Bitcoin Forum
September 20, 2017, 01:08:07 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 [386] 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientific proof that God exists?  (Read 721601 times)
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 490


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 11:25:50 AM
 #7701

Quote
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Quote
The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22


Quote
This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.



How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.



BITVEST DICE
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄
▀██░████████░███████░█▀
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████
▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
1505912888
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505912888

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505912888
Reply with quote  #2

1505912888
Report to moderator
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Przemax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 11:31:27 AM
 #7702

Quote
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Quote
The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22


Quote
This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.



How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Quote
Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 490


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 12:14:51 PM
 #7703

Quote
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Quote
The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22


Quote
This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.



How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Quote
Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

Still waiting for any proof, evidence or reasoning on why people should believe in god.



BITVEST DICE
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄
▀██░████████░███████░█▀
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████
▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Przemax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
 #7704

Quote
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Quote
The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22


Quote
This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.



How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Quote
Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

Still waiting for any proof, evidence or reasoning on why people should believe in god.

1. Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.
2. Another psychological reason. People need to know from where everything starts. Scientist are made fools of themselves so the only game in town is God.
3. Genetical. Men have XY chromosomes. So a man could not came from woman (XX chromosomes) but the other way around its possible. Tell me - How the fuck could Moses know genetics back then? Thats awesome guess by him if it was just pure luck.
4. Etological. Love is the general principle of life. We like giving, sharing and such. Proves that Christ word is true.
5. Geographical. Mount Ararat that claimed to be where the paradise of eden was looks like it had a connection with all the waters of the earth. In the bible the 4 great rivers have the begining there. Those could be connected into 2 main rivers later on that divides into the atlantic ocean that goes north and south, and the later is Indian Ocean to the south and the Pacific goes towards the north. You might laugh from that, but that seems logical. It was claimed that 4 rivers of the world contains almost all of the waters of the earth.
6. The argument that Baddeker makes in this thread.
7. The God being a space - electric world principles, and defining what is a space by magnetism.
8. The similiarities between the dna proves the common ancestor.
9. We have no idea how clouds are made. A hint - its not only a vapour, there proven to be something called a dry clouds. In the Bible its often said that its the God that forms the clouds and makes them rain. Seems legit as we do not have any idea how they are formed, even when we are so "advanced".
10. How God makes the enemy of Israel to be defeated proves that he uses magentism (blinding people and horses, the eye retina can be damaged by high dose of magnetism) micro waves ( making the fearfull by cooking their brains) uses lighting ( fire from the sky). That implies that God is some electromagnetic principle.
11. God said he makes people tremble - electromagnetic radiation or some other radiation, and as we know everything vibrates, thats a fact.
12. There have to be a creator or some kind of creation because we do not observe for example the birth of new stars, new kinds of animals and such.
13. Being sinful is actualy bad for your health. All of the 7 cardinal sins are bad for you overall health.
14. Bible seems to be the only book at that times teaches why to use quarantine. So its a book that teaches about the hygiene, and epidemics. How could they know about the germs back then? They could not.

Makes you wonder - how could they knew all that is possible if some of them would not seen of this stuff. Either they were smart and advanced, or God is.

Many many many other scientific reasoning and evidence that the science only lately discovered may put a new light on the Bible that its not a lie. Those people could not know this stuff so long ago.

Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 490


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 01:25:32 PM
 #7705

Quote
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Quote
The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22


Quote
This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.



How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Quote
Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

Still waiting for any proof, evidence or reasoning on why people should believe in god.

1. Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.
2. Another psychological reason. People need to know from where everything starts. Scientist are made fools of themselves so the only game in town is God.
3. Genetical. Men have XY chromosomes. So a man could not came from woman (XX chromosomes) but the other way around its possible. Tell me - How the fuck could Moses know genetics back then? Thats awesome guess by him if it was just pure luck.
4. Etological Love is the general principle of life. We like giving, sharing and such. Proves that Christ word is true.
5. Geographical Mount Ararat that claimed to be where the paradise of eden was looks like it had a connection with all the waters of the earth. In the bible the 4 great rivers have the begining there. Those could be connected into 2 main rivers later on that divides into the atlantic ocean that goes north and south, and the later is Indian Ocean to the south and the Pacific goes towards the north. You might laugh from that, but that seems logical. It was claimed that 4 rivers of the world contains almost all of the waters of the earth.
6. The argument that Baddeker makes in this thread.
7. The God being a space - electric world principles, and defining what is a space by magnetism.
8. The similiarities between the dna proves the common ancestor.
9. We have no idea how clouds are made. A hint - its not only a vapour, there proven to be something called a dry clouds.
10. How God makes the enemy of Israel to be defeated proves that he uses magentism (blinding people and horses, the eye retina can be damaged by high dose of magnetism) micro waves ( making the fearfull by cooking their brains) uses lighting ( fire from the sky). That implies that God is some electromagnetic principle.
11. God said he makes people tremble - electromagnetic radiation or some other radiation, and as we know everything vibrates, thats a fact.
12. There have to be a creator or some kind of creation because we do not observe for example the birth of new stars, new kinds of animals and such.
13. Being sinful is actualy bad for your health. All of the 7 cardinal sins are bad for you overall health.
14. Bible seems to be the only book at that times teaches why to use quarantine. So its a book that teaches about the hygiene, and epidemics. How could they know about the germs back then? They could not.

Makes you wonder - how could they knew all that is possible if some of them would not seen of this stuff. Either they were smart and advanced, or God is.

Many many many other scientific reasoning and evidence that the science only lately discovered may put a new light on the Bible that its not a lie. Those people could not know this stuff so long ago.




1. Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction. (Which God? There are other stupid beliefs that could give you satisfaction, like reincarnation)
2. Another psychological reason. People need to know from where everything starts. Scientist are made fools of themselves so the only game in town is God. (God, which God, also super smart aliens that created everything or we live in a simulated reality or who knows)
3. Genetical. Men have XY chromosomes. So a man could not came from woman (XX chromosomes) but the other way around its possible. Tell me - How the fuck could Moses know genetics back then? Thats awesome guess by him if it was just pure luck. (Awesome guess? It seems to me like 50/50 LOL, it's either man first, woman second, or woman first man second and people in that time always thought men are more important than women so nice argument here)
4. Etological Love is the general principle of life. We like giving, sharing and such. Proves that Christ word is true. (That ''proves'' that christ word is true?HuhHuh ROFL I could say that survivability is the general principle of life as well, who says what the general principle of life is anyways)
5. Geographical Mount Ararat that claimed to be where the paradise of eden was looks like it had a connection with all the waters of the earth. In the bible the 4 great rivers have the begining there. Those could be connected into 2 main rivers later on that divides into the atlantic ocean that goes north and south, and the later is Indian Ocean to the south and the Pacific goes towards the north. You might laugh from that, but that seems logical. It was claimed that 4 rivers of the world contains almost all of the waters of the earth. (I did laugh)
6. The argument that Baddeker makes in this thread. (Which I debunked several times)
7. The God being a space - electric world principles, and defining what is a space by magnetism. (I don't know what the fuck that means)
8. The similiarities between the dna proves the common ancestor. (So?)
9. We have no idea how clouds are made. A hint - its not only a vapour, there proven to be something called a dry clouds. (Having no idea how clouds or anything is made does not prove god)
10. How God makes the enemy of Israel to be defeated proves that he uses magentism (blinding people and horses, the eye retina can be damaged by high dose of magnetism) micro waves ( making the fearfull by cooking their brains) uses lighting ( fire from the sky). That implies that God is some electromagnetic principle. (You would have to prove that he did any of that in the first place)
11. God said he makes people tremble - electromagnetic radiation or some other radiation, and as we know everything vibrates, thats a fact. (Again you would need to prove that)
12. There have to be a creator or some kind of creation because we do not observe for example the birth of new stars, new kinds of animals and such. (https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/aug/21/birth-new-star-observatory-video)
13. Being sinful is actualy bad for your health. All of the 7 cardinal sins are bad for you overall health. (So?)
14. Bible seems to be the only book at that times teaches why to use quarantine. So its a book that teaches about the hygiene, and epidemics. How could they know about the germs back then? They could not. (I'm pretty sure the quarantines were for leoprsy lol)



BITVEST DICE
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄
▀██░████████░███████░█▀
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████
▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Przemax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 01:32:10 PM
 #7706

I would need to prove. Ok. You were proven wrong with your silly ass evolution nonesense. That seems fair.

You say I don't have proofs... Yeah... I did not know it was trial and I am judged by you. You said reasons and evidences. And you like a donkey are stuck with word proof that you do not even understand. You are a funny little atheist.

You don't get the point with all that. ALL OF THAT WAS NOT PROVEN WRONG. Even if all of that was 50/50 none of that is wrong. While ALL of your evolution school book claims are 100% fraud. Bible is miracly not contradictory with science even on iota. Does that not amaze you? If God would said - and I had cut their head with my magic sword - that would be a science illiterate blubbering idiot speaking. That would be impossible, but a ghost that is a electromagnetic energy itself, he could do the things he said he done in the Bible with 100% scientific accuracy it could be done.

Quote

For sure that was a merge of stars. Thats the first time I heard of such a thing.

I had found such an answer:

Quote
Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.

One million years old star as new? Wow... Thats something I need to get used to talking with atheists. Full of deceit.

And I have made an error - I ment designer ofcourse. Common designer.
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 02:37:34 PM
 #7707


There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
You are wrong about that.

The law of biogenesis says that "life cannot come from non-life", yet abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory because there is no other way to explain the origin of life than from "non-life".

The Improbability of Abiogenesis:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

Abiogenesis is falsifiable with these statistics, there has to be an additional factor that caused the impossible transformation.

These statistics are made up, mate. I already showed that a few times. The calculation is simply wrong.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/
http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

There are successful experiments on abiogenesis. Obviously it still needs to be studied quite a lot.
Your link is outdated, the RNA World hypothesis is not favored by researchers.

The latest research does not substantiate the abiogenesis theory, researchers were not able to produce an RNA polymer of even 5 base pairs under room temperature conditions, under real conditions cytosine begins to degrade almost immediately.

RNA polymers at deep-sea vents:
http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/lifes-building-blocks-form-in-replicated-deep-sea-vents/
Life emerged from hot deep-sea vents:
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-12-life-emerged-cell-membrane-bioenergetics.html
Testing the FeS World hypothesis:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-04-theory-life-deep-sea-vents.amp
RNA World is a biochemist's dream.
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/4/40/htm
RNA was not the first replicator.
http://m.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full#ref-77
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 02:46:58 PM
 #7708

. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction. (Which God? There are other stupid beliefs that could give you satisfaction, like reincarnation)

Why is reincarnation (survival) a stupid belief when it is backed by proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena? There is no evidence linking the Eisenbeiss case to fraud or trickery, same with the video of telekinesis which was confirmed on the EEG. How is it acceptable to reject evidence for no other reason than your disliking the conclusion? You are turning science on its head by expecting one outcome and rejecting all others.

More details: http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
b3j0
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 02:53:31 PM
 #7709

With the existence of the universe is a scientific proof of the existence of god and also the existence of religion...
Jackeexx
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 02:59:23 PM
 #7710

Tacitus was the Ancient Roman history writer and senator. In his "Annals" from Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea and Tiberius was emperor  - could be one of the scientific proofs.

Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 490


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 03:17:35 PM
 #7711

I would need to prove. Ok. You were proven wrong with your silly ass evolution nonesense. That seems fair.

You say I don't have proofs... Yeah... I did not know it was trial and I am judged by you. You said reasons and evidences. And you like a donkey are stuck with word proof that you do not even understand. You are a funny little atheist.

You don't get the point with all that. ALL OF THAT WAS NOT PROVEN WRONG. Even if all of that was 50/50 none of that is wrong. While ALL of your evolution school book claims are 100% fraud. Bible is miracly not contradictory with science even on iota. Does that not amaze you? If God would said - and I had cut their head with my magic sword - that would be a science illiterate blubbering idiot speaking. That would be impossible, but a ghost that is a electromagnetic energy itself, he could do the things he said he done in the Bible with 100% scientific accuracy it could be done.

Quote

For sure that was a merge of stars. Thats the first time I heard of such a thing.

I had found such an answer:

Quote
Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.

One million years old star as new? Wow... Thats something I need to get used to talking with atheists. Full of deceit.

And I have made an error - I ment designer ofcourse. Common designer.

You are very persistent with evolution. As I said even if evolution theory is completely wrong it doesn't prove god in any way. I was a christian myself and I didn't stop believing in god because of evolution. I just realized that I just believed it because my parents told me. I read the bible and I saw it was just pure nonsense and stupidity and that there were hundreds of other religions. I understood religions were made by people to try to explain things but none of them are true, they are made up. All of what you said was not proven right either, I don't know what you mean it was not proven wrong. It's like saying pigs are animals therefore god doesn't exist and if you can't prove that pigs are not animals then god doesn't exist. The problem there is not pigs being animals, the problem is why pigs being animals would prove god non existence. That happens to your arguments. ''Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.''
So what if believing in god gives you satisfaction, that doesn't point in any way to the existence of god.



BITVEST DICE
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄
▀██░████████░███████░█▀
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████
▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Przemax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
 #7712

I would need to prove. Ok. You were proven wrong with your silly ass evolution nonesense. That seems fair.

You say I don't have proofs... Yeah... I did not know it was trial and I am judged by you. You said reasons and evidences. And you like a donkey are stuck with word proof that you do not even understand. You are a funny little atheist.

You don't get the point with all that. ALL OF THAT WAS NOT PROVEN WRONG. Even if all of that was 50/50 none of that is wrong. While ALL of your evolution school book claims are 100% fraud. Bible is miracly not contradictory with science even on iota. Does that not amaze you? If God would said - and I had cut their head with my magic sword - that would be a science illiterate blubbering idiot speaking. That would be impossible, but a ghost that is a electromagnetic energy itself, he could do the things he said he done in the Bible with 100% scientific accuracy it could be done.

Quote

For sure that was a merge of stars. Thats the first time I heard of such a thing.

I had found such an answer:

Quote
Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.

One million years old star as new? Wow... Thats something I need to get used to talking with atheists. Full of deceit.

And I have made an error - I ment designer ofcourse. Common designer.

You are very persistent with evolution. As I said even if evolution theory is completely wrong it doesn't prove god in any way. I was a christian myself and I didn't stop believing in god because of evolution. I just realized that I just believed it because my parents told me. I read the bible and I saw it was just pure nonsense and stupidity and that there were hundreds of other religions. I understood religions were made by people to try to explain things but none of them are true, they are made up. All of what you said was not proven right either, I don't know what you mean it was not proven wrong. It's like saying pigs are animals therefore god doesn't exist and if you can't prove that pigs are not animals then god doesn't exist. The problem there is not pigs being animals, the problem is why pigs being animals would prove god non existence. That happens to your arguments. ''Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.''
So what if believing in god gives you satisfaction, that doesn't point in any way to the existence of god.

The Bible is not contradictory to science. And its the science role to prove if something is disproven as it is contradictory to the statements made to be true. So you clearly can not say that the Bible is not true. How do you define what is true? That what is factual right? And a fact in logic is what was not disproven with logic, using a counter argument.

Just because there are many religions, does not mean, that there is not a one God. God has not made any religion. The Bible is just a story. It helps you to get the general image what God is. Its just an image. If that image does not convince you thats all I can say here. In the Bible there is an answer that human heart can be wicked and self centered, that makes a human to make graven images and to believe things he want to believe rather than one God. Thats the mistery solved by the bible of why there are many religions. Its a conflict between the God law and ficticious law made by man for man. In my opinion all religions have some mix of human traditions with the inspiration of God in them. Thats why the worst thing to do is to mix them - usualy the end goal is that none of God remains in such a religion in the end.

All I can say is that the message and the image of God convince me its true. May I ask how old are you? Maybe you have not gained enough wisdom to discern the message that is in the Bible?

I don't understand many things how world was made, and such. I hope I will further my knowledge in the future.

Even if thats all not true in the Bible, the wisdom in this book is so supreme if you look at it with open heart that you imidiatly love it. So actualy I do not care if its true, or I want it to be true. As long as its not a stupid faith that someone can prove wrong I have no reason not to believe it.

I just love the Bible. For me its the most amazing, the most insightful and the most inspiring book that I had ever read. And I read a lot of other books. But as well its the hardest, most dificult book that I had ever read as well.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
 #7713

I would need to prove. Ok. You were proven wrong with your silly ass evolution nonesense. That seems fair.

You say I don't have proofs... Yeah... I did not know it was trial and I am judged by you. You said reasons and evidences. And you like a donkey are stuck with word proof that you do not even understand. You are a funny little atheist.

You don't get the point with all that. ALL OF THAT WAS NOT PROVEN WRONG. Even if all of that was 50/50 none of that is wrong. While ALL of your evolution school book claims are 100% fraud. Bible is miracly not contradictory with science even on iota. Does that not amaze you? If God would said - and I had cut their head with my magic sword - that would be a science illiterate blubbering idiot speaking. That would be impossible, but a ghost that is a electromagnetic energy itself, he could do the things he said he done in the Bible with 100% scientific accuracy it could be done.

Quote

For sure that was a merge of stars. Thats the first time I heard of such a thing.

I had found such an answer:

Quote
Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.

One million years old star as new? Wow... Thats something I need to get used to talking with atheists. Full of deceit.

And I have made an error - I ment designer ofcourse. Common designer.

You are very persistent with evolution. As I said even if evolution theory is completely wrong it doesn't prove god in any way. I was a christian myself and I didn't stop believing in god because of evolution. I just realized that I just believed it because my parents told me. I read the bible and I saw it was just pure nonsense and stupidity and that there were hundreds of other religions. I understood religions were made by people to try to explain things but none of them are true, they are made up. All of what you said was not proven right either, I don't know what you mean it was not proven wrong. It's like saying pigs are animals therefore god doesn't exist and if you can't prove that pigs are not animals then god doesn't exist. The problem there is not pigs being animals, the problem is why pigs being animals would prove god non existence. That happens to your arguments. ''Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.''
So what if believing in god gives you satisfaction, that doesn't point in any way to the existence of god.

Complexity proves God. The stuff of the universe all around us, especially life and intelligence, is so extremely great, that nobody can make it. The only place it could have come from is God.

Your problem revolves around your definition of God. If you realized that whatever caused this whole thing to come into being as it is, matched what others called "God," you would realize that we are talking different languages, so to speak. But we mean the same thing.

Cool

Cryptocurrency Bank MLM - Pre-Launch ends 09/19/17 - http://smoothjazz.ccbmlm.com - Sign up for FREE.
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 05:07:30 PM
 #7714

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.
The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.
How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.
Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?
Quote
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?
Hi Przemax, you want me to consider the context of the story about god terrorizing a child, but I can see that the content of the story has the child suffering and threatened like ab animal, this is not a story about GOD because the content refutes the source, there is simply no way that Father would bring about the torture of a child, and this idea about ethical imperative follows easily from the Christian writings and intuitions about moral law. This chat would be much facilitated if you were to read the papers from Cunningham called "The Content Source Problem" and "The Problem of Seth's Origin ", then consider whether this story [and others mentioned on the evilbible site] really is one of the all-good-and-powerful doing what is right and teaching humans justice by such story.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 08:06:38 PM
 #7715

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.
The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.
How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.
Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?
Quote
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?
Hi Przemax, you want me to consider the context of the story about god terrorizing a child, but I can see that the content of the story has the child suffering and threatened like ab animal, this is not a story about GOD because the content refutes the source, there is simply no way that Father would bring about the torture of a child, and this idea about ethical imperative follows easily from the Christian writings and intuitions about moral law. This chat would be much facilitated if you were to read the papers from Cunningham called "The Content Source Problem" and "The Problem of Seth's Origin ", then consider whether this story [and others mentioned on the evilbible site] really is one of the all-good-and-powerful doing what is right and teaching humans justice by such story.

Seth is said to be Melchizedek. And Melchizedek is said to be like the Son of God in Hebrews. This means that the words about Seth are not and cannot be clear in the understanding of mankind. We only understand in an outer, unclear way.

Cool

Cryptocurrency Bank MLM - Pre-Launch ends 09/19/17 - http://smoothjazz.ccbmlm.com - Sign up for FREE.
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 11:55:08 PM
 #7716

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.
The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.
How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.
Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?
Quote
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?
Hi Przemax, you want me to consider the context of the story about god terrorizing a child, but I can see that the content of the story has the child suffering and threatened like ab animal, this is not a story about GOD because the content refutes the source, there is simply no way that Father would bring about the torture of a child, and this idea about ethical imperative follows easily from the Christian writings and intuitions about moral law. This chat would be much facilitated if you were to read the papers from Cunningham called "The Content Source Problem" and "The Problem of Seth's Origin ", then consider whether this story [and others mentioned on the evilbible site] really is one of the all-good-and-powerful doing what is right and teaching humans justice by such story.

Seth is said to be Melchizedek. And Melchizedek is said to be like the Son of God in Hebrews. This means that the words about Seth are not and cannot be clear in the understanding of mankind. We only understand in an outer, unclear way.

Cool
Seth is not relevant to the discussion, the question you have to ask yourself is "why is GOD demanding that Abraham commit evil? Is it justified for GOD to act this way?"
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544


View Profile
August 22, 2017, 03:36:40 AM
 #7717

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?

It is Only because the fundamentalist chooses obedience to a Bible story over their own moral conscience.

These moral norms do, in fact, come from God, and the existence of such objective moral norms provides strong evidence for the existence of a moral, personal God. But one does not need to believe in God or appeal to Holy Scripture to know that certain moral precepts are genuine moral absolutes.4 Again, these basic principles of moral obligation are absolutes that are knowable (at least in principle) by all people everywhere without the aid of Scripture. What is meant by an absolute here? An absolute is an objectively true moral principle that is unchanging and cross-cultural. It is true whether or not anyone believes it to be true. Natural moral law theory implies that we discover morality — we do not invent it.
"Do not torture" is a moral obligation which is absolute, that means that GOD does not torture. The Biblical story about GOD torturing an innocent child cannot be taken seriously.
Przemax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
August 22, 2017, 06:55:11 AM
 #7718

For all the doubts that you have seeing a crooked path ask Jesus, by reading him how can you make them straight.

Jesus had said that there were a human tradition and God tradition. Human tradition were rebelious.

Isaiah that profesised the coming of the Lamb of God:

1"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.

That is not a God made tradition, but a man made tradition.

Samuel that made a king someone similiar to Jesus - Dawid, had said:

22Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

The Dawid himself:

16For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering.

And finally Jesus had rebuke the Jews that they follow the man made traditions and God does not have delight in them. They made Moses obey them, because they were in constant rebelion towards God. God had a compromise.

Finally Jesus had said they are not the sons of Moses. If they would be the sons of Moses they would listen and obey him. They would not want sacrifices if they would obey him. They would not want stoning if they would be the God of Abraham and Jacob and Dawid and Jesus.

Do not forget a Moses was a murderer. Thats not a coincidence that he took lightly a murder. God want to show us that sin breeds sin. We need to break the vicious cycle by repenting.

They would not have divorce as Jesus have said that they made Moses to agree to make their wicked law. THATS ALL A MAN THAT IS EVIL! Jesus have said that they had a wicked hard hearth if they do not see the evils of divorce.

Jesus have come to show the God is not evil. Its the man that desires it.

All God want you to sacrifice is your idols, your wickedness and obey him.  

*science alert* Psychology shows how human like to project unto others what they want. Its like if I like something that must be the God that is pleased. Or if I am a sinner I would pretend that goat is a sinner and by sacrificing it I will sacrifice my wickedness. Stupid? Yes. But human are often stupid lying creatures.

Jesus was send for the Biblical people to show how their paths are not 100% of God. They mix the good with the evil. He came to the lost people that could not say what is good and what is bad, because of their rebelious nature and their rebelious leaders - Pharisee.

Quote
It is true whether or not anyone believes it to be true. Natural moral law theory implies that we discover morality — we do not invent it.

Discovered morality? My ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43jgckjVubo It seems to be that this discovery is very hard to discover for a whole lot of people around the world.

Quote
An absolute is an objectively true moral principle that is unchanging and cross-cultural.

I could say its cross-culturaly ignored. Unchanging - yeah I agree.

Im not sure if shaming practices in Japan you would not consider a torture. Or a taoist China killing children that are females, or breaking female baby legs to put them together again. Spartans, Mongols, Indians... were they all moral by our standards? Give me a break.... realy.... Ignorance is not a virtue. Just because you are not aware of the abuse of children by all the cultures around the world does not mean its not there. Just because you close your eyes does not mean the evil is not there.

But yes, moral values are universal - they are a God law. They were not made by religion. We could agree on that. But saying atheists are better than of christians because they are pure, is a nonfactual nonsense.

Children are the most abused group of people around the world. Ask catholic priests - they know best about it.

In the John revelation it is written:

"6But you have this to your credit: You hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. "

Nicoloitans - Saint Nicolas, Claus at short ( a bishop of Antiochia) followers (does it ring something? Jingle Bells?). An origins of Catholic church. One of the practice of Nicolaitans was fucking little orphans. That was not considered sin.

People have evil in their hearth. Deal with it. And yes we have a lot of good in us. Its the purified God dna as to speak.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


View Profile
August 22, 2017, 07:41:42 PM
 #7719

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.
The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.
How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.
Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?
Quote
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?
Hi Przemax, you want me to consider the context of the story about god terrorizing a child, but I can see that the content of the story has the child suffering and threatened like ab animal, this is not a story about GOD because the content refutes the source, there is simply no way that Father would bring about the torture of a child, and this idea about ethical imperative follows easily from the Christian writings and intuitions about moral law. This chat would be much facilitated if you were to read the papers from Cunningham called "The Content Source Problem" and "The Problem of Seth's Origin ", then consider whether this story [and others mentioned on the evilbible site] really is one of the all-good-and-powerful doing what is right and teaching humans justice by such story.

Seth is said to be Melchizedek. And Melchizedek is said to be like the Son of God in Hebrews. This means that the words about Seth are not and cannot be clear in the understanding of mankind. We only understand in an outer, unclear way.

Cool
Seth is not relevant to the discussion, the question you have to ask yourself is "why is GOD demanding that Abraham commit evil? Is it justified for GOD to act this way?"

But you see? When Abraham thought he might have to choose between his son and God, he might have had turmoil. But when God showed Abraham that he didn't have to make such a difficult choice, Abraham loved God all the more.

The question is. Do you love God enough to question Him only with academic questioning? Or are you questioning Him with judgment in mind? If you judge Him, you do not love Him.

The two things you need for your salvation are:
1. To be on God's side. The way you do this is to love Him above everything else;
2. Faith in Jesus salvation.

Will you ever get to Heaven to ask Abraham how he feels about it?

Cool

Cryptocurrency Bank MLM - Pre-Launch ends 09/19/17 - http://smoothjazz.ccbmlm.com - Sign up for FREE.
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544


View Profile
August 23, 2017, 06:26:01 AM
 #7720

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.
The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.
How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.
Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?
Quote
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?
Hi Przemax, you want me to consider the context of the story about god terrorizing a child, but I can see that the content of the story has the child suffering and threatened like ab animal, this is not a story about GOD because the content refutes the source, there is simply no way that Father would bring about the torture of a child, and this idea about ethical imperative follows easily from the Christian writings and intuitions about moral law. This chat would be much facilitated if you were to read the papers from Cunningham called "The Content Source Problem" and "The Problem of Seth's Origin ", then consider whether this story [and others mentioned on the evilbible site] really is one of the all-good-and-powerful doing what is right and teaching humans justice by such story.

Seth is said to be Melchizedek. And Melchizedek is said to be like the Son of God in Hebrews. This means that the words about Seth are not and cannot be clear in the understanding of mankind. We only understand in an outer, unclear way.

Cool
Seth is not relevant to the discussion, the question you have to ask yourself is "why is GOD demanding that Abraham commit evil? Is it justified for GOD to act this way?"

But you see? When Abraham thought he might have to choose between his son and God, he might have had turmoil. But when God showed Abraham that he didn't have to make such a difficult choice, Abraham loved God all the more.

The question is. Do you love God enough to question Him only with academic questioning? Or are you questioning Him with judgment in mind? If you judge Him, you do not love Him.

The two things you need for your salvation are:
1. To be on God's side. The way you do this is to love Him above everything else;
2. Faith in Jesus salvation.

Will you ever get to Heaven to ask Abraham how he feels about it?

Cool
1. GOD gave man a mind so that man could do his own thinking, this includes moral judgments in line with the law which GOD wrote on the human heart. I think that there is no way that GOD would behave that way and the context of the child abuse is not relevant to the question of whether the child abuse is justified. Do not throw away reason along with GOD's law of nonviolence: a child learns from the actions of the parent, we are the children of GOD because of our moral compass which comes from GOD and is "written upon the heart", GOD would not act in a way that would nullify his own law.

2. Jesus never actually taught Jesus salvation, he told his closest followers "I am not our master". Whenever I point this out to you, you think that your interpretation of the Bible in other places can overcome the contradictory information. Did you ever address the facts and research directly and adequately? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg20474735#msg20474735
You should not ignore the information on the evilbible site that calls out the evil in the OT, this book is so messed up but it takes an open mind to realize what has happened.
http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/

3. Jesus factually taught that you need to love GOD and love thy neighbor as thyself. You replace the love for thy neighbor with the so-called Doctrine of Jesus Salvation? And how are YOU expecting to get to Heaven? I recommend that you immediately conduct a thorough read of all sites that I mentioned, I just showed that you are deliberately adulterating the factual teaching of Jesus bout loving GOD and neighbor as self.
Pages: « 1 ... 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 [386] 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!