toneyb:When have christians ever said they don't know? all they say is that the bible has the answers to everything concerning life, how the world was created and how people should live their lives. I have never said such. since christians(i am talking about christianity because that is the only religion i know very well because i once was one) provide their assumptions as facts. i feel it's good that we take a look at those assumptions and see if they are credible enough.
With due respect to your opinions, once again I join in the leagues of those who believe the have answers to all our problems irrespective of the fact certain people in high spiritual places have failed us.The Bible is not an assumption, it is valid and an infallible words from the only infallible personality.Crhistianity is not a Religion,it is a Relationship btw man and God.

God bless you man

REAL TRUTH:

toneyb:
With due respect to your opinions, once again I join in the leagues of those who believe the have answers to all our problems irrespective of the fact certain people in high spiritual places have failed us.[b]The Bible is not an assumption, it is valid and an infallible words from the only infallible personality.[/b]Crhistianity is not a Religion,it is a Relationship btw man and God.

God bless you man

Are you sure? what makes you say that? there are uncountable errors in the bible i could show you some right now if you want me to.

Do you think you exist?

I think therefore I am.
It is the only thing that I can be sure of.

@toneyb:quote
Are you sure? what makes you say that? there are uncountable errors in the bible i could show you some right now if you want me to

Please show me,,am here waiting for you!

REAL TRUTH:


Please show me,,am here waiting for you!

There are a LOT of errors and contradictions in the bible but i will just like to show you just a few. Second Samuel 24:9 states there were eight hundred thousand fighting men in Israel. First Chronicles 21:5 states there were one million, one hundred thousand when reporting about the same event. The same verses also state different numbers of the fighting men in Judah. Second Samuel 24:13 states that god sent his prophet to threaten David with seven years of famine. First Chronicles 21:12 states that god sent his prophet to threaten David with three years of famine. Also Genesis 50:13 says that Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. while acts 7:15-16 said that he was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with the men of Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.

These are just a few in the old testament.

There are more than enough errors and contradiction is the story of jesus all the gospels reported the events differently and contradictory with so many errors. I say this because the bible is the only book where we have the accounts of jesus so if the writers get the story all mixed up and contradictory why are they to be believed? Take god out of the story of jesus and it will become a very laughable story to any one that reads it. the death and resurrection of jesus which are the most important events in the bible were reported very poorly.

When was jesus crucified? was Jesus crucified the day before or the day after the passover meal?

John says he was crucified the day before 

Jn.19:14-16
    And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.

while mark says on the day of the passover it self.

Mark 14:12
    And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Mark 15:25
    And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem according to  Luke 24:32-37,
On a mountain in Galilee according to Matthew 28:15-17. Jerusalem and Galilee are over 100kms apart. A room is not a mountain there is a definite error here.   If you look at the stories of conversion of paul you will be left more confused, the story is so mixed up that all a person can say is that it is false. Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless.  Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14.  These are just a few but if we are to dwell on the story of jesus alone you will see that the stories are just so contradictory and confusing that it leaves any body that reads it more confusing.

There are many, many more such contradictions I could delve into. many of these contradictions are explained as simple copyist errors. You see, the bible was copied over and over again in ancient times. I will not accept this explanation. If this was true, why did god who we are told is very perfect allow copyist errors into his word that is supposed to be pure and infallible? could he not have kept the scribes from making such errors? could he not have used his power to change the errors found in the original texts?

huxley:

If you posit a god to have created the universe, you have not solved the problem. You have simply multiplied it. For you have also got to answer the question - "Who created God? " Can you give that a stab?

This is the usual excuse atheists give when they cannot answer questions put to them, they end up asking oxymoronic questions.

If I tell you to read Godisnothing, how will you read it? You have to give that a stab before I answer your oxymoron.

toneyb:

When have christians ever said they don't know? all they say is that the bible has the answers to everything concerning life, how the world was created and how people should live their lives. I have never said such. since christians(i am talking about christianity because that is the only religion i know very well because i once was one) provide their assumptions as facts. i feel it's good that we take a look at those assumptions and see if they are credible enough.

Forget about christianity for a second, lets just talk on a secular level . . . where is YOUR proof of how the earth was formed? Simple question, forget any reference to God . . . lets both agree he doesnt exist.

Can anyone pls provide answers?

davidylan:

Forget about christianity for a second, lets just talk on a secular level . . . where is YOUR proof of how the earth was formed? Simple question, forget any reference to God . . . lets both agree he doesnt exist.

Can anyone pls provide answers?

So what is the proposition that requires a proof?

huxley:

So what is the proposition that requires a proof?

Its in black and white - how did the earth suddenly appear and where did we come from?

davidylan:

Its in black and white - how did the earth suddenly appear and where did we come from?

Is this what you call a provable or testable or verifiable proposition? Let me give you examples of testable propositions:

1) The entire earth was cover by a massive icesheet about 1 billion years ago

2) The sun is made of 90% cheese, 5% elephant dung, 2% turtle tears and 3% silicon.

3) There is molten iron at the earth's core.

huxley:

Is this what you call a provable or testable or verifiable proposition? Let me give you examples of testable propositions:

1) The entire earth was cover by a massive icesheet about 1 billion years ago

2) The sun is made of 90% cheese, 5% elephant dung, 2% turtle tears and 3% silicon.

3) There is molten iron at the earth's core.

and you think asking for physical proof that God exists is a testable and verifiable proposition? Your hypocrisy stinks.

The question remains . . . where did the earth come from? The big bang? Where is the concrete proof?

enough of you hypocrites hiding behind double speak.

davidylan:

and you think asking for physical proof that God exists is a testable and verifiable proposition? Your hypocrisy stinks.

The question remains . . . where did the earth come from? The big bang? Where is the concrete proof?

enough of you hypocrites hiding behind double speak.

Your thinking is neither here nor there. You started off by asking for proof of a non-proposition and I pointed that out to you. And you start jumping about like a demented grasshooper. Are we talking about the earth or about Big Bang? What sort or argumentation is this?

You want to talk about the earth, let's talk about the earth. You wanna talk about Big Bang, let's talk about Big Bang. Jumping about just looks really bad on your part.

huxley:

Your thinking is neither here nor there. You started off by asking for proof of a non-proposition and I pointed that out to you. And you start jumping about like a demented grasshooper. Are we talking about the earth or about Big Bang? What sort or argumentation is this?

You want to talk about the earth, let's talk about the earth. You wanna talk about Big Bang, let's talk about Big Bang. Jumping about just looks really bad on your part.

More hubris whenever you folks are challenged with the incredulity of your "questions".
If asking for proof of the formation of the earth is a "non-proposition", how is that different from asking me for proof that God created the earth? You dont have any alternative for how the earth appeared here . . . so how are you 100% sure God had no hand in it?

I'm not jumping about . . . the big bang theory is the only slightly credulous theory on how the earth was formed which is why i brought it up. A 5 yr old knows that. Stop dodging.

where did the earth come from? The big bang? Where is the concrete proof?

There is nothing that has concrete proof. Nothing whatsoever.

But there are likelihoods and the likelihood that Evolution theory is correct and that Creationist theory is delusional clap-trap is just overwhelming.

One cannot compare a belief in Evolution with a non-belief (or a belief) in God. Evolution theory is based on science and comparison of the perceived physical. A belief in God is based in faith with no basis on science or the physical. To claim otherwise is peurile.

What amazes me is that Creationism is a relatively new phenomenon. Even in the early days of Christianity, nobody gave it any credibility. It is only with the rise of fundamentalism within the last century or so that it has come to the fore. It stands alone as being one of the only theories brought forward in recent times that has absolutely no basis in either science or the mainstream religious thought that it evolved from.

the big bang theory is the only slightly credulous theory on how the earth was formed which is why i brought it up. A 5 yr old knows that.

No it's not. There are other theories that are just as credulous such as the Big Bounce.
I guess you're dumber than a 5 yr old.

Bastage:

There is nothing that has concrete proof. Nothing whatsoever.

good. I hope those fools who bellow that we give them "concrete proof" that God exists will leave us alone now.

Bastage:

But there are likelihoods and the likelihood that Evolution theory is correct and that Creationist theory is delusional clap-trap is just overwhelming.

Awww another of the daft, clueless, mindless followers of Darwinian THEORIES. How has the evolution theory been proved correct? If it was indeed correct why is it still called a theory and not a fundamental law of life?

Bastage:

One cannot compare a belief in Evolution with a non-belief (or a belief) in God. Evolution theory is based on science and comparison of the perceived physical. A belief in God is based in faith with no basis on science or the physical. To claim otherwise is peurile.

Aww another stupid airhead simply swallows the "science" mantra.

No, Darwin based his theory NOT on science but on observations.

Bastage:

What amazes me is that Creationism is a relatively new phenomenon. Even in the early days of Christianity, nobody gave it any credibility. It is only with the rise of fundamentalism within the last century or so that it has come to the fore. It stands alone as being one of the only theories brought forward in recent times that has absolutely no basis in either science or the mainstream religious thought that it evolved from.

you must not have been reading history. Gallileo and co had issues with the catholic church over creationism . . . i'm sure gallileo isnt a relatively new fellow.

Bastage:

No it's not. There are other theories that are just as credulous such as the Big Bounce.
I guess you're dumber than a 5 yr old.

What a bonehead . . . where are the theories and why dont we ever hear of them? Perhaps because they are just as mindblowingly stupid as many of you vapid trolls.

davidylan:

More hubris whenever you folks are challenged with the incredulity of your "questions".
If asking for proof of the formation of the earth is a "non-proposition", how is that different from asking me for proof that God created the earth? You dont have any alternative for how the earth appeared here . . . so how are you 100% sure God had no hand in it?

I'm not jumping about . . . the big bang theory is the only slightly credulous theory on how the earth was formed which is why i brought it up. A 5 yr old knows that. Stop dodging.

This again is gross dishonest misrepresentation. The BB does NOT address the formation of the earth. You have to learn to discuss with facts and I await to see a scientific expositions that claims the BB explains how the earth was form.

You keep insisting on ascribing this falsehood to the BB just so you can undermine it. But am afraid, that is sheer dishonesty.

You do talk shit, David.

Crap like this:

No, Darwin based his theory NOT on science but on observations.

Observation is part of science you idiot.

How has the evolution theory been proved correct? If it was indeed correct why is it still called a theory and not a fundamental law of life?

It is called a theory because it isn't complete. Being a relatively young theory with a subject matter that dates back to the beginnings of this planet this is hardly suprising is it? But how is it proved correct? Evolution has been witnessed in genetic research. Surely you know that - you're always burbling about how you're a so-called geneticist.

Gallileo and co had issues with the catholic church over creationism

LMAO. And there was me thinking that Galileo's issue with the Church regarded the fact that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe. Tell me David, do you still believe that it is? If so, how were you proven wrong? Wasn't it by the very science that you so swiftly consign to the trash can? You could not have picked a worse example if you tried.  

What a bonehead . . . where are the theories and why dont we ever hear of them?

There are lots of theories. Try looking once in a while. The fact that you don't know about them isn't the fault of the theory. It's the fault of your ignorance. Tell me, do you know about String Theory? If you don't, is it just some dumb theory? Do you know what's sitting at the bottom of the sea? Because if you don't, does it mean that it doesn't exist? Idiot, you may as well be propounding Schrodinger's Cat and leaning towards disproving the existence of God with that line of argument.
Sometimes, your stupidity is astounding.

huxley:

This again is gross dishonest misrepresentation. The BB does NOT address the formation of the earth. You have to learn to discuss with facts and I await to see a scientific expositions that claims the BB explains how the earth was form.

You keep insisting on ascribing this falsehood to the BB just so you can undermine it. But am afraid, that is sheer dishonesty.

what then does it address? Here is wikipedia's entry - The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

If the big bang does not address the formation of the earth then HOW did the earth get here?

Big Bang Theory addresses the creation of the Universe.
Not the Earth.

Bastage:

You do talk shit, David.

Crap like this:
Observation is part of science you idiot.

I observe planes flying everyday = science? What a slowpoke. Observation is simply the stepping stone to science, it is NOT science.

Bastage:

It is called a theory because it isn't complete. Being a relatively young theory with a subject matter that dates back to the beginnings of this planet this is hardly suprising is it? But how is it proved correct? Evolution has been witnessed in genetic reseach. Surely you know that - you're always burbling about how you're a so-called geneticist.

No it hasnt . . . pls provide CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF THIS.

Bastage:

LMAO. And there was me thinking that Galileo's issue with the Church regarded the fact that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe. Tell me David, do you still believe that it is? If so, how were you proven wrong? Wasn't it by the very science that you so swiftly consign to the trash can? You could not have picked a worse example if you tried.  

Stop babbling, if i consigned science to the thrash can it wont be what i consider a career today.

Bastage:

There are lots of theories. Try looking once in a while. The fact that you don't know about them isn't the fault of the theory. It's the fault of your ignorance. Tell me, do you know about String Theory? If you don't, is it just some dumb theory? Do you know what's sitting at the bottom of the sea? Because if you don't, does it mean that it doesn't exist? Idiot, you may as well be propounding Schrodinger's Cat and leaning towards disproving the existence of God with that line of argument.
Sometimes, your stupidity is astounding.

Pls tell us JUST ONE. no one is a compendium of knowledge . . . start by expounding one of those "scientifically sound" theories . . .

I'm tired of vapid idiots who like to blow hot air. Enough of so much english language that conveniently skirts ANY ATTEMPT at specifics.

Bastage:

Big Bang Theory addresses the creation of the Universe.
Not the Earth.

Idiot. the earth is PART of the universe. Considering its the only one for now where life exists . . . we can safely say that the BB theory addresses the creation of the earth.

davidylan:

what then does it address? Here is wikipedia's entry - The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

If the big bang does not address the formation of the earth then HOW did the earth get here?

I think this definition is a good working definition of the BB.  Notice what it says - initial condition and development of the universe.  

Now does the BB explain the Theory of Gravity, Quantum Theory, Germ Theory,  Cell Theory?   If it doesn't, why not?

huxley:

I think this definition is a good working definition of the BB. Notice what it says - initial condition and development of the universe.

Now does the BB explain the Theory of Gravity, Quantum Theory, Germ Theory, Cell Theory? If it doesn't, why not?

Lets look at what you said we shld notice:

It talks of "development" of the universe - now does the theory propose that the ingredients for "developing" the universe already existed? Where did they come from?

Initial conditions - Just what were these conditions and did they just appear suddenly by magic?

Bastage:

It is called a theory because it isn't complete. Being a relatively young theory with a subject matter that dates back to the beginnings of this planet this is hardly suprising is it? But how is it proved correct? [size=14pt]Evolution has been witnessed in genetic research.[/size] Surely you know that - you're always burbling about how you're a so-called geneticist.

I am patiently waiting for these airheads to pls give us concrete proof of these false claims they lazily throw around.

Idiot. the earth is PART of the universe. Considering its the only one for now where life exists . . . we can safely say that the BB theory addresses the creation of the earth.

What a complete cretin. You show absolutely no knowledge of the subject.
The Big Bang theory does not address the creation of the Earth. Nowhere but nowhere does it claim to do so. It is only concerned with the creation of the Universe.

davidylan:

Lets look at what you said we shld notice:

It talks of "development" of the universe - now does the theory propose that the ingredients for "developing" the universe already existed? Where did they come from?

Initial conditions - Just what were these conditions and did they just appear suddenly by magic?

Well, by your line of reasoning the BB theory should also explain Cell theory, Germ theory,  plate tectonic theory, etc, etc.  In fact, every theory there is should be explanable in terms of the BB, because all the ingredients of the universe resulted from the BB.

Your challenge is  now is to explain to us why the BB should account for the formation of the earth and also account for germs and cell?

Bastage:

What a complete cretin. You show absolutely no knowledge of the subject.
The Big Bang theory does not address the creation of the Earth. Nowhere but nowhere does it claim to do so. It is only concerned with the creation of the Universe.

yeah and you have shown complete mastery of the subject.

What an absolute tool . . . lets go through your own claims.

You said - The Big Bang theory does not address the creation of the Earth.

Then you said - It is only concerned with the creation of the Universe.

But what is the "universe"? - The universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

So that means the earth is PART of the universe no?

Then how come the BB does NOT address the creation of the earth BUT addresses the creation of the universe?   Can science explain the creation of the body without explaining the creation of the heart?

Since life exists ONLY on earth . . . why would the BB be more concerned with the creation of the stars than on the planet we live in?

Back to the 2 questions you are struggling desperately to avoid:

1. HOW did the earth get here?
2. WHERE ARE the alleged genetic evidence for evolution?

Over to our resident scientists who comtinue to make a mockery of common sense.

If you don't believe god is real, then he probably isn't real to you, god might be real to someone else,

There are no right or wrong answers, arguing till tomorrow will not solve or prove anything tangible. Many are led by their convictions.

huxley:

Well, by your line of reasoning the BB theory should also explain Cell theory, Germ theory,  plate tectonic theory, etc, etc.  In fact, every theory there is should be explanable in terms of the BB, because all the ingredients of the universe resulted from the BB.

Your challenge is  now is to explain to us why the BB should account for the formation of the earth and also account for germs and cell?

What a hypocritical turd. You say science but NOT God is responsible for the creation of the universe (including the earth, idiots) . . . then HOW did this happen? Can science pls explain it instead of trying so hard to go round it and forcing the question back to us?

The onus for creationism AND BB cannot be on us alone . . .

Where did the earth come from? Who formed germs, cells and complex life forms? Did they appear from thin air?

Now that is the challenge before the atheist . . . pls address it.

davidylan:

yeah and you have shown complete mastery of the subject.

What an absolute tool . . . lets go through your own claims.

You said - The Big Bang theory does not address the creation of the Earth.

Then you said - It is only concerned with the creation of the Universe.

But what is the "universe"? - The universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

So that means the earth is PART of the universe no?

Then how come the BB does NOT address the creation of the earth BUT addresses the creation of the universe?   Can science explain the creation of the body without explaining the creation of the heart?

Since life exists ONLY on earth . . . why would the BB be more concerned with the creation of the stars than on the planet we live in?

Back to the 2 questions you are struggling desperately to avoid:

1. HOW did the earth get here?
2. WHERE ARE the alleged genetic evidence for evolution?

Over to our resident scientists who comtinue to make a mockery of common sense.

Does BB theory address the theory of gravity,  cell theory, germ theory, plate tectonic, quantum theory, atomic theory?