bodies are just a temporary, frail contraption meant to only last a few years. We are also called "vessels of clay", to be used and discarded after a short life of service.
Hebrews 2:9
"But we see Jesus (and all other humans), who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,.........."
Yes, the Drake Equation proves the impossible odds associated with such a theory. Not to mention the entire absence of evidence.Here is a big reason why I am not an atheist. It doesn't make sense to me in my own mind. To go from the big bang to current time over some 14 billion years, means a lot of events had to take place and work out in our favor to bring us here, even if they were all natural processes. The kind of odds that would have to play out for that to happen is so astronomical that I feel we are not made to know if we have an immortal soul, or if Jesus did come back from the dead. We just do not have religious knowledge. Just think about those odds, it is something like winning a crazy bet, like where the odds are one out of a number with one billion zeroes. It can happen, but it is really unlikely.
So what do you think?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?