Young Earth: The Evidence

[DoomYoshi]

1. It deals with the improbability of life coming about? Are you kidding me?
We don't even know for certain how probable it is to have life.

I do know for certain that there is a probability of 1 to have life.

[waauw]

1. It deals with the improbability of life coming about? Are you kidding me?
We don't even know for certain how probable it is to have life.

I do know for certain that there is a probability of 1 to have life.

Not in terms of frequency throughout the entire universe, not even throughout our solar system

[_sabotage_]

I have posted quite a bit on this topic and will not go through it all again. If you are interested (which I don't think you are), feel free to look up my posts.

My conclusion is that, since God is everything, then everything which we know or come to know is merely the understanding of God. In choosing to say everything is not God you are in no way being more inclusive of evidence, you are merely choosing everything to be random rather than designed.

This choice is yours but is not a very healthy one for society or for you personally.

[waauw]

I have posted quite a bit on this topic and will not go through it all again. If you are interested (which I don't think you are), feel free to look up my posts.

My conclusion is that, since God is everything, then everything which we know or come to know is merely the understanding of God. In choosing to say everything is not God you are in no way being more inclusive of evidence, you are merely choosing everything to be random rather than designed.

This choice is yours but is not a very healthy one for society or for you personally.

Not really interested no. I used to have long tiring forum talks with universalchiro, or whatever his name was, about this subject and I don't want to repeat that either.

But to be honest you almost sound like a pantheist rather than a christian when mentioning that God is everthing and everything is God.

[_sabotage_]

Christians are pantheists. How else could God be omnipresent?

[waauw]

Christians are pantheists. How else could God be omnipresent?

Due to a lack of a more suitable term, I had to use the word pantheist. I was referring to the type of person who thinks the universe is god and NOT an antropomorphized being which is the case in christianism.
I referred to Einstein's and Voltaire's pantheism.

Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[_sabotage_]

So you only wish Christians to believe in a bearded fellow.

Christians believe God is omnipresent, deal with it. Now off with yourself, go play with your bigotry elsewhere.

[waauw]

So you only wish Christians to believe in a bearded fellow.

Christians believe God is omnipresent, deal with it. Now off with yourself, go play with your bigotry elsewhere.

What's wrong? have I hurt your teeny tiny pride
You're the one who started addressing me, not the other way around lad.

Now go back and educate yourself

[_sabotage_]

You think it's cool to insult a group of people equating their beliefs with the Easter bunny.? How many better men than you have believed in God? I'm glad that you're secure enough in your belief that you need to strawman other positions.

[waauw]

You think it's cool to insult a group of people equating their beliefs with the Easter bunny.? How many better men than you have believed in God? I'm glad that you're secure enough in your belief that you need to strawman other positions.

I never intended to insult an entire group of people. Phatscotty ridiculously misinterpretted my words to such an extent that I thought he was kidding. Hence I gave him a ridiculous answer in return.

And referencing 'better men who believed in God' is an absurd and desperate question. Whatever your definition of 'better' may be, I could return the exact same words. How many better men have not believed in God? A kindly man or a genius, it matters not. Even the best of men can be wrong. The only way to know for certain is verifying the argumentation. As proven by Sir Isaac Newton who mistakingly lost a fortune on the stock market.

As for the strawman, you seem to have replied me enough times for me to return you the same exact statement.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry, perhaps I have not been clear. You are clinging on to beliefs that are not valid, not yours and do nothing for you. They make you no smarter, no better, no richer, no sexier, no more likely to succeed.

The positions you hold on to are good only for those who first proclaimed them. And only at best temporarily. And yet you feel that you are free to mock others, the least of whom are better than you.

So group of folks over here: all better than you.
Group of folks you're in: you're at the bottom.

You see yourself as nothing and will come to nothing. Me writing this to you is on par with the highlight of your existence. I hope you've enjoyed reading it.

[Phatscotty]

Respected scientists in the world.

And what do they believe the universe came from? How are we to conclude the are "respected"? Since there is zero evidence, how can their opinion be deemed scientific?

I don't believe in young earth, I do believe God created the universe.

Which god? And by that I mean who's god? There are many and every one of them claims to be the only one, all others are imposters.

This isn't a bet at a horse race....

What do you expect, that every human on earth in every culture would come to the exact same conclusion? And since they haven't all come to the same conclusion, therefore they are all stupid?

Here, let's actually talk about something pertinent

Check out this former Atheist of 27 years

[2dimes]

The bulletin of the atomic scientists says we're two minutes (metaphorically) closer to midnight.

Brace yourself for Big Bang number five.

[DaGip]

In response to the Atheistic-theist's remark that "animal's don't do art" made at 4:13 in the video:

[waauw]

Sorry, perhaps I have not been clear. You are clinging on to beliefs that are not valid, not yours and do nothing for you. They make you no smarter, no better, no richer, no sexier, no more likely to succeed.

The positions you hold on to are good only for those who first proclaimed them. And only at best temporarily. And yet you feel that you are free to mock others, the least of whom are better than you.

So group of folks over here: all better than you.
Group of folks you're in: you're at the bottom.

You see yourself as nothing and will come to nothing. Me writing this to you is on par with the highlight of your existence. I hope you've enjoyed reading it.

Such a typical sentence for a religious person. Beliefs(which can still be distinguished as either rational or irrational beliefs) don't have to make you smarter, better, richer, sexier or likely to succeed. Some people just like to acquire more information on the topic purely for the sake of acquiring it. Knowledge is a goal upon itself. Obviously you are not one of them as you seem to claim that unproven theories are unscientific, hence insulting the work of some of the most brilliant minds in the world like Steven Hawking's theories on black holes.

And as I recall, you are the one that started calling me by petty names and diverting this conversation to petulance. This is not something I understand as all I initially did was state my opinion, that the creationist theory is less probable. Many creationists probably have the opposite opinion that their theiry is more probable, yet neither is reason to feel so vehemently insulted.

[Phatscotty]

C'mon wuaw, you know you cam in blazing a bit arrogantly, which is gonna get you some challenges, don't be surprised if they are arrogant back. And the Easter Bunny thing..... if that's where you are at in your point of life as far as your own personal 'questioning' of religion, I would suggest you 'start' the questioning and take it to the next level.


What do you think is the reason you chose the Easter bunny rationalization?

[waauw]

C'mon wuaw, you know you cam in blazing a bit arrogantly, which is gonna get you some challenges, don't be surprised if they are arrogant back. And the Easter Bunny thing..... if that's where you are at in your point of life as far as your own personal 'questioning' of religion, I would suggest you 'start' the questioning and take it to the next level.


What do you think is the reason you chose the Easter bunny rationalization?

Read back. I never used the easter bunny as a rationalization. I already stated I merely used absurdity(easter bunny) against absurdity(your misinterpretation of my words, not your belief). That wasn't meant to be rational and if that was interpreted as insulting than I appologize for that part.
Concerning my arrogance, I believe you. You're not exactly the first person to tell me I'm arrogant. I can't really help it, that's just my personality. However Sabotage went a lot further than mere arrogance. He resorted to what I can only describe as childish behaviour, which pissed me off and escalated the conversation to a more personal level.

[notyou2]

I have posted quite a bit on this topic and will not go through it all again. If you are interested (which I don't think you are), feel free to look up my posts.

My conclusion is that, since God is everything, then everything which we know or come to know is merely the understanding of God. In choosing to say everything is not God you are in no way being more inclusive of evidence, you are merely choosing everything to be random rather than designed.

This choice is yours but is not a very healthy one for society or for you personally.

Why do you feel being an atheist is unhealthy for the individual and society?

[notyou2]

Respected scientists in the world.

And what do they believe the universe came from? How are we to conclude the are "respected"? Since there is zero evidence, how can their opinion be deemed scientific?

I don't believe in young earth, I do believe God created the universe.

Which god? And by that I mean who's god? There are many and every one of them claims to be the only one, all others are imposters.

This isn't a bet at a horse race....

What do you expect, that every human on earth in every culture would come to the exact same conclusion? And since they haven't all come to the same conclusion, therefore they are all stupid?

Here, let's actually talk about something pertinent

Check out this former Atheist of 27 years

How is this not pertinent? You religious people all believe your god is the one and only true god, yet there are thousands of gods worshiped on this planet. Why are you right and everyone else wrong?

[_sabotage_]

Why don't you ask yourself this question, notyou? Why have you too come to a different answer?

Since atheists have no set of morals to live by or hold each other accountable, it makes for unhealthy interactions constantly at the whim of the stronger party.

[AndyDufresne]

Why don't you ask yourself this question, notyou? Why have you too come to a different answer?

Since atheists have no set of morals to live by or hold each other accountable, it makes for unhealthy interactions constantly at the whim of the stronger party.

It's true. I've lived in mostly atheistic l city before, and it was lawlessness. I once saw 3 jaywalkers in a single day. A single day.


--Andy

[waauw]

Why don't you ask yourself this question, notyou? Why have you too come to a different answer?

Since atheists have no set of morals to live by or hold each other accountable, it makes for unhealthy interactions constantly at the whim of the stronger party.

atheists no set of morals to live by? the global peace index would suggest many atheists have morals.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/11/global-peace-index-2013

[_sabotage_]

Andy, when has law equated to morality?

Wall Street has been allowed by law to create a massive derivative bubble backed by taxpayers money. If this was morality, then everyone else should be able to create cash at will and expect it to be backed by taxes. Morality applies to all parties equally.

Since Wall Street has a greater ability to influence government, they are granted permission to steal from the public. They stole roughly $3,000,000 from my grandma last time around by cooperating with the rating companies so that her retirement funds would be able to purchase the banks toxic products.

Since property rights are a key factor in social stability, the government has not only lead to the instability of society, they have formalized it. I.e. lacking a moral framework, the rich may conspire with the powerful and degenerate civilization.

While all religions more or less have the same basic principles, atheist don't. For any religious person, they might interpret stealing differently, but stealing in itself is bad. An atheist may say that they know better and though it is stealing, knowing better, they know it isn't bad.

If we were to base morality on law, then it would soon vanish. If one group is held to a standard not applied to all, morals don't exist.

[AndyDufresne]

Andy, when has law equated to morality?

Why are you making assumptions like that? Isn't it moral to stay out of the way of people or cars that may injure each other? STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS?!?!>!#>?!@>

a>DS?D@Q#@#!!~!!!~!


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

I didn't know that jaywalking involved cars, perhaps you should stop making the assumption that it does.