Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

"God did it" isn't a cop out

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    But surely your begging the question, your saying if the bible is true the bible is true, that shows nothing. Also if Adam and eve were flawless they would never have eaten the fruit from the tree and corruption would not exist.
    Also do you believe in a completely literal bible or only a partial one.
    I'm saying if the Bible is true, the things it states about the universe and everything in it will be true. The proof will be in the final answer of how the universe operates. The elusive theory of everything that can only be found in the Bible.

    Adam and Eve were flawless. I'm talking about their physical nature and so on. Yet they were given free will. So they had the freedom of continuing in that flawless nature or not. And yes, I have reason to believe the Bible is literal in it's accounts of history.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    This is where it goes wrong with the thinking of Adam and Eve. We picture them like we see humans today. However, we are talking about God's perfect creation. Adam and Eve were not like we are today. They were flawless, along with the rest of creation. They were created to never die. If you can show me a man and woman today who will never die, you could compare them to Adam and Eve. So genetically speaking, it would be unlike anything we see in humans today.

    Now, that may seem like a cop out, but if we are to consider or hypothesize the Genesis account, we must take in the whole account. Not just take part of it, and study it under the light of today's terms. Today's world is corrupt. What we call science, is actually taking this corrupt world as natural laws, as how things have always been.

    On the manufacturing note.....

    I'm sure that each manufacturer, though the product is similar, they have their own name on it or brand. If God created the universe and life on this earth, the history of the universe will be God's name brand because that history will show how God was directly involved with the creation.
    So did we or did we not descend from Adam and Eve? If we did descend from them, then every single human trait must have been present in them. Genetically speaking we HAVE to share their genes. There is no other possible source of our genetic material.

    Science does not presume anything such - science finds out how the world used to be, rather than taking its knowledge from a book it looks at the evidence left behind.

    Scientists know how the Earth was formed because the process of its formation is recorded in the structure of the rocks, life's origins are recorded in their composition. The origins of the universe are preserved in the structures of stars and galaxies and the light that is visible. We can see, it the microwave spectrum, the big bang's occurrence. It is actually still there, still visible, that light still exists and you can by analysing watch it occur in great detail.

    If the Genesis account were true it too would have left behind artefacts of its existence. The Garden of Eden, a real physical place on Earth, would leave a trace of its existence. (We are told it was somewhere in Iraq) We would find a place on earth where the remains of all living species could be found, where the residue of that vegetation is contained in the soil.

    Similarly with a flood which covered the entire world - the excess water would have to go somewhere we could find it. There would be, in the crust across the planet, a thing band of sandstone indicating that the place was once submerged beneath the sea, formed at the same time everywhere in the world and only some few thousand years ago, even the driest desert and tallest mountain. There is not. It is not present.

    Such a thing could not occur and leave no trace, yet you claim they did. Where then is the trace? The inevitable evidence of such events passing?

    You even admit this;

    that history will show how God was directly involved with the creation.
    Where then, does it show this? All that history shows, anywhere, is the lack of any involvement by any god.


    The robot thing - the products are identical, a name or brand can be changed or removed. It is not inherently part of the machine. Samsung can make an iPhone and put an Apple logo on it - if it is identical in every way what is there possibly to say that it is not an Apple made iPhone?

    If a god really did make the universe, they put Science's brand on it, not their own.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    So did we or did we not descend from Adam and Eve? If we did descend from them, then every single human trait must have been present in them. Genetically speaking we HAVE to share their genes. There is no other possible source of our genetic material.

    Science does not presume anything such - science finds out how the world used to be, rather than taking its knowledge from a book it looks at the evidence left behind.

    Scientists know how the Earth was formed because the process of its formation is recorded in the structure of the rocks, life's origins are recorded in their composition. The origins of the universe are preserved in the structures of stars and galaxies and the light that is visible. We can see, it the microwave spectrum, the big bang's occurrence. It is actually still there, still visible, that light still exists and you can by analysing watch it occur in great detail.

    If the Genesis account were true it too would have left behind artefacts of its existence. The Garden of Eden, a real physical place on Earth, would leave a trace of its existence. (We are told it was somewhere in Iraq) We would find a place on earth where the remains of all living species could be found, where the residue of that vegetation is contained in the soil.

    Similarly with a flood which covered the entire world - the excess water would have to go somewhere we could find it. There would be, in the crust across the planet, a thing band of sandstone indicating that the place was once submerged beneath the sea, formed at the same time everywhere in the world and only some few thousand years ago, even the driest desert and tallest mountain. There is not. It is not present.

    Such a thing could not occur and leave no trace, yet you claim they did. Where then is the trace? The inevitable evidence of such events passing?

    You even admit this;



    Where then, does it show this? All that history shows, anywhere, is the lack of any involvement by any god.


    The robot thing - the products are identical, a name or brand can be changed or removed. It is not inherently part of the machine. Samsung can make an iPhone and put an Apple logo on it - if it is identical in every way what is there possibly to say that it is not an Apple made iPhone?

    If a god really did make the universe, they put Science's brand on it, not their own.
    Yes, we descended from Adam and Eve. Also, I imagine they were amazingly diverse in genetic traits. The Bible points to this just by looking at Adam's age when he died. He was 930 years old. This tells us Adam, if he existed, was different than humans are today. Yes, he was human, but he was a perfect human in the beginning who was meant to live forever.

    As for the evidence of the literal creation mentioned in Genesis, it is to be expected that it is difficult to see the history of it and here's why.....

    Remember how I keep saying God created everything perfect and flawless? I'm sure in the beginning there were no such thing as natural disasters, and the systems that regulated this planet would be like a dream to us. (For instance it is mentioned that a mist would water the whole planet, keeping it cool. Versus the rainstorms, all the way to the hurricanes we see today) Everything changed when corruption entered the world. God's perfect creation became imperfect. If science is all about observation, you will no longer find a perfect world. You will no longer observe a perfect world. Everything is corrupt. Everywhere you turn. So even if the world was once perfect, you couldn't come to that conclusion just by looking at this world today.

    Yet even immediately after the world became corrupt, it still would have been a paradise from our perspective. There was much more oxygen, allowing creatures such as bugs, to grow much bigger. I also believe it allowed us to live longer lives, as we can see in the ages in the Bible. The systems that governed the world pre-flood (such as the water cycle) operated closely to how they did before corruption. Then the flood catastrophe happened. Essentially what I'm saying is if science was all about observation, our science would have been different pre corruption and pre-flood. If we were doing science pre-corruption or either pre-flood, we would have different theories and even more theories concerning how the world worked.

    Ultimately, the evidence for the literal Genesis has been twice covered. The only way to bring up evidence for it, is to work backwards and uncover them. Science today only works on the surface. I made a thread about this a while back.....http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1991390)

    With all that said, there is a lot of misunderstanding concerning the flood. Evidences you expect a global flood to leave behind aren't there, because the circumstances are not as you expect them to be. The global flood wasn't just a massive dump of water, but a series of chain reactions over a period of a year. So I'm not looking for evidence of a massive dump of water onto the earth, but evidence of those chain reactions. (This flood event is one of the reasons why I hypothesize that meteorites and asteroids can only be found in our solar system. I'm hoping the JWST will answer whether or not I'm correct) Another evidence would be finding animals that should have been extinct for millions of years, particularly a living dinosaur. I'm told that large dinosaurs would have a hard time living in today's world, so it is likely they have gone extinct even from the literal Genesis perspective. Yet, smaller dinosaurs should have survived to this day. So that is another evidence I would be looking for.

    On the manufacturering note, I doubt another manufacturer would put somebody's elses stamp on their product. Have this happened before?
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps it isn't a cop out, but it puts a stop immediately to any intelligent debate.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    There was much more oxygen, allowing creatures such as bugs, to grow much bigger. I also believe it allowed us to live longer lives, as we can see in the ages in the Bible.
    Complete rubbish, more oxygen would have no difference on us - firstly, there's already a MASSIVE excess in oxygen in the atmosphere compared to what living things use, and secondly, increasing the amount of oxygen doesn't increase the pressure, so we would actually get the same amount physiologically. If it did increase the pressure of oxygen, we'd get hardly any extra oxygen because we already take in oxygen at 90% saturation, and would need to double the pressure to get up to about 92%. Finally we can live at much lower pressures of oxygen at altitude without significantly different life spans.

    Also, why do you think there was more oxygen?

    This theory is absolutely ridiculous.

    I hypothesize that meteorites and asteroids can only be found in our solar system.
    You have got to be kidding me..
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    Yes, we descended from Adam and Eve. Also, I imagine they were amazingly diverse in genetic traits. The Bible points to this just by looking at Adam's age when he died. He was 930 years old. This tells us Adam, if he existed, was different than humans are today. Yes, he was human, but he was a perfect human in the beginning who was meant to live forever.
    No, impossible - they can't have had more chromosomes than we do either. We each have in total half the number of chromosomes our parents combined, or equivalently the same number as either one of them. If Adam and Eve had 1000 chromosomes each, all living humans today must have 1000 chromosomes each. All living humans have 46 chromosomes, Adam and EVE MUST, MUST have had 46 chromosomes too. Any more or any less leads to incurable, terminal genetic illnesses an infertility, which means between them they can have had at most 4 versions of any allele.

    Thus, impossible that all of humanity descended from them.

    As for the evidence of the literal creation mentioned in Genesis, it is to be expected that it is difficult to see the history of it and here's why.....
    No, it's not to be expected that it should be difficult to find evidence of it. Finding evidence of it should be SO UTTERLY TRIVIAL. There shouldn't be anywhere we can look without seeing huge evidence of it!

    Remember how I keep saying God created everything perfect and flawless? I'm sure in the beginning there were no such thing as natural disasters, and the systems that regulated this planet would be like a dream to us. (For instance it is mentioned that a mist would water the whole planet, keeping it cool. Versus the rainstorms, all the way to the hurricanes we see today) Everything changed when corruption entered the world. God's perfect creation became imperfect. If science is all about observation, you will no longer find a perfect world. You will no longer observe a perfect world. Everything is corrupt. Everywhere you turn. So even if the world was once perfect, you couldn't come to that conclusion just by looking at this world today.
    Well he didn't, he made huge errors, in fact he was so stupid it's hard to attribute much intelligence to him. But go on.

    There were natural disasters, we have evidence of these. Again, recorded in the geology of the planet. Our planet was practically formed by these events.

    The evidence of such perfection would shine out like beauty, singing to us "you are now wrong, once was right, look how perfect it all was". IT DOESN'T. THE WORLD WAS BORN FROM FIRE AND LAVA, WE KNOW IT WAS BECAUSE IT COULD NOT HAVE COME ABOUT ANY OTHER WAY.

    Yet even immediately after the world became corrupt, it still would have been a paradise from our perspective. There was much more oxygen, allowing creatures such as bugs, to grow much bigger. I also believe it allowed us to live longer lives, as we can see in the ages in the Bible. The systems that governed the world pre-flood (such as the water cycle) operated closely to how they did before corruption. Then the flood catastrophe happened. Essentially what I'm saying is if science was all about observation, our science would have been different pre corruption and pre-flood. If we were doing science pre-corruption or either pre-flood, we would have different theories and even more theories concerning how the world worked.
    You have no proof of any of this. We would know what the world was like pre-flood because all these creatures existed, died, and would have left their remains on the seabed, preserved in such a way we could now find them.

    They are not.

    Ultimately, the evidence for the literal Genesis has been twice covered. The only way to bring up evidence for it, is to work backwards and uncover them. Science today only works on the surface. I made a thread about this a while back.....http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1991390)
    According to this thread we will get nowhere - you have no conception of the scientific method, or logic or reasoning. You can't grasp what science is or how it reaches the conclusions it does. And you certainly don't get what Krauss is saying.

    Also there's a slight error in that there will be other galaxies - our local cluster is converging, so at the time he mentions the Andromeda Galaxy will actually be close to crashing into ours.

    Science does not look at the "surface" - it looks deeper, it looks for ways to check things, it always presumes that its theories could be wrong beyond the bounds they were created in. It would take longer, and more effort, but you have to go outside the galaxy to look for the cosmic background and prove it is still there, or the nothingness you see inside and prove that place is empty. And then you will find it.

    If you claim science only scratches the surface, religion does not lay a finger on the surface. Go back and damn well find your proof of genesis then, if you haven't guessed we have been looking for hundreds of years and all we have managed to do thus far is completely and utterly disprove it.

    With all that said, there is a lot of misunderstanding concerning the flood. Evidences you expect a global flood to leave behind aren't there, because the circumstances are not as you expect them to be. The global flood wasn't just a massive dump of water, but a series of chain reactions over a period of a year. So I'm not looking for evidence of a massive dump of water onto the earth, but evidence of those chain reactions. (This flood event is one of the reasons why I hypothesize that meteorites and asteroids can only be found in our solar system. I'm hoping the JWST will answer whether or not I'm correct) Another evidence would be finding animals that should have been extinct for millions of years, particularly a living dinosaur. I'm told that large dinosaurs would have a hard time living in today's world, so it is likely they have gone extinct even from the literal Genesis perspective. Yet, smaller dinosaurs should have survived to this day. So that is another evidence I would be looking for.
    I dunno, the entire planet's surface was covered in water for a whole year. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. I think what I expect to see would be seen. - If the entire planet's surface was completely submersed entirely just for a day we would see it.

    It's the being under water that's the crucial thing - rock formation occurs differently in the presence of large amounts of water. (you actually form different rocks, usually with rather different colours, and easily identifiable by their different chemical make-up)

    JWST will prove you wrong and you will just ignore it. In fact it doesn't need to - Hubble Space Telescope has already found conclusive evidence of extra-solar asteroids.

    On the manufacturering note, I doubt another manufacturer would put somebody's elses stamp on their product. Have this happened before?
    Yet you claim god did?

    Also yes, it's been made illegal mainly because it happens so much. It's called forgery. Normally done on expensive goods.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    I'm saying if the Bible is true, the things it states about the universe and everything in it will be true. The proof will be in the final answer of how the universe operates. The elusive theory of everything that can only be found in the Bible.

    Adam and Eve were flawless. I'm talking about their physical nature and so on. Yet they were given free will. So they had the freedom of continuing in that flawless nature or not. And yes, I have reason to believe the Bible is literal in it's accounts of history.
    Your still begging the question you must first provide evidence that it is true and god given. Also the tree gave the knowledge of good and evil so they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Also why should i suffer due to the mistakes of people from thousands of years ago.

    also there are countless mistakes in the bible
    jeremiah 16:19 from the ends of the earth
    revelation 7:1 four corners of the earth
    It says the hare chews the cud
    it says that god is stronger than a unicorn
    and worst of all it suggest the earth is 6000 years old.

    also historical evidence isn't enough proof. Harry Potter mentions london do i assume that true due to that No.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    You're right, because I preference this with if. I have question. For the prosecuter to prove someone is guilty, do they not work from the position that the accused have committed a crime? Do they not say "If this person did this crime, what would have to be true?"
    The prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty, yet in the defendant is innocent until the prosecutor provides conclusive evidence to prove the defendant's guilt. You are essentially working in the opposite direction as the court would. What you should be saying is "evidence A and evidence B proves C."

    So far you've been saying "C is true. I know of evidence A and B." If you tried this in a courtroom, you would be deemed presumptuous and your argument would be thrown out immediately.

    Like I said, in your arguments, you assume that what you way is correct from the beginning. Yet to argue correctly, you must put aside what you believe beforehand. You must present facts and tie those facts to a conclusion which, coincidentally, would be what you believed all along.

    I'll show you: The bible states that we are all made in the image of god. The bible also states that god loves all people. There have been murderers all throughout time. Given that murderers are people, god allegedly created people who killed other people. If god truly loved people, he wouldn't have created people who kill other people. Either god wants people to die or he didn't create people. Since the bible states that god loves all people, he can't want their death. Yet, assuming the bible is correct, he is causing it. If he is causing death, he cannot love those he kills. Therefore, the argument "god did it," is full of inconsistencies and does not hold up to logic, meaning god "didn't do it." If god "didn't do it," there is no evidence that he exists, ergo he does not exist.

    See? At the beginning I took my own beliefs aside and used indisputable facts to arrive at a conclusion. The fact that the conclusion mirrors my own beliefs is, for all intents and purposes, a coincidence.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Complete rubbish, more oxygen would have no difference on us - firstly, there's already a MASSIVE excess in oxygen in the atmosphere compared to what living things use, and secondly, increasing the amount of oxygen doesn't increase the pressure, so we would actually get the same amount physiologically. If it did increase the pressure of oxygen, we'd get hardly any extra oxygen because we already take in oxygen at 90% saturation, and would need to double the pressure to get up to about 92%. Finally we can live at much lower pressures of oxygen at altitude without significantly different life spans.

    Also, why do you think there was more oxygen?

    This theory is absolutely ridiculous.
    Not that I'm saying having more oxygen would increase our lifespan alone, but only pointing out that the earth was very different pre-flood. It was that pre-flood atmosphere that kept our bodies healthier for longer periods of time. How do I know there was more oxygen? By looking at the fossil record. Actually it was mentioned in a lot of the documentaries about life millions of years ago, only I believe the earth is younger than it appears to be through our measurements.

    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    You have got to be kidding me..
    Actually, I would like to revise my prediction about not finding asteroids in different solar systems. I realize that it's possible chunks of dust from a supernova could come together and form comets, meteorites, basically clumps of dust. Yet I argue the asteroids, meteorites and so on in our solar system orginated from earth. All of them. I hypothesize that every solar system that has a star like our own, has no asteroids/meteorites/etc.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    No, impossible - they can't have had more chromosomes than we do either. We each have in total half the number of chromosomes our parents combined, or equivalently the same number as either one of them. If Adam and Eve had 1000 chromosomes each, all living humans today must have 1000 chromosomes each. All living humans have 46 chromosomes, Adam and EVE MUST, MUST have had 46 chromosomes too. Any more or any less leads to incurable, terminal genetic illnesses an infertility, which means between them they can have had at most 4 versions of any allele.

    Thus, impossible that all of humanity descended from them.
    I'm not saying Adam and Eve had more than 46 chromosomes, I'm only saying their bodies were closer to perfection. Now what does that mean? That's not something I can answer at this point in time, but it's enough to know that if Adam existed, he wasn't like us. Your idea of Adam is like one of us today. Then you ask the question 'Could two people by themselves, populate the earth?'. The answer to that question is no. The last healthy generation of that family would be the kids from that couple. So that is the difference when it comes to your questions along those lines.

    Perhaps with Adam's body being closer to perfection, there were little copying errors within his genome. As we know with each generation, more and more copying errors work it's way into our genome. In the beginning, it was not like this. Yet as I said before, I'm still studying these things and I will have an answer later on. (Just don't ask me when )

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    No, it's not to be expected that it should be difficult to find evidence of it. Finding evidence of it should be SO UTTERLY TRIVIAL. There shouldn't be anywhere we can look without seeing huge evidence of it!
    I'm sorry but we are talking about the systems that nature runs on. If nature didn't follow systems or rules, then science would be impossible, and only chaos would rule. Yet nature follows distinct laws, and that makes science possible. Now if these laws are now imperfect, and we are just beginning our scientific studies in this imperfect world, where could you look to see perfection? Everything is imperfect! There's no looking billions of years out into space, and seeing how the world and universe was once perfect, every atom in the whole universe is now imperfect. Every building block smaller than that is now corrupt. Nothing is running like it use to, and such, there is no direct evidence to how things were done.

    So if you want the whole truth, we will have to go further than science (that is our observation) can go. That's ultimately what this concept of proving how God did it if He did it is all about. We need an account from someone who's been here since the beginning of the universe. If that account is true, from it all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked, and we can look below the surface. We can break things down to it's simplest form, and work our way back up.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Well he didn't, he made huge errors, in fact he was so stupid it's hard to attribute much intelligence to him. But go on.

    There were natural disasters, we have evidence of these. Again, recorded in the geology of the planet. Our planet was practically formed by these events.
    There is definitely disaster recorded in the rock record here on earth. Yet I believe instead of multiple catastrophes and extinction events, there was really only one major extinction event, and that was the flood event. Again it wasn't just a massive dumping of water onto the planet, but a series of chain events. The world in how it looks today, was carved out by the flood.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    The evidence of such perfection would shine out like beauty, singing to us "you are now wrong, once was right, look how perfect it all was". IT DOESN'T. THE WORLD WAS BORN FROM FIRE AND LAVA, WE KNOW IT WAS BECAUSE IT COULD NOT HAVE COME ABOUT ANY OTHER WAY.
    Like I said before, you can't come upon evidence of the perfect world by looking at the imperfect world. Of course I'll end it at this, that I'm still studying these things.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    You have no proof of any of this. We would know what the world was like pre-flood because all these creatures existed, died, and would have left their remains on the seabed, preserved in such a way we could now find them.

    They are not.
    I'm not sure I understand about finding creatures on the seabed. Yet that the seven continents were formed from the flood period. So when thinking about the flood, it's not as simple as what people are use to thinking about. I know the bedtime depiction of the flood has Zebras, monkeys, and other modern day animals on the ark. Yet that's not the correct image to have concerning the flood. Noah was dealing with ancient animals. (Think about it, if he had dinosaurs on the ark, why would he then have a modern day animal on the ark as well? That doesn't make sense at all "if" the story is true. It is likely Noah carried the ancestors of every modern animal on the ark, and not these recently evolved creatures today)


    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    According to this thread we will get nowhere - you have no conception of the scientific method, or logic or reasoning. You can't grasp what science is or how it reaches the conclusions it does. And you certainly don't get what Krauss is saying.

    Also there's a slight error in that there will be other galaxies - our local cluster is converging, so at the time he mentions the Andromeda Galaxy will actually be close to crashing into ours.
    I'm told the Andromeda Galaxy will be colliding with us 5 billion+ years from now. The time period Krauss mentions every galaxy will be so far away from us, is 100 billion+ years from now. He says that they will be moving away from us at speeds faster than light. (So there would be no way for any creature to observe light from these galaxies.) Yet it is true that there is only so much we can gather from science. The rest would be nothing but hypotheses.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Science does not look at the "surface" - it looks deeper, it looks for ways to check things, it always presumes that its theories could be wrong beyond the bounds they were created in. It would take longer, and more effort, but you have to go outside the galaxy to look for the cosmic background and prove it is still there, or the nothingness you see inside and prove that place is empty. And then you will find it.

    If you claim science only scratches the surface, religion does not lay a finger on the surface. Go back and damn well find your proof of genesis then, if you haven't guessed we have been looking for hundreds of years and all we have managed to do thus far is completely and utterly disprove it.
    For the longest our ancestors have relied on religion and superstitious beliefs. Now we are living in the age of science and growth in understanding. I believe though that science greatest feat is yet to be done. Science has eliminated superstitious beliefs, but I believe it's purpose is to bring to light the one truth that God does exist. We haven't discovered what 96% of the universe is made up of, and we already know many things can happen at different levels of relativity and sizes. So this is one of the reasons why I believe Genesis will stand up to the scrutiny, once a clear picture is painted of it.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    I dunno, the entire planet's surface was covered in water for a whole year. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. I think what I expect to see would be seen. - If the entire planet's surface was completely submersed entirely just for a day we would see it.

    It's the being under water that's the crucial thing - rock formation occurs differently in the presence of large amounts of water. (you actually form different rocks, usually with rather different colours, and easily identifiable by their different chemical make-up)
    I see a lot of interesting rock formation all over the world. You would say one of my biggest problems with that is they were covered at different times all over the world. Well one of the things about this flood was that it took months to cover and uncover the world. As the waters were receeding for instance, different elevations of land were covered for months, while the highest elevations could have been covered for a month or less. Not to mention the land was shifting beneath the waters. It would have been the first time there was tectonic activity to this magnitude. (Since the water of the flood burst from under the ground according to the Bible. A colossal hydrothermal explosion)

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    JWST will prove you wrong and you will just ignore it. In fact it doesn't need to - Hubble Space Telescope has already found conclusive evidence of extra-solar asteroids.
    Could you give me some links with these discoveries. I mentioned to Hypocrism that I revised my hypothesis a bit. It is possible that clumps of dust could form into asteroids and what not from all the dust out there in space. Yet if the flood event is true (along with some other things I'm thinking on), a solar system that has a star that is similar to our own sun should not have any asteroids in it.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Yet you claim god did?

    Also yes, it's been made illegal mainly because it happens so much. It's called forgery. Normally done on expensive goods.
    I'm claiming God committed forgery on the universe? Even if your right about that, knowing the universe inside out would be amazing. Of course you don't think I will get to that point, much less say it's evidence of God's creation.

    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Your still begging the question you must first provide evidence that it is true and god given. Also the tree gave the knowledge of good and evil so they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Also why should i suffer due to the mistakes of people from thousands of years ago.

    also there are countless mistakes in the bible
    jeremiah 16:19 from the ends of the earth
    revelation 7:1 four corners of the earth
    It says the hare chews the cud
    it says that god is stronger than a unicorn
    and worst of all it suggest the earth is 6000 years old.

    also historical evidence isn't enough proof. Harry Potter mentions london do i assume that true due to that No.
    I believe the question allows me to find evidence. Einstein had a lot of thought experiments that led to a lot of his discoveries. The only difference between me and Einstein, is that Einstein knew a heck of a lot more concerning the things he was studying than I do. That is why I say I'm still looking into these things. So if I am successful, then you will know God exists, since as stated before, my question would be based on God answer my questions Himself. (I can ask the maker of the robot how he did it)

    (Original post by KasanDude)
    The prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty, yet in the defendant is innocent until the prosecutor provides conclusive evidence to prove the defendant's guilt. You are essentially working in the opposite direction as the court would. What you should be saying is "evidence A and evidence B proves C."

    So far you've been saying "C is true. I know of evidence A and B." If you tried this in a courtroom, you would be deemed presumptuous and your argument would be thrown out immediately.

    Like I said, in your arguments, you assume that what you way is correct from the beginning. Yet to argue correctly, you must put aside what you believe beforehand. You must present facts and tie those facts to a conclusion which, coincidentally, would be what you believed all along.

    I'll show you: The bible states that we are all made in the image of god. The bible also states that god loves all people. There have been murderers all throughout time. Given that murderers are people, god allegedly created people who killed other people. If god truly loved people, he wouldn't have created people who kill other people. Either god wants people to die or he didn't create people. Since the bible states that god loves all people, he can't want their death. Yet, assuming the bible is correct, he is causing it. If he is causing death, he cannot love those he kills. Therefore, the argument "god did it," is full of inconsistencies and does not hold up to logic, meaning god "didn't do it." If god "didn't do it," there is no evidence that he exists, ergo he does not exist.

    See? At the beginning I took my own beliefs aside and used indisputable facts to arrive at a conclusion. The fact that the conclusion mirrors my own beliefs is, for all intents and purposes, a coincidence.
    You haven't fully put God on the stand then, because we can't just pick out two things the Bible says about God. If we are to take anything from the Bible, you must take it all from the Bible, and examine all the of what it says. Then and only then can we come up with a complete verdict.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    Not that I'm saying having more oxygen would increase our lifespan alone, but only pointing out that the earth was very different pre-flood. It was that pre-flood atmosphere that kept our bodies healthier for longer periods of time. How do I know there was more oxygen? By looking at the fossil record. Actually it was mentioned in a lot of the documentaries about life millions of years ago, only I believe the earth is younger than it appears to be through our measurements.
    Why can't we now simulate that atmosphere to help us live longer? There have been efforts to determine for example to effect of pure oxygen on the body. Guess what? Our bodies are fine-tuned to perform best (under normal physiological conditions i.e. no exercise, health, etc etc) in the atmosphere we currently have. Why? EVOLUTION. (Obviously.)

    Also, I can't remember if you are a young earth creationist? If so, the use of techniques to determine historical oxygen content puts it at the current 21% for the last 800million years, with a blip about 500million years ago. So these humans are living about 50x longer with an infinitesimal change in the atmosphere, according to you.

    Actually, I would like to revise my prediction about not finding asteroids in different solar systems. I realize that it's possible chunks of dust from a supernova could come together and form comets, meteorites, basically clumps of dust. Yet I argue the asteroids, meteorites and so on in our solar system orginated from earth. All of them. I hypothesize that every solar system that has a star like our own, has no asteroids/meteorites/etc.
    You need to give this up. Asteroids aren't formed from the earth

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid#Formation

    When you have a theory that you designate to be true beyond all evidence, you're going to find ways to skew all evidence towards that theory. But this is the wrong way to approach the problem. You need an idea that you try and validate or invalidate with evidence, and then you are able to change this idea based on what you actually see. All of your ridiculous, crackpot theories about Biblical science will be revoked unless you take this alternate stance, save the few you may fluke out on.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How has this thread not died already, I commented on it like a week ago and it's still as cringey as it was then
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    I believe the question allows me to find evidence. Einstein had a lot of thought experiments that led to a lot of his discoveries. The only difference between me and Einstein, is that Einstein knew a heck of a lot more concerning the things he was studying than I do. That is why I say I'm still looking into these things. So if I am successful, then you will know God exists, since as stated before, my question would be based on God answer my questions Himself. (I can ask the maker of the robot how he did it)
    But first you would have to prove you were speaking to god which is impossible. Assuming jesus could speak to god he could proved no evidence for this. Plus einstein did thought experients using maths by no means did he rely on a (non existent) invisible but perfect being. If any scientist including einstein came out and said i know how the universe was created and this is the formula y=124....+x and then said x was an improvable, non evident being the scientific community would be laugh at him and rightly so
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Oh really? What colour hair did Adam and Eve have?

    I'm asking because you seem to have forgotten a key piece of evidence which completely and without doubt disproves the Genesis story - that human traits are hereditary. Our species cannot have come from just 2 individuals because it shows too much variation for this to be the case, 2 individuals cannot carry between them more than 4 variations on any genome, but the species today shows dozens to hundreds of variations on certain genomes.
    random mutation?

    There is also a minimum required genetic diversity in a species for its long-term survival which 2 members does not meet by a long shot.
    not if they started out with no genetic mutations. if mutations increased over time then you would need increasingly more numbers to produce fit offspring. but if the first generations were increasing in size but only had few mutations then population growth could occur before more diversity was needed.

    i could be wrong. but this would still require an old earth timeline.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    ...Well go on then.
    exactly what I was thinking.

    LOL
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by E.Blackadder)
    random mutation?



    not if they started out with no genetic mutations. if mutations increased over time then you would need increasingly more numbers to produce fit offspring. but if the first generations were increasing in size but only had few mutations then population growth could occur before more diversity was needed.

    i could be wrong. but this would still require an old earth timeline.
    Random mutation that would take longer than the Genesis story claims the world has existed for by several orders of magnitude. Random mutation changes only a single genetic code segment at a time - to change to completely different genomes requires thousands of generations.

    More importantly it would take longer than the human species has been in existence by a few orders of magnitude.

    The main source of genetic randomness is that many genes existed to begin with - abiogensis would have created an entirely random selection of genomes, excluding those that couldn't have led to stable life still leaves more than enough combinations to lead to every species in existence today and every species that has ever existed.

    If they started out with no mutations then the successive generations of offspring would become infertile due to duplicate or missing genomes. It's quite well tested. Diversity does not increase sufficiently quickly to counter infertility. (In fact it takes 2, maybe 3 generations of inbreeding for terminal genetic illnesses to manifest, but tens to hundreds for new genomes to emerge) Diversity is needed in a small population as much as in a large one (in fact more so in a small population because a large population picks up mutations at a greater rate)
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Also, why do you think there was more oxygen?
    I'm agreeing with most of your points against Okashira's opinions. However, it's generally accepted (by real scientists, I hasten to add) that the amount of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere has varied over time, sometimes being as high as 30-35% (compared to ~21% today), and that some creatures can grow larger in hyperoxic conditions.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    I'm agreeing with most of your points against Okashira's opinions. However, it's generally accepted (by real scientists, I hasten to add) that the amount of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere has varied over time, sometimes being as high as 30-35% (compared to ~21% today), and that some creatures can grow larger in hyperoxic conditions.
    I know that's true, however, as a young earth creationist he should know that the amount of oxygen was almost exactly constant at 21% over the 6000 year history of the earth (lol).

    Also, I've never heard about these large creatures, I'll definitely look at it.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Also, I've never heard about these large creatures, I'll definitely look at it.
    Fossils records contain scorpions up to 8 feet in length (!)

    In the lab, scientists have bred insects in hyperoxic conditions, to study the sizes of successive generations. Some species (eg, dragonflies) get bigger, but others seem to be unaffected (eg, roaches).

    One theory is that the amount of oxygen delivered to tissues through tracheal tubes could be a limiting factor for growth, but there must be other factors.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    You haven't fully put God on the stand then, because we can't just pick out two things the Bible says about God. If we are to take anything from the Bible, you must take it all from the Bible, and examine all the of what it says. Then and only then can we come up with a complete verdict.
    Even if just two things about god in the bible do not hold up under scrutiny, the bible as a whole is no longer a factual document, and you cannot take anything in at face value. Basically, proving that just those two things are false, I've proved that the entire bible is false. Considering that the bible is the only real source of information in christianity, I've basically disproved the source of the entire religion.

    Face it, unless all of it is true, you cannot accept anything in the bible as true. Because otherwise, who is to say which parts are real and which aren't?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 20, 2012
New on TSR

Submitting your UCAS application

How long did it take for yours to be processed?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.