Question for the biblical religious

[luvfightgame]

There isn't a god, just a lot of people who believe in various gods. Recently we got so developed that we could work out how we got here and it's nothing to do with any big ghost in the sky. If our planet was orbiting a little closer or a little further away from the sun we'd be a barren planet and life on earth would never have existed. We're evolved organic matter. We're born and eventually we die. End of story.

Kirkland,

I don't think you've researched the subject of "evolving" much if you think that's how were here. You don't have to believe in God, and you can think it's a fairytale. But you can't believe in evolution as science and seriously consider it's any less of a fairy tale. Evolution violates every law of science. It is unscientific and is in fact a belief system. There is no aspect that has ever been observed, tested, or measured, 0% science and 100% faith or belief. That's it. I don't hate on skeptics, but be true to being a skeptic. Evolution is a fairytale not science. Be an equal opportunity skeptic and you will find just as much to be skeptical of order creating explosions and nothing exploding into everything.....

I wouldn't argue that you have to believe in God. But I will argue that if you believe in evolution, it is only a BELIEF. Nothing scientific at all. None. Zip, zero, nada. I only get ruffled when someone portrays themselves to be reasonable then espouses an unreasonable theory. To an evolutionist, time is their God.

Believers say "with God all things are possible" and evolutionists say "with enough time all things are possible". Just be real about it. Don't have the idea that one is reasonable and the other is not, cause it's just not true.

[Kirkland Laing]

There isn't a god, just a lot of people who believe in various gods. Recently we got so developed that we could work out how we got here and it's nothing to do with any big ghost in the sky. If our planet was orbiting a little closer or a little further away from the sun we'd be a barren planet and life on earth would never have existed. We're evolved organic matter. We're born and eventually we die. End of story.

Kirkland,

I don't think you've researched the subject of "evolving" much if you think that's how were here. You don't have to believe in God, and you can think it's a fairytale. But you can't believe in evolution as science and seriously consider it's any less of a fairy tale. Evolution violates every law of science. It is unscientific and is in fact a belief system. There is no aspect that has ever been observed, tested, or measured, 0% science and 100% faith or belief. That's it. I don't hate on skeptics, but be true to being a skeptic. Evolution is a fairytale not science. Be an equal opportunity skeptic and you will find just as much to be skeptical of order creating explosions and nothing exploding into everything.....

I wouldn't argue that you have to believe in God. But I will argue that if you believe in evolution, it is only a BELIEF. Nothing scientific at all. None. Zip, zero, nada. I only get ruffled when someone portrays themselves to be reasonable then espouses an unreasonable theory. To an evolutionist, time is their God.

Believers say "with God all things are possible" and evolutionists say "with enough time all things are possible". Just be real about it. Don't have the idea that one is reasonable and the other is not, cause it's just not true.

Which laws of science does evolution violate?

Which specific parts of evolution are you sceptical about?

[luvfightgame]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

[luvfightgame]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

[Kirkland Laing]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

Considering you're questioning evolution from an evidence-based perspective, what evidence do we have that god exists? If you believe the Bible is literal truth and thus that the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the existence on earth of fossils that are millions of years old? The leaders of the various Christian franchises claim that they were put there by god to test the faith of believers. Have you any better explanation?

[luvfightgame]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

Considering you're questioning evolution from an evidence-based perspective, what evidence do we have that god exists? If you believe the Bible is literal truth and thus that the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the existence on earth of fossils that are millions of years old? The leaders of the various Christian franchises claim that they were put there by god to test the faith of believers. Have you any better explanation?

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

[Kirkland Laing]

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

We're not on an equal basis on evidence. There is endless evidence for evolution and zero evidence for a god.

Carbon dating can be inaccurate. For example rocks which are shown by carbon dating to be four billion years old may be as little as three and a half billion years old, maybe even less. If you don't like carbon dating try potassium-argon dating. That's what's commonly used these days on samples over 100 000 years old.

I'm not sure how you can argue that evolution theory isn't scientific.

[Andre]

Why do the police use physics now?

As in one documented case, they can be lead right to one door, The killers.

Or someones lost in the outback and they are pin pointed on a map.

how do some poeple get a miracle cure from just a belife system?

Why does the truth enliven some but sicken others?

How come there is a law of attraction. What you think for long enough happens but If you cant control your thoughts then what you fear the most can happen.

Why do atoms appear and dissapear from view?

How does real love conqure all fear?

I think the rule is ,all energy isnt just limited to one area. Like within physicality only.

Unless the Be-ing behind the energy insists that there is only one point ,then the energy he omits and the energies around him obeys him and its impossible for him to see further than his choice at that moment.

Your point of view /is your point of control.That is the only reason you are here.


Theres two sides to Evolution macro and micro.
OF course we evolve but not into other things just other forms.
IAM THAT I AM.

[Kirkland Laing]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

[luvfightgame]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

[Andre]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Oh ME! ME ! pick ME !



#Thought derived from feelings.

[Kirkland Laing]

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

[Andre]

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

Ok so how does (LOVE ,JOY and HEALING) just to mention 3, come into it?