well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
Actually Agoff, he's one of the very few Christians actually willing to participate in many interpretations of the birth of life, so that in itself takes intelligence to do.
Actually Agoff, he's one of the very few Christians actually willing to participate in many interpretations of the birth of life, so that in itself takes intelligence to do.
You say I am unintelligent but you can not and haven't backed up anything you have posted on this thread.
Are you serious? look at the thread about if god created all things. i used evidence to disprove most of you on how many of you knew nothing or very little on what we were talking about. also all ive said is god can do great things in the dark, the big bang wasn't an explosion(which is a well known fact), and that there is evidence to prove that the earth and the universe are over 6,000 years old.
Actually Agoff, he's one of the very few Christians actually willing to participate in many interpretations of the birth of life, so that in itself takes intelligence to do.
many other die-hard Christians have been in discussions about this on many threads on armor games the reason i think he is unintelligent is because he pretty much says, i refuse your plausible explanation with many proofs and will go with the theory god created all things no questions asked.
Are you serious? look at the thread about if god created all things. i used evidence to disprove most of you on how many of you knew nothing or very little on what we were talking about. also all ive said is god can do great things in the dark, the big bang wasn't an explosion(which is a well known fact), and that there is evidence to prove that the earth and the universe are over 6,000 years old.
First of all I was talking about JUST this thread which I clearly stated. And 2nd of all, something noname presented to me, You really can't argue about all this cause it just keeps going in a circle so really you are wrong to me as I am wrong to you.
I'm going to bed, think about why you believe in god over night dumbness ok? we can talk about it tomorrow.
Dumbness, thats cute. How childish and you keep insulting my intelligence? Interesting. Anyways Goodnight. And don't worry nothing will change my mind I just like hearing other peoples views which you extremely hate to do.
i still think its funny that he made the heaven and the earth in the dark and its supposed to be soo perfect
It gets a whole lot more problematic for God then that. Since there was no sun that means there were no gravitational forces to hold the Earth in a stable orbit. So this would mean if it turns out God really did create the Earth. Instead of the method suggested by science, God would have went about it in very round about way giving himself more work then what would have been necessary. This seems very odd for a supposed perfect or if you prefer near perfect being to do.
Was going to leave this alone but I can't sleep and am feeling a bit fired up.
And don't worry nothing will change my mind
Then you nothing more then a closed minding fool.
When you go into a debate you have to keep in mind the possibility of being wrong, even if you think it's unlikely that you are. There's nothing wrong with being bullheaded about sticking to your guns, but you have to be willing to change your views. The point of a debate is not to convince the other guy but to improve and grow your own mind. If there is no possibility of changing your mind then you can't do this.
something noname presented to me, You really can't argue about all this cause it just keeps going in a circle so really you are wrong to me as I am wrong to you.
Oh yeah while I'm at it about that. If we aren't going to require you to try and prove your side and just say "well it's your belief let's leave it at that because it just has us arguing in circles" then we might as well just close down the WEPR because we can apply this to anything.
Oh, and before it gets thrown up that atheists can't prove there side the stance is that god is extremely unlikely to exist but the possibility how ever slight is still on the plate. Some more extreme versions might try to argue complete disapproval but this isn't the case for most. From the evidence I have seen god either doesn't exist or is like that of a deistic god which might as well not exist.
I found an argument I like that's called the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
If you find a good computer, you would think that a smart man made it. but then, who made the smart man? ect. For something smart to be made, you need a even smarter thing. Let these be called chain parts. What really needs to be found is the crane that holds it all up, something found in sience (more particularly, darwin)more than in religion. The religion is based on an endless chain part or on an endless amount of chain parts, which is rather shabby.
Mage, I agree with you when you said," I was going to leave this one alone"... After the long day I spent yesterday trying to figure out the way to post and insert links correctly, Mage came to my aid. Talk about your classic example of polar opposites who can "choose" to agree to disagree and still manage to talk to each other with respect.
I'm a protestant Christian who can read the Bible for myself, not needing the Pope, Bishop, Pastor or anyone else But Jesus to intercede on my behalf to the Heavenly Father. Having said that, I embrace what science has to tell us about our past, present and future.
Personally, science was my favorite subject in school and I was a natural when it came to disection in biology. I admit I may have been a little confused about the real definition of evolution which, I still haven't been able to read a "clear" defintion of so I would appreciate it if someone could post a link?
I don't see why my beliefs in GOD and embracing new scientific discoveries have to conflict. I may have future conflicts with the wording of the Bible but truly, I think the problem with the Bible has been translations and how material was censored by the Romans, who hated the Christians and barely tolerated the Jews. The Early Churchs were held in caves. So yes, by the very definition, The Christian Church has "evolved" and especially in the USA.
so really you are wrong to me as I am wrong to you.
well at least i have some form of evidence to prove why i think I'm right and you have nothing.
It gets a whole lot more problematic for God then that. Since there was no sun that means there were no gravitational forces to hold the Earth in a stable orbit.
i wasn't being serious. I was quoting a joke by Ricky Gervais (he's probably the funniest man alive)
If you find a good computer, you would think that a smart man made it. but then, who made the smart man? ect.
looked at the link a bit, seems like a dumb argument.
Why can't I believe in all three?
you can try but there are soo many conflicts with the bible and science that you sorta need to pick a side.
Also i don't think you got the point of why i asked you my question. How did you come to believe in god? some christian like your parents or a priest probably said to you the bible is what is right and you need to believe in it. What do you think you would be arguing now if you learned all about science as a young kid and were just recently exposed to religion?
well at least i have some form of evidence to prove why i think I'm right and you have nothing.
What evidence do you have backing it up? You have nothing as do I... I believe in God, someone who was just there, and you believe in Big Bang? right? Something that was just there.
If you find a good computer, you would think that a smart man made it. but then, who made the smart man? ect.
The smart man was obviously made by his parents, who were then made by their parents. We go all the way to the first generations, then the first humans, then their common ancestors. Then, we go all the way back further, to where life was created by non-living matter. This non-living matter was clumped together by many of the same molecules, who were made by atoms scattered from the Big Bang, which was made by a previous Big Bang. The continuous recycle of universes is an infinitesimal loop.
After the long day I spent yesterday trying to figure out the way to post and insert links correctly, Mage came to my aid. Talk about your classic example of polar opposites who can "choose" to agree to disagree and still manage to talk to each other with respect.
Well I can't debate with someone who can't get there point across properly. So in that respect it's beneficial to both of us.
I don't see why my beliefs in GOD and embracing new scientific discoveries have to conflict.
Well the thing is they often are in direct contradiction to each other.
For example as I mentioned here the Bible says the Earth was created then the sun, science says it had to be the other way around.
i wasn't being serious. I was quoting a joke by Ricky Gervais (he's probably the funniest man alive)
I was being serious. If God really does exist and did the things the Bible says then he just made more work for him self. It would be like building a house then building the foundation to put the house on.
It involves matter and energy, 2 things which we have observed, you have a 'spirit', something we can not observe. Already, the Big Bang theory has more support.
I believe in God, someone who was just there
And yet you ask contradictory questions.
you believe in Big Bang? right? Something that was just there.
The big bang was more of an event, or a change, it can't 'just be there' otherwise its not a change.
