An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[AndyDufresne]

You used menstruating monkeys tho Andy (or were the women just really hairy?)

It depended on the day. I did the best I could with the resources at my disposable.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Haha, I know, right? There's no way string cheese can come from nothing! Artificial decay on the horizon of the event at which all time was nonexistent! Therefore happenstance when the leaves formed into rocks??? Impossible! Then somehow a rib was taken from someone and humans? Yes, because that makes sense because I read about it, and my opinion confirms it.

Unless this universe and everything in it is but a creation of a God that exist outside of the created Universe. Now do you see why people believe in God? There is simply no other way to logically or scientifically explain how it is that we are.

This is essentially the one and only argument the creationist (and the UFO enthusiast and the 9/11 truther) has, they are just good at disguising it, but here you stated it plainly.

The argument is: "I don't know how this occurred and I don't know what will happen next. The lack of knowledge frightens me, therefore I will take a theory, ANY theory that will explain these things".
This way, to all the questions I answer with "I don't know" you can say "God did it" and feel reassured at your knowledge of the most intricate working of the universe.
Fear of the unknown. Fear of death. These are the main reasons people cling to bronze age myths regarding the origin of the universe. This is also the reason why scientific expansion is killing religion. The fewer "I don't knows" there are the less likely people are to take the blue pill and stick with the myths.

Also, Viceroy's argument doesn't actually logically or scientifically explain a thing. To scientifically take the point of view that "God did it" you have to be able to at least start to explain HOW "God did it".

[Frigidus]

Geez, I leave this thread alone for a couple days and we're already busting out the tired old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument. I mean, shit, Viceroy actually agreed that the 2nd LoT was problematic as far as evolution goes. I can understand someone that is simply ignorant playing what they think is some sort of trump card, but surely in the extensive amount of time that he's likely spent arguing creationism he has seen that one get shot down before?

I'd point out the problem with this one, but it isn't like the opposition would acknowledge that one of the staple arguments you hear every time you have one of these debates is flawed. They just wouldn't respond to my counter point, pretend they never said anything, and if pressed on the issue they'd just go off on some other tangent. Their method of debate is to just throw out as much nonsense as possible and hope that those arguing in favor of evolution eventually get tired of shooting down one piece of "evidence" after another. After the debate is over they reload, ready to use the same flawed proofs and misunderstandings that they just saw obliterated on someone that wasn't there the first time.

[BigBallinStalin]

With magical menstruating women on the line, how can you blame them? High stakes are high stakes. Therefore, you lose.

[Lootifer]

I just hate this thread and want it gone. It disgusts me (from a tolerance pov, the content is meaningless).

AND!!!

Go away Viceroy, you contribute nothing to this community.

There are very few people that believe a single word you have said in this thread. And the only reason its 5 pages is a testament to the retarded fact that we as humans much prefer the negative discussion (i.e. conflict/argument) over the positive discussion (e.g. spending time with your kids is great and increases the likelihood they will be successful, #tumbleweed).

So i beg of you; please go away; you will not change any of us, and likewise we will not change you. Its pointless so please please please stop posting.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182529&start=60#p3988524

I disagree. I don't know much about the physical sciences, so whenever a Bible-thumping maniac arrives, I sit down and read the posts of those who are knowledgeable of the sciences... e.g. Neoteny, TG, Haggis, MeDeFe, Mets, etc. Then there's jokes from jones, DY, Timminz, etc.

Why do you reject the goose that lays golden eggs? Are you a vegan?

Well played. Thou I contest that my two stances are actually similar. Both points are vents against intolerance, just the later is more accepting of the fact that we are all intolerant and hence any discussion is pointless.

[PROFITS]

Show me a cave painting of a velociraptor then.

Show me one example of spontaneous generation. Show me one example found by science that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. I didn't think so. Even your high priest Stephen Hawking acknowledges this.

"In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature" (Public Lecture, "The Beginning of Time").

So, that means you don't have the cave painting then ? Huh, weird that. You're saying you made a completely unsubstantiated point that you can't defend in any way whatsoever and are now therefore trying to shift the discussion to something else.

How odd, I've never seen a creationist do that before.

Anyway, fine, let's move to the new subject.
Explain to me how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRN5MTG6VnU
There is one in here that is often misquoted as a cave painting. Remember, if you are an evolutionist your drawings, estimates, and predictions that you add onto proclaimed replicas are approved. Any opposition is delusional or unqualified no matter what their background or education is. The people from ancient civilizations had such a great imagination that they left behind drawings and figurines that look almost identical to what our drawings suggest dinosaurs looked like. Any claims in writings that describe dinosaurs are invalid. They were simply myths and legends. If they agree with us, then they are facts or well accepted.

[AAFitz]

Show me a cave painting of a velociraptor then.

Show me one example of spontaneous generation. Show me one example found by science that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. I didn't think so. Even your high priest Stephen Hawking acknowledges this.

"In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature" (Public Lecture, "The Beginning of Time").

So, that means you don't have the cave painting then ? Huh, weird that. You're saying you made a completely unsubstantiated point that you can't defend in any way whatsoever and are now therefore trying to shift the discussion to something else.

How odd, I've never seen a creationist do that before.

Anyway, fine, let's move to the new subject.
Explain to me how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRN5MTG6VnU
There is one in here that is often misquoted as a cave painting. Remember, if you are an evolutionist your drawings, estimates, and predictions that you add onto proclaimed replicas are approved. Any opposition is delusional or unqualified no matter what their background or education is. The people from ancient civilizations had such a great imagination that they left behind drawings and figurines that look almost identical to what our drawings suggest dinosaurs looked like. Any claims in writings that describe dinosaurs are invalid. They were simply myths and legends. If they agree with us, then they are facts or well accepted.

Its so nice that snake oil salesmen can still find work. I had the overwhelming urge to stick pencils in my ears listening to that guys exaggerated accent.

Why is it that the fake scientists always have that air of salesmanship, that reminds you of a used car salesman....not that anyone would be stupid enough to buy a car from that idiot....well, except maybe you I guess.

You've bought one of his new models: Naive GXR5.

It goes 0-60 stupid fast.

[AndyDufresne]

With magical menstruating women on the line, how can you blame them? High stakes are high stakes. Therefore, you lose.

BBS, did you know there is a tumblr called magical menstruation? I don't advise you to visit it, unless you really are looking for some magic though.


--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

Show me a cave painting of a velociraptor then.

Show me one example of spontaneous generation. Show me one example found by science that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. I didn't think so. Even your high priest Stephen Hawking acknowledges this.

"In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature" (Public Lecture, "The Beginning of Time").

OK then show me some of this:

The evidence that dinosaurs lived with man in recent history is staggering and overwhelming due to the countless artifacts, drawings, carvings, statues, mosaics and depictions throughout history of Brachiosaurus, Stegosaurus, Plesiosaur, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, T-rex and more.

Should be easy as there are countless artifacts.
And the descriptions are exact in every detail I hear.

[Army of GOD]

http://toptenproofs.com/article_dinosaurs.php

That seems to be an article whose only reference is an audio CD, made by the same people that wrote the article, and which costs 15 bucks.

Seems legit to me.

I love how you have to pay 169 dollars for "scientific proof that God exists."

God I wish I was that bold...

[AndyDufresne]

http://toptenproofs.com/article_dinosaurs.php

That seems to be an article whose only reference is an audio CD, made by the same people that wrote the article, and which costs 15 bucks.

Seems legit to me.

Haggis, are we talking CD-R here? It'd be nice to get some additional use out of it.


--Andy

[crispybits]

[BigBallinStalin]

With magical menstruating women on the line, how can you blame them? High stakes are high stakes. Therefore, you lose.

BBS, did you know there is a tumblr called magical menstruation? I don't advise you to visit it, unless you really are looking for some magic though.


--Andy

Thank you, but I've just finished eating.

[PLAYER57832]

Were there dinosaurs in the arc?
Opinions please.

If they were alive, yes they were.

My personal opinion is they were. I'd suggest the younger smaller one's were chosen, but there was enough room for larger.

I see, and you find evidence of this in the Bible, where, exactly? In fact, IF they were alive, then the Bible clearly says they would have been preserved in the arc. Two of every animal were saved, after all.. not just those nicey nice ones we tend to see in drawings of the arc.

Also, how do you refute the evidence put forward by scientists that most dinosaurs went extinct long before humans arrived....

[AAFitz]

Damn. I never heard that theory before. That actually makes sense.

They should call it the head in the sand theory.

No way they'll get the irony of it.

[PLAYER57832]

Show me a cave painting of a velociraptor then.

Show me one example of spontaneous generation. Show me one example found by science that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. I didn't think so. Even your high priest Stephen Hawking acknowledges this.

Not even sure what revelevance you think this has in evolution... and that is a big part of this "Second Law" argument.

But here is the thing. The turn to disorder ONLY happens when there is no other input of energy. That instantly rules out the Earth, becuase we have the sun, there is gravity, many other factors, including most importantly living creatures. You seem to want to rely upon this thermodynamics theory, but the fact is that if it really were the theory you seem to believe, we would plain not exist.. not we would not exist absent God, but we would not exist at all.
It is not the theory that is wrong, it is your understanding, the teachings of the Dr Morris supporters and "colleagues". The Second Law is accurate, but it in no way shape or form prohibits or even really has much to do with evolution. Understand that... and you will begin to understand REAL science as opposed to this pretence you have been led to believe is science.

[AAFitz]

http://toptenproofs.com/article_dinosaurs.php

That seems to be an article whose only reference is an audio CD, made by the same people that wrote the article, and which costs 15 bucks.

Seems legit to me.

I love how you have to pay 169 dollars for "scientific proof that God exists."

God I wish I was that bold...

Ten supposed proofs that dinosaurs walked with man $169

A lifetime of ignorance, priceless.

[PLAYER57832]

Have you ever seen a dodo bird? Oh, you saw a painting of one by some person who lived several hundred years ago. The same with dinosaurs. They have been documented by humans.
http://www.icr.org/article/6092/368/

Sad to see that the ICR has gone from merely "misunderstanding" and "misdirecting" students to plain outright fraudulant lies.

You can believe, as you apparently seem to believe, that the entire world of science is constructed almost entirely to abuse believing Christians of their faith..

OR you can join the real world and actually consider that thousands and thousands of scientists might have other agendas than using evolution to destroy Christianity.

[Viceroy63]

Were there dinosaurs in the arc?
Opinions please.

If they were alive, yes they were.

My personal opinion is they were. I'd suggest the younger smaller one's were chosen, but there was enough room for larger.

I see, and you find evidence of this in the Bible, where, exactly? In fact, IF they were alive, then the Bible clearly says they would have been preserved in the arc. Two of every animal were saved, after all.. not just those nicey nice ones we tend to see in drawings of the arc.

Also, how do you refute the evidence put forward by scientists that most dinosaurs went extinct long before humans arrived....

Scientist do make that claim, but it is a claim made on several faulty assumptions. One of the assumptions is the accuracy or rather inaccuracy of Carbon dating. Another is the fact that you never find human fossils with Dinosaurs. And still another would be the layers of rock and earth taking Millions of year to build up. There are other faulty assumptions that Scientist make in their claims that the Dinosaurs all died out 65 million years ago, but no other comes to mind at the moment. I could go one by one and show reasons why this particular scientific claim is not true but who would read it? Especially when you all want to believe anything but the truth.

The truth is out there; Even in a world enveloped by lies and deceit.

[PROFITS]

Show me a cave painting of a velociraptor then.

Show me one example of spontaneous generation. Show me one example found by science that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. I didn't think so. Even your high priest Stephen Hawking acknowledges this.

"In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature" (Public Lecture, "The Beginning of Time").

So, that means you don't have the cave painting then ? Huh, weird that. You're saying you made a completely unsubstantiated point that you can't defend in any way whatsoever and are now therefore trying to shift the discussion to something else.

How odd, I've never seen a creationist do that before.

Anyway, fine, let's move to the new subject.
Explain to me how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRN5MTG6VnU
There is one in here that is often misquoted as a cave painting. Remember, if you are an evolutionist your drawings, estimates, and predictions that you add onto proclaimed replicas are approved. Any opposition is delusional or unqualified no matter what their background or education is. The people from ancient civilizations had such a great imagination that they left behind drawings and figurines that look almost identical to what our drawings suggest dinosaurs looked like. Any claims in writings that describe dinosaurs are invalid. They were simply myths and legends. If they agree with us, then they are facts or well accepted.

Its so nice that snake oil salesmen can still find work. I had the overwhelming urge to stick pencils in my ears listening to that guys exaggerated accent.

Why is it that the fake scientists always have that air of salesmanship, that reminds you of a used car salesman....not that anyone would be stupid enough to buy a car from that idiot....well, except maybe you I guess.

You've bought one of his new models: Naive GXR5.

It goes 0-60 stupid fast.

Bro, take a deep breath and count to 10. Deep inhales through your nose exhale through your mouth. Happy thoughts

I'm not sure I ever paid much attention to his voice or his look, or what occupation he could be in. I usually just pay attention to the words people speak in videos and the evidence they present.

I think he made a pretty good case there.

[PROFITS]

It's normally = not a fact = faith based. decent theoretical maths or indirect empirical evidence that points towards something but doesn't prove it beyond all doubt = not a fact = faith based. IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A BELIEF. The problem is when you start running your mouth like we are debating FACTS against BELIEFS. We are debating BELIEFS against BELIEFS.

I never once mentioned "what caused it". Only show me proof that spontaneous generation happens. My belief is that there is not anything that can cause spontaneous generation because it's simply not possible. It didn't happen. So you admit nothing comes close to an evidential standard, yet you BELIEVE IN IT. IT IS A BELIEF.

What does religious faith have to do with our debate about whether macro evolution and/ or big bang are a belief or fact? There are thousands of religions and you choose 2000 years ago as your example. Sounds like you have a personal disliking to Christianity and it has blinded your mind. You'll pretty much believe in anything that is against Christianity no matter how ridiculous is the impression I'm getting.

Not really. Normally = there will always be scam artists that through corruption or genuine mistaken belief will try to use pseudo-science to establish "facs" that are not true. These are the vast minority though. Ironically enough this small sub-set includes the kind of people you have been conned by, and now you.

OK so we're talking about spontaneous generation as in how did life form. Again the science doesn't say we know. There are hypotheses, and the one that starts with complex organic compounds and goes up through RNA to DNA to simple life and then complex life seems to fit what we have evidence for in many other areas, but it could just as easily have been carried here on a meteor and we're not even close. That's why there is no "Theory of Abiogensis", we simply don't have the evidence to say that this or that is almost definitely what happened. Anyone who claims they do has either got all their working out and supporting evidence and is about to win a Nobel prize and become pretty damn wealthy, or is a scam artist using pseudo-science or pure faith without evidential grounds

As for beliefs being different - lets say it's raining where I am and I can hear the raindrops falling on my roof. I believe that if I don't wear a waterproof coat when I go out today that I will get wet. Contrast that with the belief that I should wear a tin foil hat if I go out today to stop aliens mind-controlling me. One is evidence based, and can be backed up by repeatable and verifiable experiments (I could go out 10 times, half the time wearing a coat and half the time not and seeing which times I get wet). The other is based on irrational superstition about something I cannot claim any genuine knowledge of, and cannot even begin to form a properly repeatable experiment to test.

The belief in our current chemical model of spontaneous generation is backed up by chemistry and the rules we have discovered about how complex molecules interact with each other, the belief that it simply didn't happen that way is also valid, as there is no concrete proof that we have found (though we have proved that it is theoretically possible to have the conditions necessary for chemical abiogenesis on a young and forming Earth, the silver bullet of it actually happening in a lab is still missing). But if you're a scientist, and you say "X didn't happen the way we thought" then you have to provide a reason WHY the current model is not possible, not just state that you don't believe in it, or your objection is about as valid as someone saying "I don't believe chocolate ice cream exists" without providing any reasoning or proof.

As for the anti-religious thing I had to laugh, you obviously haven't been in these forums long. My opinion, freely expressed several times in several threads is as follows: Organised religion is man's most abusive and dangerous invention ever (far worse that genetically engineered viruses or nuclear weapons) and anyone trying to spread it to others should be regarded as lower than the worst war criminal, and anyone trying to spread it to kids too young to understand what they're being told to believe should be strung up and shot at dawn. I don't think I could be much clearer about my opinion on that if I tried. Thankfully for the religious of the world this is my personal opinion, and I haven't gone out and made up an imaginary friend who is all powerful and agrees with me and will send anyone who doesn't become his slave and worship him to eternal torment, because if I could make that kind of false authority stick, well, it wouldn't be pretty for you guys. This thread isn't rally for that debate though, so take it to PM or find the relevant thread if you want to challenge me on that opinion rather than derailing this one.

Not really. Normally = there will always be scam artists that through corruption or genuine mistaken belief will try to use pseudo-science to establish "facs" that are not true. These are the vast minority though. Ironically enough this small sub-set includes the kind of people you have been conned by, and now you.

The problem is that these scam artists are "the missing links" that make your case. You can have "mountains of evidence" which is circumstantial and not have a solid case. Scam artist comes in with "the missing link" and it's FRONT PAGE OF SCIENCE MAGAZINE, IMMEDIATELY PRINTED IN ALL SCHOOL BOOKS, EVERY NEWS STATION, EVERY MEDIA OUTLET. All of your super smart idols give their stamp of approval on these findings, use them in their debates, teach them in the schools, and anyone whom disagrees is an idiot. Years later (sometimes up to 40 years) it's found to be a fraud. You don't hear anything about it unless you're specifically searching for information like this. By this time, there is a new "missing link" that takes years to reveal as a fraud and the cycle just keeps repeating itself. So it's more than just some random scam artist. What about the super smart idols that gave their stamp of approval after all their tests? How valid is their opinion "on this subject only" anymore? What about the school books? We did an event one time which we found fraudulent teaching (I'm talking fraud that is not debated by anyone) in over 70 different Science books ranging from elementary school to college (at a well known university). One book even had teachings from a person that was convicted and banned from his own college over 100 years ago.

As for beliefs being different - lets say it's raining where I am and I can hear the raindrops falling on my roof. I believe that if I don't wear a waterproof coat when I go out today that I will get wet. Contrast that with the belief that I should wear a tin foil hat if I go out today to stop aliens mind-controlling me. One is evidence based, and can be backed up by repeatable and verifiable experiments (I could go out 10 times, half the time wearing a coat and half the time not and seeing which times I get wet). The other is based on irrational superstition about something I cannot claim any genuine knowledge of, and cannot even begin to form a properly repeatable experiment to test.

You don't have that kind of proof. The example you gave can be confirmed and observed. You cannot use this sort of example for claiming that something happened BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO. It obviously cannot be observed as the outcome of your example can. Our difference in valuable evidence differs as your belief system is different than mine. Example, Bob says he jumped in his time machine yesterday and traveled back to the 1400's, 1800's, 1999, and several previous days of this year. He made a replica of his time travel machine and it was stolen on a train from China. He explains how his machine worked and lays out a 500 page detailed explanation of everything. He's the smartest guy we both know. You decide to believe he had actually traveled back to the 1400's and his machine existed. I don't. Evidence related to his travel to the past will be different to you because you've chosen to accept previous statements from him that he had a time machine and actually traveled to the past. You may not be able to understand why I don't feel the same way about this new evidence as it is only valid evidence (assuming he actually did have a time machine and traveled to the past). In your own mind, this new evidence makes perfect sense to you, because in your own mind, you have accepted the time machine and him traveling to the past. In my mind, this new evidence doesn't mean anything at all as I do not believe he had a time machine or traveled to the past.
Our minds differ on the theory that the earth came into existence billions of years ago. Our minds differ that the earth was in existence millions of years ago. I haven't accepted the time travel machine, you have.

The belief in our current chemical model of spontaneous generation is backed up by chemistry and the rules we have discovered about how complex molecules interact with each other, the belief that it simply didn't happen that way is also valid, as there is no concrete proof that we have found (though we have proved that it is theoretically possible to have the conditions necessary for chemical abiogenesis on a young and forming Earth, the silver bullet of it actually happening in a lab is still missing). But if you're a scientist, and you say "X didn't happen the way we thought" then you have to provide a reason WHY the current model is not possible, not just state that you don't believe in it, or your objection is about as valid as someone saying "I don't believe chocolate ice cream exists" without providing any reasoning or proof.

My objection is "show me the chocolate ice cream". Your response that it all happened long ago and far away won't mean anything to me. It would mean something to me if you showed me the chocolate ice cream. Look, proving that something is possible can only go so far. I can show that it's possible for me to roll 3 sixes continuously for the next 20 years without taking a break for more than 8 hrs per day. I won't argue with you that your belief isn't possible, only that the odds are so poor that it's not worth even thinking about. Have you checked into the odds of evolution or big bang? Some people have done some and have come up with numbers you cannot pronounce without even getting into 1% of the study. It's pointless and time consuming to keep going, but it would ultimately get to 1/infinity if you were to do the odds of macro evolution and big bang both being possible together.
One study referenced it to being the same as wind blowing through a scrapyard and assembling a 747 jet. The common response I got to that was "you can't compare that to living matter and the steps of evolution and blah blah blah. YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! IT'S REFERRING TO ODDS! Meaning the odds of that happening are the same odds of evolution and big bang being true.

Let me explain what odds of 1/infinity are. The odds of your belief are 1 in 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... just keep counting for the rest of your life. When you die, have somebody take over counting and just keep going and going and going. The second they die, somebody else takes over and it NEVER ENDS.

Shoot, I have to go. I'll try to respond to any further later.

As for the anti-religious thing I had to laugh, you obviously haven't been in these forums long. My opinion, freely expressed several times in several threads is as follows: Organised religion is man's most abusive and dangerous invention ever (far worse that genetically engineered viruses or nuclear weapons) and anyone trying to spread it to others should be regarded as lower than the worst war criminal, and anyone trying to spread it to kids too young to understand what they're being told to believe should be strung up and shot at dawn. I don't think I could be much clearer about my opinion on that if I tried. Thankfully for the religious of the world this is my personal opinion, and I haven't gone out and made up an imaginary friend who is all powerful and agrees with me and will send anyone who doesn't become his slave and worship him to eternal torment, because if I could make that kind of false authority stick, well, it wouldn't be pretty for you guys. This thread isn't rally for that debate though, so take it to PM or find the relevant thread if you want to challenge me on that opinion rather than derailing this one.

Yeah, I haven't been in the forums long as I simply don't have the time. I missed my window to get an oil change this morning cause I got caught up making a post on here. I don't think you'll see much more of me anytime soon. Anyways, all I'm suggesting is you may be missing important details in the objections to your beliefs based on your emotions. Not an insult, but a pretty common and normal mistake people can make at times.

I stopped having discussions with people of a certain religion (that proclaims to be a peaceful religion) because about 2 sentences into the debate they were ready to kill me. To be honest, I'm starting to see that same crazy look in the eyes shortly into conversations with evolutionist now as well.

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of The Bible. Nobody has made up an imaginary friend that agrees with them. Being that all men are sinners, I'm not sure you can make a case for The Bible implying that God agrees with his followers. God does not demand anyone to be His slave. The fact that He gives us freewill is the exact opposite. Plus He is our rightful owner as He created us. If we weren't given free will, we'd pretty much be robots. He desires our love and worship and has gone to great lengths to make it possible for us to be with Him in eternity. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." God does not “send” people to hell. Rather, people freely choose to reject God’s gift of salvation. God has given people freedom of will, which means some may be “always resisting the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). God desires that everyone believes in him (2 Peter 3:9). But the sad reality is that many people do not want to submit their lives to God.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS (Matthew 25:41). So your idea of God demanding worship or I'll send you to Hell is a misunderstanding. Hell was not created for you and the only way you can end up there is choosing to go there opposed to accepting God's gift of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith.

So I'd be glad to continue to go further into this with you through pm if you'd like. I can prob handle responding to 1 person without 10 random insults jumping in and people copy pasting 5 pages of information for me to read and respond to. I can't say I ever shared your anger, but I did share your beliefs for many years. Whenever you're ready to look at things from a neutral position, the truth will be very clear for you. Good luck and pm me if you want.

[jonesthecurl]

So Profits, what do you think of the intelligence of the person who wrote this...

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

?

?

Still waiting...

[jonesthecurl]

Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

I know this is not the original drawing.
In which museums and textbooks does the original to which you refer appear?


And are you seriously sugesting I go through every textbook to show the absence of this drawing? I'll do that when you prove that there are no textbooks with the words "Viceroy asks for the most stupid things" in.

still waiting...

[jonesthecurl]

Other than the accounts in the bible, which are not eye-witness accounts(and which are not exactly independent evidence anyway), do you have any historical sources for Jesus? Or any of the events of his life? I'm not asking you to prove that he is the way, the truth, the son of god, or anything else -just that he existed. I'm not even saying that he didn't, just that you have to prove that the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming".
"Overwhelming evidence" I believe you said.
btw, If you're going to count the AD/BC thing as proof, will you accept all other dating systems as proof of the events they commemorate?
oh, and incidentally you have the BC/AD dating wrong anyway.

After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!

See, you are misquoting me, yet again. It's just a slight wording or two but still it's enough to mislead the majority of the people in just the same way that Darwinists have misrepresented the fact and mislead the majority of the people right from preschool about the theory of evolution.

Now I will ask you to find that quote where I said. "the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming."" And then we can continue OK. Thank you.

This is the same tactic by the way, that evolutionist use to claim that the theory of evolution is true when it is not. OK. Thank You very much!

Oh and as many times as we need to go through this exercise, we will go through this exercise until we learn to speak the same language and use the same definitions for the same words that we use. Thank You.

In fact there is overwhelming historical and archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible.

Is Jesus' existence not a story in the Bible? I had an idea he was mentioned there once or twice.

Also still waiting for:

Scientists or scientific texts which agree that "The Universe is made up of three element";
Secular historians that confirmed the 30 pieces of gold which Judas was paid;
The testbooks and museums in which your signature pic is shown;
Science books/scientists (not "the Bible, a science book") which back up THIS doozee

Only God existed. Time and Space and Matter were all created things. Things which He created and from nothing brought into existence, the universe. Even Science agrees to that.

;

Still waiting...

[jonesthecurl]

I could go on.