What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

[Hans Blaster]

Lots of stuff is written that the Romans basically adopted the Greek gods into their own pantheon because the early Italian civilizations that became the Romans had gods already similar to the Greek gods and went "Hey, their gods are like our gods! Let's put them together with ours."

I think this is a good point. We probably don't really know the prehistory of the Roman gods themselves, because what we do know is after they grafted the stories of the Greek gods onto gods with roman names. Perhaps we do know their names. (I'm pushing my limits on knowledge of early Rome.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have evidence using science. There is no multiverse, so one can't go back in time. It's strange that Hawking and several others believe this hyposteses.

That's not the supernatural. We're not talking scientific hypothesis, we're talking the supernatural. You have no evidence for any of your claims, and you never will.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your ignorant and bigoted attitude towards those you call "atheist scientists" is no doubt disgusting to scientists who happen to be atheists, but it is also rightly disgusting to those who are Christians or other theists.

Speedwell is correct. I would have found this "dialog" disgusting in my early days in science when I was still a christian. (It was in this time that I found out creationism was much more wide spread than I'd previously assumed.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think this is a good point. We probably don't really know the prehistory of the Roman gods themselves, because what we do know is after they grafted the stories of the Greek gods onto gods with roman names. Perhaps we do know their names. (I'm pushing my limits on knowledge of early Rome.)

You'd have to dig to the early Latin tribe of Ancient Italy to find the source I bet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your ignorant and bigoted attitude towards those you call "atheist scientists" is no doubt disgusting to scientists who happen to be atheists, but it is also rightly disgusting to those who are Christians or other theists. All you are accomplishing with your invective and ridiculous pseudoscience is to bring Christianity into disrepute.

It's also clear that when he says "atheist science" he means science that does not agree with his preconceived ideas, and "atheist scientists" are virtually all scientists who, again, do not agree with his preconceived ideas.
Can't lead a horse to water.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You'd have to dig to the early Latin tribe of Ancient Italy to find the source I bet.

I went to a museum that had some exhibits about the early/pre-historic phase of Rome. I don't remember the name of the museum, but I think it was on my last trip to Rome.

 

[pitabread]

I can't believe how wrong you are. Creation science is the real science. You really need to learn a thing or two as atheist (fake) science has just led you off the deep end.

Is this satire? This is so silly sounding, it reads like pure satire.

I feel like we're being Poe'd here (again).

 

[Speedwell]

I think this is a good point. We probably don't really know the prehistory of the Roman gods themselves, because what we do know is after they grafted the stories of the Greek gods onto gods with roman names. Perhaps we do know their names. (I'm pushing my limits on knowledge of early Rome.)

Greek political and cultural influence reached as far as the Italian Peninsula in the era before the rise of Rome. The transition seems a natural one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Greek political and cultural influence reached as far as the Italian Peninsula in the era before the rise of Rome. The transition seems a natural one.

I had to think on the culture, but it was the Etruscan civilization in Italy who had the largest Greek influence.

 

[jamesbond007]

Again, the creation scientists and I have the the accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy. There's also the electromagnetic spectrum that provides all the energy in the universe. God created it the first day.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3

The atheists and their scientists can't even explain how the energy the entire universe needs came into existence as energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred.

We also have the chicken coming before the egg.

The atheists can't even explain how free amino acids form proteins, but yet they claim abiogenesis (formerly known as spontaneous generation) is real haha.

I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence for all the phoney claims that the atheists and their scientists make.

ETA: I should stop posting to this thread as I'll get complaints that I am making fun of the atheists and their mythological hypotheses here .

 

[Hans Blaster]

Again, the creation scientists and I have the the accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy.

Trying to steal the accomplishment of real scientists again are we?

"Creation scientists" didn't discover colliding galaxies, dark matter, or dark energy. "Creation science" denies the very basis of the observations needed to make those discoveries (like the expansion of the Universe).

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I have evidence using science. There is no multiverse

So what’s your evidence for non existence of multiverse ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, the creation scientists and I have the the accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy. There's also the electromagnetic spectrum that provides all the energy in the universe. God created it the first day.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3

The atheists and their scientists can't even explain how the energy the entire universe needs came into existence as energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred.

We also have the chicken coming before the egg.

The atheists can't even explain how free amino acids form proteins, but yet they claim abiogenesis (formerly known as spontaneous generation) is real haha.

I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence for all the phoney claims that the atheists and their scientists make.

ETA: I should stop posting to this thread as I'll get complaints that I am making fun of the atheists and their mythological hypotheses here .

Explaining everything in science with 'goddidit' is not actual science and is intellectually lazy.

And you'll get complaints because you're an incredibly rude individual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, the creation scientists and I have the the accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy. There's also the electromagnetic spectrum that provides all the energy in the universe. God created it the first day.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3

The atheists and their scientists can't even explain how the energy the entire universe needs came into existence as energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred.

We also have the chicken coming before the egg.

The atheists can't even explain how free amino acids form proteins, but yet they claim abiogenesis (formerly known as spontaneous generation) is real haha.

I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence for all the phoney claims that the atheists and their scientists make.

ETA: I should stop posting to this thread as I'll get complaints that I am making fun of the atheists and their mythological hypotheses here .

So many errors! First off "creation scientists" is an oxymoron. In the sciences one does not get to make assumptions. Beliefs have to be evidence based and there is no scientific evidence for the creation story of the Bible. And though there may have been various famous scientists that believed various creation myths over the ages technically none of them were "creationists". Creationism arose out of opposition to the theory of evolution. In fact we have a very good idea who invented the term. So Newton may have believed the creation account in Genesis. He had a good reason for his ignorance. No one had come up with a reasonable explanation and he was indoctrinated into that belief since birth. Modern day scientists don't have that excuse.

And here is your chance to demonstrate that I am wrong and that there is such a thing as creation scientists:

Tell me, what reasonable test based upon the merits of creationism could possibly prove creationism to be wrong?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even Stephen Hawking did not understand science. He wrote in his book, A Brief History of Tiem, that one could travel back into the past.

Not in my copy, he didn't. On which page do you think he wrote that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is this satire? This is so silly sounding, it reads like pure satire.

I feel like we're being Poe'd here (again).

Not POE'd, trolled.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not in my copy, he didn't. On which page do you think he wrote that?

If Hawking did comment on time travel in thebook it would likely be in the context of closed time like curves. These are compatible with general relativity and do not rule out the possibility of time travel. Hawking, however, proposed the chronology protection conjecture that would limit time travel to microscopic scales.

 

[jamesbond007]

Trying to steal the accomplishment of real scientists again are we?

"Creation scientists" didn't discover colliding galaxies, dark matter, or dark energy. "Creation science" denies the very basis of the observations needed to make those discoveries (like the expansion of the Universe).

You're not reading the right articles and there are things you do not know because you're atheist and are easily fooled.

First, I worked for the company that built the Hubble telescope. In fact, for a time it was right next door to my office. After that, most of us didn't know its exact location (top secret). After launch, the colliding galaxies are one of the spectacular things the Hubble captured along with evidence for the black hole. What do you think were spectacular?

Creation scientists knew about the expansion of the universe. In fact, we know more about what is coming up while you don't. Why is that I knew about Tycho?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not reading the right articles and there are things you do not know because you're atheist and are easily fooled.

First, I worked for the company that built the Hubble telescope. In fact, for a time it was right next door to my office. After that, most of us didn't know its exact location (top secret). After launch, the colliding galaxies are one of the spectacular things the Hubble captured along with evidence for the black hole. What do you think were spectacular?

Creation scientists knew about the expansion of the universe. In fact, we know more about what is coming up while you don't. Why is that I knew about Tycho?

Working on a telescope does not make one a scientist. One could be an engineer or even just a laborer. Do you have any reliable sources that support your claims about "creation scientists?

By the way, claiming that someone is easily fooled because they are atheists appears to be a violation of the TOS. If I made the same claim about Christians it would be reported. The same applies to you. An edit would be appropriate and I will edit this response if you do so.

 

[jamesbond007]

Not in my copy, he didn't. On which page do you think he wrote that?

Chapter 10. I think he discusses invisible wormholes.

When did he start believing in multiverse? One needs something to go back to.

Also, do you believe one can travel into the future? You should now if you didn't believe it before.