All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years.  The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. Well, just because you ignore proper use of the language... The Bible says what it says. Understand what you can understand. Believe it all. People are prone to misinterpreting everything. Only 30 versions? I think that if you check out BibleGateway you will find a lot more than 30 versions. And these aren't all of them. There is only 1 version of the original. After all, the guys who wrote the Bible didn't make two different copies of what they wrote; not even Jeremiah when he rewrote what King Zedekiah burned. Eye witnesses are way better than than the fiction that often passes for science these days.
The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people.
God is responsible for the Bible. God is also "responsible for having medicine today" and "cars" and "planes" and every "other thing that you can think of." Of course, where there is evil involved, God is the Great Giver... Who is giving us the things that we ask for. But even though it is evil, He is giving it in the perfect, righteous way. Watch out! You are going to get the evil you are asking for from God, even if your asking is inadvertent, or your wanting of evil is. You are just rambling about other things. I presented clear evidence of how almost all sciences show that the earth/universe is older than 6000 years old and some of them depend on those measurements. You can't just comment, nah they are all wrong. You have to prove they are wrong and you won't because they are not, they work, as I said previously and they are applied to everything. It's not their fault you are too delusional to accept it and that you would deny 99% of science just to make satisfy your crazy beliefs. Evidence is great stuff. All the evidence for billions of years is: 1. Theory... not know to be factual; 2. Not attested to as fact by the scientists who propose it; 3. Circular referencing; 4. Only attested to as fact by those in the media or those who have an "old earth" agenda; 5. Can be applied in ways that show the opposite of old earth. Look it up to see that what I am saying is true. The Bible, on the other hand, is definite eye witness references. Who are you going to believe? The scientists who admit by their limiting words (such as: if, maybe, chances are, probably, etc.), or the Bible witnesses who don't have any limiting words? Believe both! The scientists show by their limiting words that they don't know. The Bible witnesses show by their definite report that they do know. Believe them both. The earth is less than 6,200 years old. 1. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. 2. ? 3. Like what 4. Same thing can be applied to religious people 5. Like what ''is definite eye witness references. '' And you know that, how? I don't have to believe anything because all these methods can be tested. I could test them by myself actually, I could study each method individually and test things by myself. Science is not belief. ^^^ 1. Notice that there is nothing that says that science theory is fact. ^^^ 2. Scientists, themselves, use qualifying language (if, maybe, possible, probable) showing things are not fact. ^^^ 3. & 5. Things like BB theory and evolution theory and relativity theory, etc. ^^^ 4. Thank you for your agreement. Hebrew tradition along with the fact that there were only superficial changes to the Bible over at least 2000 years, along with the miracles of Moses, etc., being attested to as fact, along with the strength in the numbers of hand-written copies from ancient times, along with nothing having been proven false, along with the scientific proof that God exists, along with the history of the way the Bible came together... all shows that the Bible is truth. Things don't come together the way the Bible did without some miraculous hand of God making it happen. Those eye witness reports stand solid. 1. There is nothing factual, nothing can be 100% factual, you are discarding all science because it doesn't say it's a fact? Sometimes you amaze me. I guess computers aren't a fact either and all the other technologies by your definition. 2.  they can't use words now? 3. Like what exactly 4. ok? Who cares if there are only superficial changes, that would only mean that the bible hasn't changed since it was written, that doesn't mean it's truth lol. How are the miracles of moses attested as fact? hahaha plenty of things have been proven wrong in the bible : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors''along with the history of the way the Bible came together.'' Don't know what that means but nothing of what you said proves the bible is factual. You are wrong. Factual things are factual. Evolution has been proven to not be fact, over and over. That is one of the things that is factual. Nice sci-fi theory. But proven not factual, over and over. You didn't answer any of the other questions, you giving up finally on your stupid crusade? Factual things are factual - badecker 2017 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorshttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorsWhat crusade. Anybody who examines evolution from the standpoint of a clear mind, can see that there is nothing factual about it. All the factual things that some people apply to evolution, can be applied to creation as well, in a different way. Evolution just plain doesn't work. Anybody who studies evolution can see that is backed by more than 20 different sciences. Creation hasn't been applied to anything, evolution has. Creation has been around for 6000 years and yet no one has been able to use it for anything, the bible which is supposedly the word of god contains nothing useful for scientists throughout time. Evolution has been around for a few years only and it has already been successfully applied to many different things. You don't pray and wait for god to heal you when you are sick, you go to a hospital. There is nothing useful about the bible, god or any other religion, they are all useless. We are here thanks to a few smart people and thanks to science and the scientific method. You can keep believing in whatever you want to believe but at the end of the day, people that study medicine, physics, math and other useful things are the ones who are making the whole world advance and progress, not priests, not bishops, not the pope. God could have made the bible useful if he really existed, instead : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors the only thing you find in the bible are errors. Except that evolution isn't factual. That's why they call it the theory of evolution. None of the sciences show enough to prove evolution to be factual. On top of that, evolution would have to overcome the things that show that it is impossible, like probability math, and Irreducible complexity, for example. Seems like you are trying to keep the evolution hoax going. Why? Do you have a financial stake in it like so many university profs? It's called theory because that's how scientists call things, no one calls anything the fact of evolution or the fact of gravity or the fact of physics. Irreducible complexity already debunked and I showed you: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.htmlhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityhttps://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierYou can find more by googling it. Math: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/can_probability_theory_be_used_to_refute_evolution_part_onehttp://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.phpAs I said, your inability to accept that evolution is true doesn't make it false. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it. As I said evolution works and it's applied to numerous things, creationism doesnt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theoryhttp://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wp3Awd3MIkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLeztJkhi4Uhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/evolution-is-just-a-theory/Not to mention all the errors the bible contains: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorshttp://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-of-the-Bible-Inaccuracies-contradictions-fallacies-scientific-issues-and-more-20120517http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html |
|
|
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists. |
|
|
|
All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. Well, just because you ignore proper use of the language... The Bible says what it says. Understand what you can understand. Believe it all. People are prone to misinterpreting everything. Only 30 versions? I think that if you check out BibleGateway you will find a lot more than 30 versions. And these aren't all of them. There is only 1 version of the original. After all, the guys who wrote the Bible didn't make two different copies of what they wrote; not even Jeremiah when he rewrote what King Zedekiah burned. Eye witnesses are way better than than the fiction that often passes for science these days.
The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people.
God is responsible for the Bible. God is also "responsible for having medicine today" and "cars" and "planes" and every "other thing that you can think of." Of course, where there is evil involved, God is the Great Giver... Who is giving us the things that we ask for. But even though it is evil, He is giving it in the perfect, righteous way. Watch out! You are going to get the evil you are asking for from God, even if your asking is inadvertent, or your wanting of evil is. You are just rambling about other things. I presented clear evidence of how almost all sciences show that the earth/universe is older than 6000 years old and some of them depend on those measurements. You can't just comment, nah they are all wrong. You have to prove they are wrong and you won't because they are not, they work, as I said previously and they are applied to everything. It's not their fault you are too delusional to accept it and that you would deny 99% of science just to make satisfy your crazy beliefs. Evidence is great stuff. All the evidence for billions of years is: 1. Theory... not know to be factual; 2. Not attested to as fact by the scientists who propose it; 3. Circular referencing; 4. Only attested to as fact by those in the media or those who have an "old earth" agenda; 5. Can be applied in ways that show the opposite of old earth. Look it up to see that what I am saying is true. The Bible, on the other hand, is definite eye witness references. Who are you going to believe? The scientists who admit by their limiting words (such as: if, maybe, chances are, probably, etc.), or the Bible witnesses who don't have any limiting words? Believe both! The scientists show by their limiting words that they don't know. The Bible witnesses show by their definite report that they do know. Believe them both. The earth is less than 6,200 years old. 1. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. 2. ? 3. Like what 4. Same thing can be applied to religious people 5. Like what ''is definite eye witness references. '' And you know that, how? I don't have to believe anything because all these methods can be tested. I could test them by myself actually, I could study each method individually and test things by myself. Science is not belief. ^^^ 1. Notice that there is nothing that says that science theory is fact. ^^^ 2. Scientists, themselves, use qualifying language (if, maybe, possible, probable) showing things are not fact. ^^^ 3. & 5. Things like BB theory and evolution theory and relativity theory, etc. ^^^ 4. Thank you for your agreement. Hebrew tradition along with the fact that there were only superficial changes to the Bible over at least 2000 years, along with the miracles of Moses, etc., being attested to as fact, along with the strength in the numbers of hand-written copies from ancient times, along with nothing having been proven false, along with the scientific proof that God exists, along with the history of the way the Bible came together... all shows that the Bible is truth. Things don't come together the way the Bible did without some miraculous hand of God making it happen. Those eye witness reports stand solid. 1. There is nothing factual, nothing can be 100% factual, you are discarding all science because it doesn't say it's a fact? Sometimes you amaze me. I guess computers aren't a fact either and all the other technologies by your definition. 2. they can't use words now? 3. Like what exactly 4. ok? Who cares if there are only superficial changes, that would only mean that the bible hasn't changed since it was written, that doesn't mean it's truth lol. How are the miracles of moses attested as fact? hahaha plenty of things have been proven wrong in the bible : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors''along with the history of the way the Bible came together.'' Don't know what that means but nothing of what you said proves the bible is factual. You are wrong. Factual things are factual. Evolution has been proven to not be fact, over and over. That is one of the things that is factual. Nice sci-fi theory. But proven not factual, over and over. You didn't answer any of the other questions, you giving up finally on your stupid crusade? Factual things are factual - badecker 2017 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorshttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorsWhat crusade. Anybody who examines evolution from the standpoint of a clear mind, can see that there is nothing factual about it. All the factual things that some people apply to evolution, can be applied to creation as well, in a different way. Evolution just plain doesn't work. Anybody who studies evolution can see that is backed by more than 20 different sciences. Creation hasn't been applied to anything, evolution has. Creation has been around for 6000 years and yet no one has been able to use it for anything, the bible which is supposedly the word of god contains nothing useful for scientists throughout time. Evolution has been around for a few years only and it has already been successfully applied to many different things. You don't pray and wait for god to heal you when you are sick, you go to a hospital. There is nothing useful about the bible, god or any other religion, they are all useless. We are here thanks to a few smart people and thanks to science and the scientific method. You can keep believing in whatever you want to believe but at the end of the day, people that study medicine, physics, math and other useful things are the ones who are making the whole world advance and progress, not priests, not bishops, not the pope. God could have made the bible useful if he really existed, instead : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors the only thing you find in the bible are errors. |
|
|
|
You can't "prove" scientifically that God exists because that would require him to be physical, visible. He is outside of his creation, although he can and has entered into it.
You can't know that. You can say the same about the flying spaghetti monster instead of God and boom there you have it, now the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and you will never be able to prove it or disprove it because he lives outside time and space and its not physical. Now you are bringing religion into it. The FSM isn't shown by science proof at all. Probability the scientific proof that God exists leaves open the idea that God might be the FSM. That is the failure of scientists in their observations, so far. We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like. ''We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like.'' Circular reference |
|
|
|
He died for our sins to save us. God did the flood to save us. And yet here we are, not saved, bible logic is amusing haha Can't help anyone who doesn't want to help themselves....  And why would someone not want to help himself? What kind of stupid logic is that. You think atheists do not believe in God because they don't want to help themselves or they want to die? |
|
|
|
You can't "prove" scientifically that God exists because that would require him to be physical, visible. He is outside of his creation, although he can and has entered into it.
You can't know that. You can say the same about the flying spaghetti monster instead of God and boom there you have it, now the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and you will never be able to prove it or disprove it because he lives outside time and space and its not physical. |
|
|
|
All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. Well, just because you ignore proper use of the language... The Bible says what it says. Understand what you can understand. Believe it all. People are prone to misinterpreting everything. Only 30 versions? I think that if you check out BibleGateway you will find a lot more than 30 versions. And these aren't all of them. There is only 1 version of the original. After all, the guys who wrote the Bible didn't make two different copies of what they wrote; not even Jeremiah when he rewrote what King Zedekiah burned. Eye witnesses are way better than than the fiction that often passes for science these days.
The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people.
God is responsible for the Bible. God is also "responsible for having medicine today" and "cars" and "planes" and every "other thing that you can think of." Of course, where there is evil involved, God is the Great Giver... Who is giving us the things that we ask for. But even though it is evil, He is giving it in the perfect, righteous way. Watch out! You are going to get the evil you are asking for from God, even if your asking is inadvertent, or your wanting of evil is. You are just rambling about other things. I presented clear evidence of how almost all sciences show that the earth/universe is older than 6000 years old and some of them depend on those measurements. You can't just comment, nah they are all wrong. You have to prove they are wrong and you won't because they are not, they work, as I said previously and they are applied to everything. It's not their fault you are too delusional to accept it and that you would deny 99% of science just to make satisfy your crazy beliefs. Evidence is great stuff. All the evidence for billions of years is: 1. Theory... not know to be factual; 2. Not attested to as fact by the scientists who propose it; 3. Circular referencing; 4. Only attested to as fact by those in the media or those who have an "old earth" agenda; 5. Can be applied in ways that show the opposite of old earth. Look it up to see that what I am saying is true. The Bible, on the other hand, is definite eye witness references. Who are you going to believe? The scientists who admit by their limiting words (such as: if, maybe, chances are, probably, etc.), or the Bible witnesses who don't have any limiting words? Believe both! The scientists show by their limiting words that they don't know. The Bible witnesses show by their definite report that they do know. Believe them both. The earth is less than 6,200 years old. 1. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. 2. ? 3. Like what 4. Same thing can be applied to religious people 5. Like what ''is definite eye witness references. '' And you know that, how? I don't have to believe anything because all these methods can be tested. I could test them by myself actually, I could study each method individually and test things by myself. Science is not belief. ^^^ 1. Notice that there is nothing that says that science theory is fact. ^^^ 2. Scientists, themselves, use qualifying language (if, maybe, possible, probable) showing things are not fact. ^^^ 3. & 5. Things like BB theory and evolution theory and relativity theory, etc. ^^^ 4. Thank you for your agreement. Hebrew tradition along with the fact that there were only superficial changes to the Bible over at least 2000 years, along with the miracles of Moses, etc., being attested to as fact, along with the strength in the numbers of hand-written copies from ancient times, along with nothing having been proven false, along with the scientific proof that God exists, along with the history of the way the Bible came together... all shows that the Bible is truth. Things don't come together the way the Bible did without some miraculous hand of God making it happen. Those eye witness reports stand solid. 1. There is nothing factual, nothing can be 100% factual, you are discarding all science because it doesn't say it's a fact? Sometimes you amaze me. I guess computers aren't a fact either and all the other technologies by your definition. 2. they can't use words now? 3. Like what exactly 4. ok? Who cares if there are only superficial changes, that would only mean that the bible hasn't changed since it was written, that doesn't mean it's truth lol. How are the miracles of moses attested as fact? hahaha plenty of things have been proven wrong in the bible : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors''along with the history of the way the Bible came together.'' Don't know what that means but nothing of what you said proves the bible is factual. You are wrong. Factual things are factual. Evolution has been proven to not be fact, over and over. That is one of the things that is factual. Nice sci-fi theory. But proven not factual, over and over. You didn't answer any of the other questions, you giving up finally on your stupid crusade? Factual things are factual - badecker 2017 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorshttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors |
|
|
|
You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see. EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks. Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are. We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1969184.msg19591768#msg19591768You are a twisted individual BADecker. Interlude: I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post. P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'. Well, that's not true. All anyone has to do is rebut the science of cause and effect, entropy, or complexity to show that God doesn't exist. That shouldn't be so hard for you multi-talented trolls. Come on now. Do some rebutting. Since you can't, you continue to support the proof that God exists. God doesn't really thank you for this. He simply made things so that you can't. He has Himself to pat on the back for blocking you jokers. Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 How do you know? You cant explain the rebuttal that you are talking about. And you dont have any rebuttal of your own. How do I know what? How do you know yours is proof? We can keep asking stupid questions like that forever. If you have any questions about my rebuttal or your own, feel free to ask because I will answer any question. How do you know there is any rebuttal to my own "stuff" in the things that I say? You wouldn't know a rebuttal if it jumped up and bit you in the eyeball. Science says mine is proof. That's the whole thing that we are talking about, here. Scientific proof, or the rebuttal of it. Of course, nobody should be surprised that you haven't figured that out yet. I have been asking you to show one rebuttal to the proof that God exists. So far you haven't shown a rebuttal at all. Everything that you have said has so many holes in it that Swiss cheese is a thousand more times more solid. Nope science doesn't say yours is proof. Rebuttal here: Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 Can't write it out, can you? Science proves God exists, and there has been nothing to rebut that fact. No scientist has ever proven God and there is nothing to rebut that fact. For cause and effect, entropy, and complexity to exist together like they do in this universe, God is a requirement. This doesn't explain what God is. It only shows that He is powerful beyond any possibility of understanding of His power. If you don't know what god is you can't say it's a requirement. Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. We have no idea whether this universe had to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a multiverse for example. Critics also ask why God should be considered a requirement and inexplicably exempted from the argument that everything has a cause. If a God exists to cause the universe then, by the same argument, this God must itself have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unacceptable to most theists. Simply asking "does God have a cause of his existence? therefore raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves. If God is thought not to have, or not to need, a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence! If God or the Prime Mover just is, then why can the universe not just be? Why is there a need to go a step further back? The widely accepted concept of Occams Razor suggests that the simplest solution to a problem is always the best, and that additional unnecessary complexity should be avoided. Even if one accepts that that the universe does in fact have a beginning in time (as the generally accepted Big Bang theory suggests), the Temporal Cosmological Argument does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods). Neither does it explain why the something which is outside the universe should be God and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshipped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition. The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no time before the universe, then the whole notion of cause ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a cause (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no cause of the universe. Interestingly, at the sub-atomic quantum level, modern science has found that physical events are observed to have no evident cause, and particles appear to pop in and out of existence at random. In the first infinitesimal fraction of a second after the Big Bang singularity, classical physics is known to break down and just such unpredictable and counter-intuitive quantum effects are thought to apply. |
|
|
|
You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see. EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks. Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are. We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1969184.msg19591768#msg19591768You are a twisted individual BADecker. Interlude: I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post. P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'. Well, that's not true. All anyone has to do is rebut the science of cause and effect, entropy, or complexity to show that God doesn't exist. That shouldn't be so hard for you multi-talented trolls. Come on now. Do some rebutting. Since you can't, you continue to support the proof that God exists. God doesn't really thank you for this. He simply made things so that you can't. He has Himself to pat on the back for blocking you jokers. Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 How do you know? You cant explain the rebuttal that you are talking about. And you dont have any rebuttal of your own. How do I know what? How do you know yours is proof? We can keep asking stupid questions like that forever. If you have any questions about my rebuttal or your own, feel free to ask because I will answer any question. How do you know there is any rebuttal to my own "stuff" in the things that I say? You wouldn't know a rebuttal if it jumped up and bit you in the eyeball. Science says mine is proof. That's the whole thing that we are talking about, here. Scientific proof, or the rebuttal of it. Of course, nobody should be surprised that you haven't figured that out yet. I have been asking you to show one rebuttal to the proof that God exists. So far you haven't shown a rebuttal at all. Everything that you have said has so many holes in it that Swiss cheese is a thousand more times more solid. Nope science doesn't say yours is proof. Rebuttal here: Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 Can't write it out, can you? Science proves God exists, and there has been nothing to rebut that fact. No scientist has ever proven God and there is nothing to rebut that fact. |
|
|
|
All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. Well, just because you ignore proper use of the language... The Bible says what it says. Understand what you can understand. Believe it all. People are prone to misinterpreting everything. Only 30 versions? I think that if you check out BibleGateway you will find a lot more than 30 versions. And these aren't all of them. There is only 1 version of the original. After all, the guys who wrote the Bible didn't make two different copies of what they wrote; not even Jeremiah when he rewrote what King Zedekiah burned. Eye witnesses are way better than than the fiction that often passes for science these days.
The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people.
God is responsible for the Bible. God is also "responsible for having medicine today" and "cars" and "planes" and every "other thing that you can think of." Of course, where there is evil involved, God is the Great Giver... Who is giving us the things that we ask for. But even though it is evil, He is giving it in the perfect, righteous way. Watch out! You are going to get the evil you are asking for from God, even if your asking is inadvertent, or your wanting of evil is. You are just rambling about other things. I presented clear evidence of how almost all sciences show that the earth/universe is older than 6000 years old and some of them depend on those measurements. You can't just comment, nah they are all wrong. You have to prove they are wrong and you won't because they are not, they work, as I said previously and they are applied to everything. It's not their fault you are too delusional to accept it and that you would deny 99% of science just to make satisfy your crazy beliefs. Evidence is great stuff. All the evidence for billions of years is: 1. Theory... not know to be factual; 2. Not attested to as fact by the scientists who propose it; 3. Circular referencing; 4. Only attested to as fact by those in the media or those who have an "old earth" agenda; 5. Can be applied in ways that show the opposite of old earth. Look it up to see that what I am saying is true. The Bible, on the other hand, is definite eye witness references. Who are you going to believe? The scientists who admit by their limiting words (such as: if, maybe, chances are, probably, etc.), or the Bible witnesses who don't have any limiting words? Believe both! The scientists show by their limiting words that they don't know. The Bible witnesses show by their definite report that they do know. Believe them both. The earth is less than 6,200 years old. 1. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. 2. ? 3. Like what 4. Same thing can be applied to religious people 5. Like what ''is definite eye witness references. '' And you know that, how? I don't have to believe anything because all these methods can be tested. I could test them by myself actually, I could study each method individually and test things by myself. Science is not belief. ^^^ 1. Notice that there is nothing that says that science theory is fact. ^^^ 2. Scientists, themselves, use qualifying language (if, maybe, possible, probable) showing things are not fact. ^^^ 3. & 5. Things like BB theory and evolution theory and relativity theory, etc. ^^^ 4. Thank you for your agreement. Hebrew tradition along with the fact that there were only superficial changes to the Bible over at least 2000 years, along with the miracles of Moses, etc., being attested to as fact, along with the strength in the numbers of hand-written copies from ancient times, along with nothing having been proven false, along with the scientific proof that God exists, along with the history of the way the Bible came together... all shows that the Bible is truth. Things don't come together the way the Bible did without some miraculous hand of God making it happen. Those eye witness reports stand solid. 1. There is nothing factual, nothing can be 100% factual, you are discarding all science because it doesn't say it's a fact? Sometimes you amaze me. I guess computers aren't a fact either and all the other technologies by your definition. 2. they can't use words now? 3. Like what exactly 4. ok? Who cares if there are only superficial changes, that would only mean that the bible hasn't changed since it was written, that doesn't mean it's truth lol. How are the miracles of moses attested as fact? hahaha plenty of things have been proven wrong in the bible : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors''along with the history of the way the Bible came together.'' Don't know what that means but nothing of what you said proves the bible is factual. |
|
|
|
He died for our sins to save us. God did the flood to save us. And yet here we are, not saved, bible logic is amusing haha |
|
|
|
All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. Well, just because you ignore proper use of the language... The Bible says what it says. Understand what you can understand. Believe it all. People are prone to misinterpreting everything. Only 30 versions? I think that if you check out BibleGateway you will find a lot more than 30 versions. And these aren't all of them. There is only 1 version of the original. After all, the guys who wrote the Bible didn't make two different copies of what they wrote; not even Jeremiah when he rewrote what King Zedekiah burned. Eye witnesses are way better than than the fiction that often passes for science these days.
The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people.
God is responsible for the Bible. God is also "responsible for having medicine today" and "cars" and "planes" and every "other thing that you can think of." Of course, where there is evil involved, God is the Great Giver... Who is giving us the things that we ask for. But even though it is evil, He is giving it in the perfect, righteous way. Watch out! You are going to get the evil you are asking for from God, even if your asking is inadvertent, or your wanting of evil is. You are just rambling about other things. I presented clear evidence of how almost all sciences show that the earth/universe is older than 6000 years old and some of them depend on those measurements. You can't just comment, nah they are all wrong. You have to prove they are wrong and you won't because they are not, they work, as I said previously and they are applied to everything. It's not their fault you are too delusional to accept it and that you would deny 99% of science just to make satisfy your crazy beliefs. Evidence is great stuff. All the evidence for billions of years is: 1. Theory... not know to be factual; 2. Not attested to as fact by the scientists who propose it; 3. Circular referencing; 4. Only attested to as fact by those in the media or those who have an "old earth" agenda; 5. Can be applied in ways that show the opposite of old earth. Look it up to see that what I am saying is true. The Bible, on the other hand, is definite eye witness references. Who are you going to believe? The scientists who admit by their limiting words (such as: if, maybe, chances are, probably, etc.), or the Bible witnesses who don't have any limiting words? Believe both! The scientists show by their limiting words that they don't know. The Bible witnesses show by their definite report that they do know. Believe them both. The earth is less than 6,200 years old. 1. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. 2. ? 3. Like what 4. Same thing can be applied to religious people 5. Like what ''is definite eye witness references. '' And you know that, how? I don't have to believe anything because all these methods can be tested. I could test them by myself actually, I could study each method individually and test things by myself. Science is not belief. |
|
|
|
You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see. EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks. Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are. We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1969184.msg19591768#msg19591768You are a twisted individual BADecker. Interlude: I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post. P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'. Well, that's not true. All anyone has to do is rebut the science of cause and effect, entropy, or complexity to show that God doesn't exist. That shouldn't be so hard for you multi-talented trolls. Come on now. Do some rebutting. Since you can't, you continue to support the proof that God exists. God doesn't really thank you for this. He simply made things so that you can't. He has Himself to pat on the back for blocking you jokers. Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 How do you know? You cant explain the rebuttal that you are talking about. And you dont have any rebuttal of your own. How do I know what? How do you know yours is proof? We can keep asking stupid questions like that forever. If you have any questions about my rebuttal or your own, feel free to ask because I will answer any question. How do you know there is any rebuttal to my own "stuff" in the things that I say? You wouldn't know a rebuttal if it jumped up and bit you in the eyeball. Science says mine is proof. That's the whole thing that we are talking about, here. Scientific proof, or the rebuttal of it. Of course, nobody should be surprised that you haven't figured that out yet. I have been asking you to show one rebuttal to the proof that God exists. So far you haven't shown a rebuttal at all. Everything that you have said has so many holes in it that Swiss cheese is a thousand more times more solid. Nope science doesn't say yours is proof. Rebuttal here: Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 |
|
|
|
All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. Well, just because you ignore proper use of the language... The Bible says what it says. Understand what you can understand. Believe it all. People are prone to misinterpreting everything. Only 30 versions? I think that if you check out BibleGateway you will find a lot more than 30 versions. And these aren't all of them. There is only 1 version of the original. After all, the guys who wrote the Bible didn't make two different copies of what they wrote; not even Jeremiah when he rewrote what King Zedekiah burned. Eye witnesses are way better than than the fiction that often passes for science these days.
The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people.
God is responsible for the Bible. God is also "responsible for having medicine today" and "cars" and "planes" and every "other thing that you can think of." Of course, where there is evil involved, God is the Great Giver... Who is giving us the things that we ask for. But even though it is evil, He is giving it in the perfect, righteous way. Watch out! You are going to get the evil you are asking for from God, even if your asking is inadvertent, or your wanting of evil is. You are just rambling about other things. I presented clear evidence of how almost all sciences show that the earth/universe is older than 6000 years old and some of them depend on those measurements. You can't just comment, nah they are all wrong. You have to prove they are wrong and you won't because they are not, they work, as I said previously and they are applied to everything. It's not their fault you are too delusional to accept it and that you would deny 99% of science just to make satisfy your crazy beliefs. |
|
|
|
You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see. EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks. Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are. We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1969184.msg19591768#msg19591768You are a twisted individual BADecker. Interlude: I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post. P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'. Well, that's not true. All anyone has to do is rebut the science of cause and effect, entropy, or complexity to show that God doesn't exist. That shouldn't be so hard for you multi-talented trolls. Come on now. Do some rebutting. Since you can't, you continue to support the proof that God exists. God doesn't really thank you for this. He simply made things so that you can't. He has Himself to pat on the back for blocking you jokers. Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 How do you know? You cant explain the rebuttal that you are talking about. And you dont have any rebuttal of your own. How do I know what? How do you know yours is proof? We can keep asking stupid questions like that forever. If you have any questions about my rebuttal or your own, feel free to ask because I will answer any question. |
|
|
|
You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see. EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks. Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are. We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1969184.msg19591768#msg19591768You are a twisted individual BADecker. Interlude: I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post. P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'. Well, that's not true. All anyone has to do is rebut the science of cause and effect, entropy, or complexity to show that God doesn't exist. That shouldn't be so hard for you multi-talented trolls. Come on now. Do some rebutting. Since you can't, you continue to support the proof that God exists. God doesn't really thank you for this. He simply made things so that you can't. He has Himself to pat on the back for blocking you jokers. Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 |
|
|
|
An interesting picture. We ought to have a soul and study this tree of life, from your view. Perhaps in some cases you are right and the table very clearly indicates some things of the world order. Actually, the best way is to DNA test the mitochondria of the cells. The mitochondria shows us that there was one - literally one (1) - female ancestor of us all. She lived about 6,000 years ago. And how come all the tests done showed she lived about 100.000+ years ago. Oh let me guess, all the tests are wrong, the best test is to believe it was 6000 years ago because it says so in a book. Is it even possible to have 7,500,000,000 people, stemming from a single woman only 6,000 years ago? Without doing the math, I'm gonna say, no... not even remotely possible even with twins/triplets popping out every 9 months Actually, it's way more than 7.5 billion. Consider all the people who died before they could have kids. When you take away the effects of entropy for 6,000 years, you will see that the whole earth was much healthier 6,000 years ago. This brings us to a calculation base than is different than what exists today. Some of those people lived several hundred years. Start by calculating 50% male and 50% female offspring. Then, start the woman's childbearing years at age 20. Sex is fun. Calculate at 1 child a year for 200 years (people probably lived to 600-y-o or older). Do the same for all the females. What do you get? I'm willing to bet it is well over 7.5 billion in only the first 1,500 years. Then, at something over 1,500 years from the start, the Great Flood came along and wiped out the atmospheric, water-canopy that protected people from cosmic radiation. Genetic mutations came along which started reducing the ages of everything, including people. By about 4,000 years ago, people only lived to about 200 years max... and their ages, in general, have been reducing ever since. There are hundreds of different methods showing how the earth and the universe are far older than 6000 years. Thermoluminescence dating
Dendrochronology
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
Widmanstatten patternsLack of DNA in fossils: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15°C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.[14] If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[15] has since been shown to be mistaken,[16] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old Ice layering
Rock varnish
Permafrost
Weathering rinds
Fission track dating
Relativistic jets
Space weathering
Petrified wood
Naica megacrystals
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
Iron-manganese nodule growth
Amino acid racemization
Stalactites
Geomagnetic reversals
Erosion
Milankovitch astronomical cycles:Milankovitch cycles are cycles of variation of the influx of sunlight, cycles caused by orbit and spin precession effects. Not only does the Earth's spin precess, but also the Earth's orbit. Its perihelion precesses forward and its orbit pole precesses backward, but in complicated quasi-periodic Spirograph patterns that also involve its orbit eccentricity varying. Combined with its spin precession, we have three main kinds of effects: Perihelion Precession: over about 20,000 years, the Earth's perihelion time precesses through the seasons. Obliquity (Axial Tilt): over about 40,000 years, the Earth's orbit precession makes the Earth's obliquity vary between about 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Eccentricity: over about 100,000 and 400,000 years, the Earth's eccentricity varies from nearly circular to as much as 0.0679 with an average of 0.034. It is currently 0.017 and decreasing. Sedimentary varves
Coral: Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years Seabed plankton layering
Baptistina asteroid family
Continental drift
Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds
Impact craters
Rotation of the Earth: Because the Earth's rotation slows about 0.005 seconds per year, the last time a year had 400 days (or days of 22.7 hours) should be about 370 million years ago; radiometrically dated coral from 370 million years ago shows evidence of approximately 22 hours in a day.[33] Additionally, radiometrically dated tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago fit the rate of Earth's slowing rotation even more strongly. Helioseismology
Radioactive decay
Gyrochronology
Globular clusters
Distant starlightIn order to support your belief about the earth's age being 6000 years old you would have to deny: Astronomy:Astrophysics: Astrophysics is essential to determination of the speed of light which generates the starlight problem. In order for the universe outside of the Earth to be seen, either the speed of light has to be changing or light had to have started en route to Earth already. The former is not supported by modern science or any observational evidence, and even semi-coherent theories regarding an anisotropic synchrony convention or c-decay can't account for the massive change needed. The latter is a case of special pleading and can lead to Last Thursdayism. Cosmology: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) a background level of very cold, low frequency radiation, billions of light-years away, predicted to exist by the "Big Bang" model and discovered and researched intensively throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Physics:
Newtonian mechanics: Gravity (as described by Newton) itself contradicts YEC belief.[64][note 4] Nuclear physics: the decay rates of certain isotopes are known and are used in radiometric dating. YEC beliefs often require these well-established rates to change by, for lack of a better term, stuff. Electromagnetism: Since the speed of light can be derived from the vacuum permeabilityWikipedia's W.svg and the vacuum permittivityWikipedia's W.svg, unpredictable changes in speed of light pretty much renders the predictive power of electromagnetism nil. Transport phenomenaFluid mechanics (momentum transfer) is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a global flood. Heat transfer is pretty much incompatible with all the variations of ideas that require water under earth's crusts, or in case of radiative heat transfer, White hole cosmology and anything that involves a different speed of light or radioactive material giving radiation at a significantly different rate. Mass transfer would also have to be ignored, due to phenomena such as diffusion of impurities or crystal/sediment formation. Chemistry:Reaction kinetics: The rate that amino acids undergo racemisation (conversion to an equal mix of stereoisomers) is a well-known process that occurs at a specific rate. It can therefore be used as a dating method and has shown biological molecules to be far older than 6,000 years. Thermodynamics: All the laws of thermodynamics are violated in a creation event. Materials science Tribology is the study of wear and friction in materials in relative motion to each other. The well-documented rates and mechanisms of wear and erosion preclude the rapid formation of geological features, such as the Grand Canyon, as claimed by young Earth creationists. Biology: Botany: Dendrochronology, which is accurate to a handful of years, has dated trees that go back tens of thousands of years at least, long before most YEC proponents say the universe even existed.[note 5] Evolution: For obvious reasons. This throws out morphology, zoology, ecology, and comparative anatomy. (Let's not even discuss nylon-eating bacteria.Wikipedia's W.svg) Genetics:' the discovery of the genetic code was one of the biggest confirmations of evolution by natural selection and went a great way to explain the empirical observations such as Mendel's Laws. The supposed dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" can only exist if there are two forms of DNA, one that mutates and another that is immune from mutation otherwise there is no barrier between the two. This is not borne out in observations. Medicine:
Immunology: Disease-causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in the YEC belief. See MRSA drug resistance and Richard Lenski's lab results Psychology/Neuroscience: Humans and other animals use an unnecessarily slow memory-recall procedure. This would not occur if humans were intelligently designed Mathematics: Trigonometry is incompatible with c-decay, one of a very few explanations for the starlight problem. Computer ScienceCellular automata: Self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored. Geology
Geomorphology uplift causes mountain ranges to form, a process that can be observed to occur at a fixed rate. Plate tectonics: Tectonic plates are known to move at a certain rate, postulating that some pieces of land were one connected at some point something observed and confirmed in the fossil record. Petrology: Rocks and crystal structures take considerably longer than 6,000 years to form. Stratigraphy: Rock layering through sedimentation takes a long damn time. Although creationists bizarrely like to attribute this to the Global Flood, a single event cannot explain layering. VulcanologyFossil fuel: The estimated biomass required to form all the coal and oil underground suggest at least millions of years to accumulate it. Palaeontology self explanatory. There is a massive amount of evidence from palaeontology that only works and makes sense given a very, very old Earth. Metrology Modern measurement defines distance based on speed of light and time based on radioactive decay. If radiometric dating and starlight problem are to be said invalid, one might as well throw out these definitions. Humanities: Archaeology, anthropology, history, philosophy, philosophy of science, linguistics each assumes, or actually requires, more than six thousand years of human history. Historians can and have identified kings older than 6,000 years old; archeologists document artifacts hundreds of thousands of years old; science has developed since humans started talking to each other. All these things that you list are prone to, misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. The Bible record is a record set down in the power of God, and in eye witness record. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. The Bible is prone to misinterpretation, potential change regarding how things worked in the past, and circular referencing. Those things are science and they work, medicine works and it's useful, physics work and are useful, most technology we have today is thanks to those sciences. If you want to deny all of them come up with a better argument than ''prone to, misinterpretation, potential change'' because that doesn't do it. Eye witness are better than science? Give me a break hahaha you are hilarious sometimes, one of the main causes of wrongful convictions is eyewitness miss-identifications. The bible also has like 30 different versions through out time. The bible is not responsible for having medicine today or cars or planes or any other thing that you can think of. All of those things exist thanks to science and smart people who use science. The bible is a worthless book and even religious people know it. You go to a hospital if you are sick because that's how you get cured, there are no praying hospitals where you go there and expect to get healed thanks to prayer because it doesn't work. You can be ignorant and deny science as much as you want to fit your stupid beliefs but don't spread your bullshit to other people. |
|
|
|
An interesting picture. We ought to have a soul and study this tree of life, from your view. Perhaps in some cases you are right and the table very clearly indicates some things of the world order. Actually, the best way is to DNA test the mitochondria of the cells. The mitochondria shows us that there was one - literally one (1) - female ancestor of us all. She lived about 6,000 years ago. And how come all the tests done showed she lived about 100.000+ years ago. Oh let me guess, all the tests are wrong, the best test is to believe it was 6000 years ago because it says so in a book. Is it even possible to have 7,500,000,000 people, stemming from a single woman only 6,000 years ago? Without doing the math, I'm gonna say, no... not even remotely possible even with twins/triplets popping out every 9 months Actually, it's way more than 7.5 billion. Consider all the people who died before they could have kids. When you take away the effects of entropy for 6,000 years, you will see that the whole earth was much healthier 6,000 years ago. This brings us to a calculation base than is different than what exists today. Some of those people lived several hundred years. Start by calculating 50% male and 50% female offspring. Then, start the woman's childbearing years at age 20. Sex is fun. Calculate at 1 child a year for 200 years (people probably lived to 600-y-o or older). Do the same for all the females. What do you get? I'm willing to bet it is well over 7.5 billion in only the first 1,500 years. Then, at something over 1,500 years from the start, the Great Flood came along and wiped out the atmospheric, water-canopy that protected people from cosmic radiation. Genetic mutations came along which started reducing the ages of everything, including people. By about 4,000 years ago, people only lived to about 200 years max... and their ages, in general, have been reducing ever since. There are hundreds of different methods showing how the earth and the universe are far older than 6000 years. Thermoluminescence dating
Dendrochronology
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
Widmanstatten patternsLack of DNA in fossils: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15°C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.[14] If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[15] has since been shown to be mistaken,[16] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old Ice layering
Rock varnish
Permafrost
Weathering rinds
Fission track dating
Relativistic jets
Space weathering
Petrified wood
Naica megacrystals
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
Iron-manganese nodule growth
Amino acid racemization
Stalactites
Geomagnetic reversals
Erosion
Milankovitch astronomical cycles:Milankovitch cycles are cycles of variation of the influx of sunlight, cycles caused by orbit and spin precession effects. Not only does the Earth's spin precess, but also the Earth's orbit. Its perihelion precesses forward and its orbit pole precesses backward, but in complicated quasi-periodic Spirograph patterns that also involve its orbit eccentricity varying. Combined with its spin precession, we have three main kinds of effects: Perihelion Precession: over about 20,000 years, the Earth's perihelion time precesses through the seasons. Obliquity (Axial Tilt): over about 40,000 years, the Earth's orbit precession makes the Earth's obliquity vary between about 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Eccentricity: over about 100,000 and 400,000 years, the Earth's eccentricity varies from nearly circular to as much as 0.0679 with an average of 0.034. It is currently 0.017 and decreasing. Sedimentary varves
Coral: Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years Seabed plankton layering
Baptistina asteroid family
Continental drift
Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds
Impact craters
Rotation of the Earth: Because the Earth's rotation slows about 0.005 seconds per year, the last time a year had 400 days (or days of 22.7 hours) should be about 370 million years ago; radiometrically dated coral from 370 million years ago shows evidence of approximately 22 hours in a day.[33] Additionally, radiometrically dated tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago fit the rate of Earth's slowing rotation even more strongly. Helioseismology
Radioactive decay
Gyrochronology
Globular clusters
Distant starlightIn order to support your belief about the earth's age being 6000 years old you would have to deny: Astronomy:Astrophysics: Astrophysics is essential to determination of the speed of light which generates the starlight problem. In order for the universe outside of the Earth to be seen, either the speed of light has to be changing or light had to have started en route to Earth already. The former is not supported by modern science or any observational evidence, and even semi-coherent theories regarding an anisotropic synchrony convention or c-decay can't account for the massive change needed. The latter is a case of special pleading and can lead to Last Thursdayism. Cosmology: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) a background level of very cold, low frequency radiation, billions of light-years away, predicted to exist by the "Big Bang" model and discovered and researched intensively throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Physics:
Newtonian mechanics: Gravity (as described by Newton) itself contradicts YEC belief.[64][note 4] Nuclear physics: the decay rates of certain isotopes are known and are used in radiometric dating. YEC beliefs often require these well-established rates to change by, for lack of a better term, stuff. Electromagnetism: Since the speed of light can be derived from the vacuum permeabilityWikipedia's W.svg and the vacuum permittivityWikipedia's W.svg, unpredictable changes in speed of light pretty much renders the predictive power of electromagnetism nil. Transport phenomenaFluid mechanics (momentum transfer) is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a global flood. Heat transfer is pretty much incompatible with all the variations of ideas that require water under earth's crusts, or in case of radiative heat transfer, White hole cosmology and anything that involves a different speed of light or radioactive material giving radiation at a significantly different rate. Mass transfer would also have to be ignored, due to phenomena such as diffusion of impurities or crystal/sediment formation. Chemistry:Reaction kinetics: The rate that amino acids undergo racemisation (conversion to an equal mix of stereoisomers) is a well-known process that occurs at a specific rate. It can therefore be used as a dating method and has shown biological molecules to be far older than 6,000 years. Thermodynamics: All the laws of thermodynamics are violated in a creation event. Materials science Tribology is the study of wear and friction in materials in relative motion to each other. The well-documented rates and mechanisms of wear and erosion preclude the rapid formation of geological features, such as the Grand Canyon, as claimed by young Earth creationists. Biology: Botany: Dendrochronology, which is accurate to a handful of years, has dated trees that go back tens of thousands of years at least, long before most YEC proponents say the universe even existed.[note 5] Evolution: For obvious reasons. This throws out morphology, zoology, ecology, and comparative anatomy. (Let's not even discuss nylon-eating bacteria.Wikipedia's W.svg) Genetics:' the discovery of the genetic code was one of the biggest confirmations of evolution by natural selection and went a great way to explain the empirical observations such as Mendel's Laws. The supposed dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" can only exist if there are two forms of DNA, one that mutates and another that is immune from mutation otherwise there is no barrier between the two. This is not borne out in observations. Medicine:
Immunology: Disease-causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in the YEC belief. See MRSA drug resistance and Richard Lenski's lab results Psychology/Neuroscience: Humans and other animals use an unnecessarily slow memory-recall procedure. This would not occur if humans were intelligently designed Mathematics: Trigonometry is incompatible with c-decay, one of a very few explanations for the starlight problem. Computer ScienceCellular automata: Self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored. Geology
Geomorphology uplift causes mountain ranges to form, a process that can be observed to occur at a fixed rate. Plate tectonics: Tectonic plates are known to move at a certain rate, postulating that some pieces of land were one connected at some point something observed and confirmed in the fossil record. Petrology: Rocks and crystal structures take considerably longer than 6,000 years to form. Stratigraphy: Rock layering through sedimentation takes a long damn time. Although creationists bizarrely like to attribute this to the Global Flood, a single event cannot explain layering. VulcanologyFossil fuel: The estimated biomass required to form all the coal and oil underground suggest at least millions of years to accumulate it. Palaeontology self explanatory. There is a massive amount of evidence from palaeontology that only works and makes sense given a very, very old Earth. Metrology Modern measurement defines distance based on speed of light and time based on radioactive decay. If radiometric dating and starlight problem are to be said invalid, one might as well throw out these definitions. Humanities: Archaeology, anthropology, history, philosophy, philosophy of science, linguistics each assumes, or actually requires, more than six thousand years of human history. Historians can and have identified kings older than 6,000 years old; archeologists document artifacts hundreds of thousands of years old; science has developed since humans started talking to each other. |
|
|
|
Every religious person says that they experienced god and they talk about different gods, so who is right? Muslims, catholics, hindus? They all say they experienced their god but all gods cant exist, so who is right?
I believe in God. The God that is the Creator of this world. The father who gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. People wants to believe what they want to believe. We should not worship an idol or any carved stones that other people worships. That is what I believe. whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. You cannot have everlasting life SO DON'T BE SELFISH.. Need to make room so someone else can have ago.. Smile it is your own flesh and blood you die for very nice of you.. And if you have no kids you died to give a stranger a chance at life.. You are really nice  ..You really died for others  .. God is going to destroy this universe soon. Why? Because it won't allow people to have the eternal life that God wants for them. God will take all those who believe in Him to eternal life in a new universe He is preparing. Come with us if you like. I don't agree with you. God is love and life, our eternal parent. Parent love his children unconditionally and can't stop love them. Humans will be changed through God's unconditional and eternal love. Do you remember story of ''prodigal son'' in the Bible. If you understand this story, than you understand everything. You understand God's unconditional love for all of us and that he will never give up from us. God has a big problem. I mean Badecker me He has given people a stubborn streak. And many of the people will never turn to Him i mean me.. CORRECT .. God's problem I mean my problem is, how long will i wait for people to turn to Him when they don't want to?..A LONG TIME.. People have the ability to decide things.YES WE HAVE But it is in this life, only, that they have the ability to decide. Once a person is dead, he can't change his mind on anything. BECAUSE HE IS DEAD. God isn't going to let the death situation go on forever. The billions who have died, and who are also on His side, are not in the position of life that God wants for them. He will raise them from death in the resurrection. But why raise them from the dead to live some more in this troubled life? If He were going to do that, wouldn't He have just let them live without dying? The Revelation in the Bible tells us that God will destroy this whole heavens and earth because of the corruption herein. He will create a new heavens and earth that can never become corrupt. That is where He will take His people, while leaving the stubborn ones behind in the destruction of the corruption that is in this heavens and earth. Why will God leave the stubborn ones behind? Because they essentially asked for it by being stubborn without changing. The prodigal son changed his mind. These evil people do not change their minds, ever. The billions who have died, and who are also on His side, are not in the position of life that God wants for them. He will raise them from death in the resurrection. BUT what happened to going to heaven straight away?..So now we got to wait.. The Revelation in the Bible tells us that God will destroy this whole heavens and earth because of the corruption herein. He will create a new heavens and earth that can never become corrupt. SO WHY NOT EVER CORRUPT THIS WORLD?.. Bit like a bad painting and you start again?.. Your mistake is in the way God gave freedom to mankind. Man's freedom is an imitation of the real freedom of God. Man did the corrupting.
That is where He will take His people, while leaving the stubborn ones behind in the destruction of the corruption that is in this heavens and earth.
Well tell him to HURRY UP and PISS OFF..Because he sure is shit at stopping corruption so if he is no good at stopping corruption in this world why the next..?
The difficulty lies in maintaining real God-like freedom among people without allowing any corruption to set in. Let the people be free to bring in corruption, but make sure they don't do it. Good trick. This is the thing scientists should be trying to figure out, rather than some silly thing like big bang theory. SO TELL YOUR CORRUPT GOD ..He couldn't stop a bus at a BUS STOP never mind stop corruption on this planet or any other planet.. there was once a bohemian monk who went to sleep in a bunk he dreamt of Jesus sucking his penis and ended up covered in SPUNK  .. Nobody will like the destruction at the end of the world. It will include the destruction of the soul. Since the soul is eternal, the destruction will take an eternity. It won't be fun. Change now to be on the side of God, so that you avoid your own eternal destruction. Cause and effect shows us that nothing is random therefore humans do not have free will, cause and effect is science law that means it's a fact. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
