Logic dictates that there is a God!

[ParadiceCity9]

This argument is completely usless from the christian perspective. I mean honestly, these people wouldn't except that God exsists if he had them trapped in a giant glass jar, like ants. They would yell "E.T., E.T.!!".

That's exactly what I'd say. I dno about the rest of you....

[rocky mountain]

so then why are you still posting here? (not rude, just asking why since you think its a waste of time)

[ParadiceCity9]

so then why are you still posting here? (not rude, just asking why since you think its a waste of time)

Just tryin to convert to atheism...

Read my thread I just made.

[jonesthecurl]

OK so I found my Bible. It says the stars are lights fixed onto the firmament which is heaven, They were created after the sun and moon, and put into the firmament which we have already been told is "between the waters under the firmament" and "the waters above the firmament". It does not mention the planets, presumably because they are just more lights in the firmament. The sun, the moon and the stars are made on the fourth day. These lights are in the firmament, which is a roof above/around the world, clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation.

Comments? Is this true? have I missed something? Oh, I am specifically talking to the people who honestly believe in the literal truth of Genesis here. I know not all of you "Christians" do, though that may be enough apparently to condemn you to hell.

[jay_a2j]

"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

[jonesthecurl]

"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

[rocky mountain]

maybe he was just saying it in terms they would understand? that the lights were put in the sky... i dunno, but the earth does revolve around the sun...

[jonesthecurl]

maybe he was just saying it in terms they would understand? that the lights were put in the sky... i dunno, but the earth does revolve around the sun...

Now, see, you're not taking the bible literally. So you're not someone I'm asking.

[rocky mountain]

not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

[SlayerQC]

SOoooooooo, IF god created everything, then he's a freakin extra-terrestrial being.
Yup, he created it therefore he wasnt living on it=extra-terrestrial, just like the moon is.
The title says:
Logic dictates that there is a God!

hmmm, it's quite the opposite actually, there's not much logic in it.
1+1=2 is logic.
Some mysterious unknown unseen persona/being isnt quite logic.

Most non-believers actually say that there MIGHT be a god but most believers are so stuckup that THERE IS a god, it's pathetic.
Fanatics indeed.
I wonder how many tards would die for the pope if the pope said go kill some infidels or burn in hell....

You'll probably feel cheated when your brain lacks oxygen as you die.
But trust me, lack of oxygen to the brain is quite a trip!!!
You'll probably see something that you will call god and then it will all be black and just as it was before you were born.

[rocky mountain]

I wonder how many tards would die for the pope if the pope said go kill some infidels or burn in hell....

I wouldn't. i'm not Catholic.

but most believers are so stuckup that THERE IS a god, it's pathetic.

there are also many non-believers that are so stuck up that there ISN'T a God. its all because of belief.

SOoooooooo, IF god created everything, then he's a freakin extra-terrestrial being.
Yup, he created it therefore he wasnt living on it=extra-terrestrial, just like the moon is.

i don't really get this...

[DirtyDishSoap]

Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.

again, is not evolution, but adaptation.
how come we don't see beneficial mutations anymore? all of our mutations nowadays are harmful. if it could happen then, why can't it happen now?

extinction is not evolution. humans have driven many animals into extinction, and you don't say they became extinct because of evolution. the dinosaurs did not become extinct because of evolution either. i say it was a flood, you say it was an asteroid, either way, it was sudden, and does not prove evolution.

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

so what was that common ancestor. or is that the "missing link?"
the picture beside it is the "homonoids." who cares if we look like them. humans have more similar DNA to a chicken and E. Coli.

If your talking about ancestors, we can look at apes, or go as far back as where life was first devoloped on the ocean and evolution took place from there.


As for the mutations - Ever notice how much medication we take to fight stuff for us and not our immune systems and such? Crap like this doesnt come without severe side effects in the long run, It screws up in a sense, natural balance of the strong survive, natural selection if you will.
Truly i believe we cannot evolve anymore as humans mentally or phsyically, we can only rely on our intellect given to us and forge technology to suite our own needs to adapt and survive.

[MeDeFe]

that is not evolution. its called genetics.
mutations do not prove evolution. they are just mutations. plus, the odds that two organisms that have the exact same, beneficial mutations mate and reproduce and start a whole new species are pretty slim. mutations are not part of evolution.

Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.

again, is not evolution, but adaptation.
how come we don't see beneficial mutations anymore? all of our mutations nowadays are harmful. if it could happen then, why can't it happen now?

Ok, first of all, only one parent organism needs to have a certain genetic mutation for it to be passed on, not both. The chance of changes being passed on just became approximately one billion times more likely than you supposed it was. Mutations and their effects on the likelihood of an organism's and its offspring's reproducing and capability of surviving (adaptation) are at the heart of the theory of evolution. And even those two creatures in your example would not start a new species, it would still be just the same species as it was before, but some of them would have a slightly different phenotype than the rest and be slightly better adapted to their current environment and have slightly longer lifespans and their offspring would have a slightly higher chance of surviving and the mutation will spread through the population. They would still be the same species, though, btw, did you know that there are 20-something definitions for "species", it's not at all a clear-cut concept.
Adaptation is also not a process that is ever finished, because whenever one species has adapted to better deal with a problem, their adapatation most likely poses a problem to a dozen other species that will trigger start off the process in all of those species. Changes in the environment also lead to adaptations, those individuals who are better suited to the new conditions are more likely to survive and pass on their traits than the others.

extinction is not evolution. humans have driven many animals into extinction, and you don't say they became extinct because of evolution. the dinosaurs did not become extinct because of evolution either. i say it was a flood, you say it was an asteroid, either way, it was sudden, and does not prove evolution.

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

so what was that common ancestor. or is that the "missing link?"
the picture beside it is the "homonoids." who cares if we look like them. humans have more similar DNA to a chicken and E. Coli.

The dinosaurs did become extinct, and it was probably a pretty big event that lead to it. A major change in their environment most likely, and a few million years later we get a lot of fossils of mammals while before everything was reptilian. You know, that corresponds pretty well with what one would expect in light of the theory of evolution, the dinosaurs had been around for 100 million years or so and probably become highly specialized, eating only certain plants for example, you can see the same in any savannah, elephants, gnus, zebras, antelopes all eat different plants and don't have to compete for food with each other which is good for all of them, the downside is that if there is a small change in the environment and one of the plants disappears or has trouble growing, one species will be in a lot of trouble. If there's a big enviromental change and a major change in what grows and what does not, they're all going hungry, then the predators go hungry, and some sort of animal noone had even noticed before might come in and take over the whole operation because it's better adapted to the new climate.
From what we can see today it's pretty safe to conclude that mammals were better adapted to the new conditions that caused the dinosaurs to die out, and once the dinosaurs were in decline and did not pose a threat any more the mammals that were around could diversify quickly. How's that not evolution?


Also, what's your proof for that bold claim that our DNA is more similar to poultry or bacteria than with those now-extinct hominoids?

[Dancing Mustard]

not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Remember Kids: The Bible can never be wrong. So when it suddenly doesn't make sense, then it must be a metaphor. So you see, apart from the bits which are metaphors all of it is completely true, apart from the bits which are true but need a man in a funny dress to explain them in the right way, those are kind of special parts. A bit like the parts which were written a really long time ago and you shouldn't really read anything into, those are true, but not the kind of true you should listen to, but not metaphors either. Anyway, this is all a bit academic, because true and not true are such difficult things to figure out. It doesn't matter to us because there isn't actually a system to allow anybody to tell which bits of Bible are supposed to be really true, a different kind of true, metaphorically true, and the other kind of true; you just have to figure out which bits would suit you best as you go along. Of course, you can change your deciscion if it turns out not to work so well because the Bible can't be wrong (it says so itself). So if you can make the text sound like it backs you up whether you're calling it true, not true, metaphor, or a special kind of true then you must be right, because the bible is always the truth, even when that truth isn't really true, but a special sort of true which you need to come up with on your own.

[suggs]

But is it true?

[jonesthecurl]

not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Please understand: there are people posting on this thread (who have gone a bit quiet) who would have us believe that everything in the bible is the literal undiluted truth. I am just trying to follow this idea through by looking at the bible and reading it, as they frequently tell us to do.
Again, I ask the "literalists", to coin a word, does the earth orbit the sun of vice-versa?

[Juan_Bottom]

not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Remember Kids: The Bible can never be wrong. So when it suddenly doesn't make sense, then it must be a metaphor. So you see, apart from the bits which are metaphors all of it is completely true, apart from the bits which are true but need a man in a funny dress to explain them in the right way, those are kind of special parts. A bit like the parts which were written a really long time ago and you shouldn't really read anything into, those are true, but not the kind of true you should listen to, but not metaphors either. Anyway, this is all a bit academic, because true and not true are such difficult things to figure out. It doesn't matter to us because there isn't actually a system to allow anybody to tell which bits of Bible are supposed to be really true, a different kind of true, metaphorically true, and the other kind of true; you just have to figure out which bits would suit you best as you go along. Of course, you can change your deciscion if it turns out not to work so well because the Bible can't be wrong (it says so itself). So if you can make the text sound like it backs you up whether you're calling it true, not true, metaphor, or a special kind of true then you must be right, because the bible is always the truth, even when that truth isn't really true, but a special sort of true which you need to come up with on your own.

Nice!

[jay_a2j]

"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

I'm still not following. If the moon and sun are "in the firmament, between two lots of water" why are you assuming that that means the sun revolves around the earth? You seem to be leaving out that the "water below was gathered together". Just because something is in between something else does not make it automatically "in the center". Just "in between".

[MeDeFe]

"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

I'm still not following. If the moon and sun are "in the firmament, between two lots of water" why are you assuming that that means the sun revolves around the earth? You seem to be leaving out that the "water below was gathered together". Just because something is in between something else does not make it automatically "in the center". Just "in between".

So there are two bodies of water up in space and the sun and the moon are between them?

[jay_a2j]

"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

I'm still not following. If the moon and sun are "in the firmament, between two lots of water" why are you assuming that that means the sun revolves around the earth? You seem to be leaving out that the "water below was gathered together". Just because something is in between something else does not make it automatically "in the center". Just "in between".

So there are two bodies of water up in space and the sun and the moon are between them?

The lower body of water was "gathered together" and separated by dry land. Earth.

[Gregrios]

not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Please understand: there are people posting on this thread (who have gone a bit quiet) who would have us believe that everything in the bible is the literal undiluted truth. I am just trying to follow this idea through by looking at the bible and reading it, as they frequently tell us to do.
Again, I ask the "literalists", to coin a word, does the earth orbit the sun of vice-versa?

Rocky is quite right. I don't know anybody who thinks that the Bible is 100% literal. With using a pinch of logic, a person can figure out what's meant to be literal and what's meant to be metaphorical.(although the majority of the Bible is literal)

As for your question Jones. Where is this in Genesis so I can read it for myself? No offence, but I want to read it right out of the Bible.

[jonesthecurl]

The firmament is set above the earth. In it are the sun, the moon, and the stars. Above it are the waters. I fail to see how this allows the earth to orbit the sun. So did those who imprisoned Galileo for blasphemy.

[jay_a2j]

The firmament is set above the earth. In it are the sun, the moon, and the stars. Above it are the waters. I fail to see how this allows the earth to orbit the sun. So did those who imprisoned Galileo for blasphemy.

No matter where the earth is in its orbit, the sun is "above it".

[Gregrios]

Personally, I can't talk about it until I see the actual wording in the Bible so I can see exactly how it's worded.

.... cause alot of the meanings from the Bible depend strictly on how things are worded.

[rocky mountain]

extinction is not evolution. humans have driven many animals into extinction, and you don't say they became extinct because of evolution. the dinosaurs did not become extinct because of evolution either. i say it was a flood, you say it was an asteroid, either way, it was sudden, and does not prove evolution.

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

so what was that common ancestor. or is that the "missing link?"
the picture beside it is the "homonoids." who cares if we look like them. humans have more similar DNA to a chicken and E. Coli.

The dinosaurs did become extinct, and it was probably a pretty big event that lead to it. A major change in their environment most likely, and a few million years later we get a lot of fossils of mammals while before everything was reptilian. You know, that corresponds pretty well with what one would expect in light of the theory of evolution, the dinosaurs had been around for 100 million years or so and probably become highly specialized, eating only certain plants for example, you can see the same in any savannah, elephants, gnus, zebras, antelopes all eat different plants and don't have to compete for food with each other which is good for all of them, the downside is that if there is a small change in the environment and one of the plants disappears or has trouble growing, one species will be in a lot of trouble. If there's a big enviromental change and a major change in what grows and what does not, they're all going hungry, then the predators go hungry, and some sort of animal noone had even noticed before might come in and take over the whole operation because it's better adapted to the new climate.
From what we can see today it's pretty safe to conclude that mammals were better adapted to the new conditions that caused the dinosaurs to die out, and once the dinosaurs were in decline and did not pose a threat any more the mammals that were around could diversify quickly. How's that not evolution?
its not evolution because isn't evolution a long process? would the climate change have happened over long periods of time, in which case the dinosaurs would have adapted? if it was a quick climate change, and the dinosaurs died off fairly quickly, then it wasn't a long process. also, isn't evolution the changing of one species to another? the dinosaurs did not change into the mammals, so why is that evolution?

Also, what's your proof for that bold claim that our DNA is more similar to poultry or bacteria than with those now-extinct hominoids? i've seen in textbooks and heard from reliable sources.