MaxInDHouse:


Your grammar can't change the fact that it's whiteman that's propagating atheism globally claiming evolution is better option regarding how life begins not blackman.
There is a specific race God chose to use for the propagation of His kingdom {Zechariah 8:23} other nations are to attach themselves to the CHOSEN race! Revelations 7:5-8
But despite this once you're part of the family you'll be treated as a bonafide member not the way your atheist whiteman will look down on you due to your skin color or even use you for one of his experiments!

So orderliness is what i call God's arrangement not racism because all members of the global family are treated equally despite the fact that God chose the race that will always be in the forefront when talking about pure worship! Genesis 12:1-3

Ah... I see where you get your racism from. It comes from your God. Well, I think that says enough about the kind of person you are. I've given you way more attention than you deserve today.

Adios.

Endtimer:


While I’m late to this thread I think it’s a good place to continue our debate. I’ve just commented elsewhere concerning the coherence of modern science and Christian theism, along those lines, I intend to address your points concerning the Big Bang and evolution; two suspiciously religious theories.

Given an Origenist allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, evolution is dependent on intelligent design. The components of evolution (Darwinian natural selection, Mendelian genetic heredity, possibility of mutation, common descent and micro-adaptations) are all well evidenced scientifically except spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is a poorly supported scientific attempt at avoiding the existence of God. Given this weak link, it is sound to inquire where the first unicellular organisms got its life from. On theistic evolution-which provides a fuller picture than atheistic evolution- God is still required to have created this life.

I don't see any divide between general theism, which is the belief in a God in general, and scientific knowledge.

Let's say for a moment I accept the claim that a God exists, from observation of the natural world. Things like the big bang, and evolution, don't negate that belief. If at all, it only shows the theist how the so called God/Gods, chose to create the universe.

The real problem is with the people who think creation has to be a certain way. People who think reality has to bend to their book. Reality bends to no one. Someone's book can say the sun revolves around the earth.. but no matter how much they may want it to be true, it won't change the fact that the earth is the one that revolves around the sun.

Long before I ever became an atheist, I never for once had any issues with the scientific process. And it played no role in my de-conversion. So it really baffles me when I see people trying to attack scientific findings on no other basis other than the few unsubstantiated scribbles written in their holy book.

That being said, spontaneous generation isn't something I've really looked at. And when I talk of evolution, that's absolutely not what I'm talking about.

The origins of life, as far as I know, as well as many other things, are still a mystery, or unknown to us. And that's fine. Saying we don't know at the moment is fine. The problem, like I always say, is claiming to know, and failing to prove it. A claim without proof is nothing more than a claim.

In terms of scientific knowledge, I think we seem to be on the same page for the most part. The only difference is that if I don't know something, I don't simply assume that "a God did it". I just simply say that I don't know.

Wilgrea7:

Oh.. my bad.... If you wanted links, you could've just asked for them.

Why would you quote someone's article without referencing it?

This one talks about the big bang
https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

"Our universe was born about 13.7 billion years ago in a massive expansion that blew space up like a gigantic balloon."
The year the universe was born according to scientists might be right. It might be 14 billions years ago as proposed.
I think we should focus on earth and how life started on it rather than arguing what is beyond us.
You and I haven't travelled outside earth. It actually takes faith to believe the speculations of some scientists about events that took place 14 billions years ago.
If you study the article well, you would see many "coulds" "maybes" and "mays". The bigbang theory is a fairy tale from the scientists.

And this one talks about evolution
https://necsi.edu/evolution

The purpose of this web site is to teach and explain what evolution is and how it works. This web site is designed for children, but can be used by teachers or by anyone who wants to learn about this amazing process of life.

What makes you think I'm a child?

This is as illogical as me asking you for video proof of the creation story.
And how exactly do you know this? What proof do you have that the author wasn't lying about the inspiration? Or rather, what proof do you have that the author was indeed inspired?

What proof exactly are you asking for about the Bible's creation stories.

You're missing the point. It's not about comparing different stories to see which is "better". It's about facing reality. If you want to verify if a story is true, compare it with reality, not with other stories.

Which part of the creation story in the Bible is not real?

Superman may be more powerful than other mythical superheroes.. That doesn't make him real.

Nobody says he's real.
He's just a movie character.

If someone doesn't know something, it is perfectly ok to say "I don't know". That is intellectual honesty. The problem is claiming to know and failing to prove it.

The only one that knows how life begins is the source of life himself and he inspired someone to write about it.

That being said, the intricacy of the universe, down to the subatomic scale denotes an enormous level of complexity, which can be associated with intelligence. What exactly is your point here?

My points is there's a supreme intelligent being behind everything, the universe and life.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116723742]
The only difference is that if I don't know something, I don't simply assume that "a God did it". I just simply say that I don't know.
[\quote]

This is an accusation of a God of the gaps fallacy. I should point out that the actual difference is that I’m open to any feasible interpretation of reality. No one has posited that God created life, only that intelligent life is the most probable cause for life on earth.

This is not a God of the gaps situation, it is an inability to fill in the obvious answer (intelligent design) on your part.

You are correct that we are probably on equal terms scientifically. I would describe myself as a natural Christian, so scientifically there should be no difference between us.

cornelboy:

Lol. Where are the contemporary historical documents?
And why would the contemporary documents contain history about the Israelites?

The Jews believe that Abraham is their ancestor and the book of exodus contain their history.

This isn't about beLIEve but facts, reality and existential records

FOLYKAZE:

This isn't about beLIEve but facts, reality and existential records

My dad told me that 'my great grandfather's name is "Ofakunja", he was a chief and a powerful ifá priest'.

Do you think it's unreasonable for me to believe him even without seeing my grandfather's statues or pics?

The existential records for the origin of the nation of Israel is in the Bible.

cornelboy:

My dad told me that 'my great grandfather's name is "Ofakunja", he was a chief and a powerful ifá priest'.

Do you think it's unreasonable for me to believe him even without seeing my grandfather's statues or pics?

The existential records for the origin of the nation of Israel is in the Bible.

All those tales are not substantial. Had it been your dad told you that your grandfather, ofakunja flew about town or that he parted the sea..... Then we can scrutinise those substantive claims.

The bible told us about Pharaoh.... That is not substantial. But when he told us Israelites were enslaved, Moses parted sea, wandered in the wilderness for 40yrs and gave lot more not wild tales, it calls for nothing but investigation. However, the decades of fact findings have exposes those claims as fiction. Nothing but moonlight tale

MaxInDHouse:


Your grammar can't change the fact that it's whiteman that's propagating atheism globally claiming evolution is better option regarding how life begins not blackman.
There is a specific race God chose to use for the propagation of His kingdom {Zechariah 8:23} other nations are to attach themselves to the CHOSEN race! Revelations 7:5-8
But despite this once you're part of the family you'll be treated as a bonafide member not the way your atheist whiteman will look down on you due to your skin color or even use you for one of his experiments!

So orderliness is what i call God's arrangement not racism because all members of the global family are treated equally despite the fact that God chose the race that will always be in the forefront when talking about pure worship! Genesis 12:1-3

And one ediot liked this meaningless and senseless comment.

Sh1t talk . I am very certain you have mouth odour.

Slave.

Wilgrea7:

Ah... I see where you get your racism from. It comes from your God. Well, I think that says enough about the kind of person you are. I've given you way more attention than you deserve today. Adios.

I am Maximus one of Jehovah's Witnesses alias Mr BENEFITS!

FOLYKAZE:

All those tales are not substantial. Had it been your dad told you that your grandfather, ofakunja flew about town or that he parted the sea..... Then we can scrutinise those substantive claims.
The bible told us about Pharaoh.... That is not substantial. But when he told us Israelites were enslaved, Moses parted sea, wandered in the wilderness for 40yrs and gave lot more not wild tales, it calls for nothing but investigation. However, the decades of fact findings have exposes those claims as fiction. Nothing but moonlight tale

It's very unreasonable to wake up one day and start investigating what happened 4000 years ago.
Like what exactly do you want to investigate?

The fact that you don't see any substantial evidence about events that happened hundreds of years ago doesn't automatically proves that the stories are fictional.
They are real.

cornelboy:

It's very unreasonable to wake up one day and start investigating what happened 4000 years ago.
Like what exactly do you want to investigate?
The fact that you don't see any substantial evidence about events that happened hundreds of years ago doesn't automatically proves that the stories are fictional.
They are real.

They are deceiving themselves!
Anything in the name of history they'll welcome except that which requires obedience on their part!

cornelboy:

It's very unreasonable to wake up one day and start investigating what happened 4000 years ago.
Like what exactly do you want to investigate?

The fact that you don't see any substantial evidence about events that happened hundreds of years ago doesn't automatically proves that the stories are fictional.
They are real.

To understand the present and predict the future, we MUST first understand the past.

Even the concept of artificial intelligence is based upon feeding the algorithm past or historical data.

Who are we without our past?

Do your research - but you wouldn't listen.

oteneaaron:

To understand the present and predict the future, we MUST first understand the past.
Even the concept of artificial intelligence is based upon feeding the algorithm past or historical data. Who are we without our past?
Do your research - but you wouldn't listen.

Doing a research on the past is necessary when the way forward seems bleak so it's reasonable to retrace your steps perhaps there's a point in time you erred and you can correct your past mistakes.
That's exactly what God's organization has been doing since 1870s and as we continue to do this the future keeps getting brighter and brighter. Proverbs 4:18
Only Jehovah's Witnesses organization has the structure that befits what God promised in the Bible book of Isaiah 2:2-4 and repeated at Micah 4:1-3
So God's people are performing excellently as expected of Christ's true disciples! Matthew 5:14-16

MaxInDHouse:


Doing a research on the past is necessary when the way forward seems bleak so it's reasonable to retrace your steps perhaps there's a point in time you erred and you can correct your past mistakes.

That's exactly what God's organization has been doing since 1870s and as we continue to do this the future keeps getting brighter and brighter. Proverbs 4:18

What exactly has your organization been doing since 1870?

Stay alive till "75"?

The world would be destroyed in "1914"?

The return of Abraham in "1925" living in Beth Sarim?

What about your calculation of "1914" which was gotten from the Great Pyramid of Egypt?

If you call the above snippets from the history of your organization "past mistakes"

How have you "retraced your steps" as an organization?

Only Jehovah's Witnesses organization has the structure that befits what God promised in the Bible book of Isaiah 2:2-4 and repeated at Micah 4:1-3

So God's people are performing excellently as expected of Christ's true disciples! Matthew 5:14-16

A structure with a shaky foundation, no matter how much renovation you do, will always fall - it is only a matter of time.

When the history of your cult is critically studied right from the very beginning with Charles Taze Russell, your foundations are revealed to be shaky and not stable.

Therefore, your structure cannot stand the realities of its own history.

cornelboy:

It's very unreasonable to wake up one day and start investigating what happened 4000 years ago.
Like what exactly do you want to investigate?

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about it. The past tells us a lot about why current future phenomena exist.

Humans have always tried to find out what happened in the past to the best of their ability.

The need for doing so increases even more, when you make a claim to reality, such as the biblical creation story, the miracles of Christ, the exodus, the flood and so on, and base an ideology on such stories. An ideology that tells people they will be condemned to a gruesome afterlife should they fail to accept such stories.

The fact that you don't see any substantial evidence about events that happened hundreds of years ago doesn't automatically proves that the stories are fictional.
They are real.

It doesn't prove they are real either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.. but it is not evidence of presence either.

If your claims cannot be substantiated.. they are nothing but claims.. and i am under no obligation to accept something that shares 100% similarity with a fable, as fact.

If you want me to accept your claims as fact.. PROVE IT

Wilgrea7:


There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about it. The past tells us a lot about why current future phenomena exist.

Humans have always tried to find out what happened in the past to the best of their ability.

The need for doing so increases even more, when you make a claim to reality, such as the biblical creation story, the miracles of Christ, the exodus, the flood and so on, and base an ideology on such stories. An ideology that tells people they will be condemned to a gruesome afterlife should they fail to accept such stories.



It doesn't prove they are real either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.. but it is not evidence of presence either.

If your claims cannot be substantiated.. they are nothing but claims.. and i am under no obligation to accept something that shares 100% similarity with a fable, as fact.

If you want me to accept your claims as fact.. PROVE IT

Apt!

cornelboy:


Why would you quote someone's article without referencing it?

"Our universe was born about 13.7 billion years ago in a massive expansion that blew space up like a gigantic balloon."
The year the universe was born according to scientists might be right. It might be 14 billions years ago as proposed.
I think we should focus on earth and how life started on it rather than arguing what is beyond us.
You and I haven't travelled outside earth. It actually takes faith to believe the speculations of some scientists about events that took place 14 billions years ago.
If you study the article well, you would see many "coulds" "maybes" and "mays". The bigbang theory is a fairy tale from the scientists.

We were talking about the big bang vs the biblical creation story. If we want to talk of the origin of all that we know, it would be impossible to not reference it.

Secondly, saying the big bang is a speculation or a fairy tale, shows you don't understand what a fairy tale is.

A fairy tale is a story with no sort of empirical data or evidence behind it. Both the big bang and evolution have evidence behind them.

The fact fhat you're saying something like this shows you didn't actually go through the links I sent.

Sure, according to the very real DATA, they made certain speculations as to how some things occured.. But that does not in any way invalidate the very solid data which they have. Your point fails here.

What makes you think I'm a child?

I shared a link to give you an idea about what evolution and the big bang are.. and your biggest concern is a quote that mentioned that kids can also learn from it??

What proof exactly are you asking for about the Bible's creation stories.

You're the one making the claims about the biblical creation story. Feel free to start from wherever you'd like.

Which part of the creation story in the Bible is not real?

The parts that contradict scientific knowledge... Which is basically like ... 90% of it. Here are a few

Earth before the sun
Earth before the stars
Plants before the sun
Differentiating the sun from the stars
Two great “lights" even though one reflects the other
The whole firmament thing and separation of “waters"

The list goes on.

Nobody says he's real.
He's just a movie character.

The only one that knows how life begins is the source of life himself and he inspired someone to write about it.

You've failed to show me any sort of proof that the people who you claimed to have been inspired were indeed inspired.

If 3 people come to you and tell you the creator of a car told them how it was created.. how would you determine if they were lying or not other than studying the car for yourself?

And even if you don't understand the car.. it still makes no sense to just believe the claim of the other person. I've said it multiple times. A claim that cannot be substantiated is nothing more than a claim, and we are under no obligation to believe it.

The claim that your God created the world in 6 days.. or as narrated in the bible.. wasn't a claim that your God made directly to me or everyone else.

It was a human, who claimed that your God told him this thing. Neither the story, nor the claim of inspiration have been proven

My points is there's a supreme intelligent being behind everything, the universe and life.

Why “A".. why not many? And what gives you the impression that the said supreme being, if it exists.. is your God . And not the muslim or Hindu one?

oteneaaron:


What exactly has your organization been doing since 1870?

Stay alive till "75"?

The world would be destroyed in "1914"?

The return of Abraham in "1925" living in Beth Sarim?

What about your calculation of "1914" which was gotten from the Great Pyramid of Egypt?

If you call the above snippets from the history of your organization "past mistakes"

How have you "retraced your steps" as an organization?



A structure with a shaky foundation, no matter how much renovation you do, will always fall - it is only a matter of time.

When the history of your cult is critically studied right from the very beginning with Charles Taze Russell, your foundations are revealed to be shaky and not stable.

Therefore, your structure cannot stand the realities of its own history.

"Occasionally, we have adjusted some of our beliefs. Why? Just as the rising sun reveals details of a landscape gradually, God grants an understanding of his Word progressively. (Read Proverbs 4:18.) So although the Bible does not change, we adjust our beliefs as our understanding of the Bible improves"

I gave you the logical and practical BENEFITS of making a research regarding the past but if you disagree no wahala just present a better performing group than Jehovah's Witnesses today!

QURAN 3:85

No religion other than Islam will be accepted from anyone. Whoever follows a religion other than Islam will be lost on the Day of Judgement.

Sheunma:
QURAN 3:85

No religion other than Islam will be accepted from anyone. Whoever follows a religion other than Islam will be lost on the Day of Judgement.

Accepted by who? Do you have any proof of this judgement day you speak of?

What is supposed to happen that day, and how are you sure?

Wilgrea7:

We were talking about the big bang vs the biblical creation story. If we want to talk of the origin of all that we know, it would be impossible to not reference it.

The bigbang is a theory about the creation of the universe while the Bible creation story focus on how life started on earth. That's two different things.
What's the scientific explanation of how life started on earth?

Secondly, saying the big bang is a speculation or a fairy tale, shows you don't understand what a fairy tale is.

The bigbang still remains a guess work or a theory. It's never been a proven fact.

A fairy tale is a story with no sort of empirical data or evidence behind it. Both the big bang and evolution have evidence behind them.

Sorry they don't have any evidence.
Both evolution and bigbang theories are speculations from the scientists.

The fact fhat you're saying something like this shows you didn't actually go through the links I sent.

I did go through the links.
Scientists explaining what happened billions of years ago is like a prophet predicting the future.
In a nutshell, scientists predict the past while prophets predict the future

Sure, according to the very real DATA, they made certain speculations as to how some things occured.. But that does not in any way invalidate the very solid data which they have. Your point fails here.

Where's the solid data?

I shared a link to give you an idea about what evolution and the big bang are.. and your biggest concern is a quote that mentioned that kids can also learn from it??

It says the article was designed for children. You can bring the adult ones.

You're the one making the claims about the biblical creation story. Feel free to start from wherever you'd like.

Okay.
So after God created everything, he blessed his creatures and told them to multiply and dominate the earth.
How would they multiply?
By using the reproductive organs he made in them.
You see everything was already planned. It didn't happen by chance.

The parts that contradict scientific knowledge... Which is basically like ... 90% of it. Here are a few
Earth before the sun
Earth before the stars
Plants before the sun
Differentiating the sun from the stars
Two great “lights" even though one reflects the other
The whole firmament thing and separation of “waters"
The list goes on.

Were the scientists there when everything happened?
If we should go along with the big bang story, anything can come before anything since everything happened by chance.

God did everything to make the earth habitable for living things.

You've failed to show me any sort of proof that the people who you claimed to have been inspired were indeed inspired.

God inspired them about things that would happen in the future and it did happened.
Ordinarily, those people couldn't know what would happen in the future but God has the power to know the future and he inspired them.

If 3 people come to you and tell you the creator of a car told them how it was created.. how would you determine if they were lying or not other than studying the car for yourself?
And even if you don't understand the car.. it still makes no sense to just believe the claim of the other person. I've said it multiple times. A claim that cannot be substantiated is nothing more than a claim, and we are under no obligation to believe it.

Everyone has the right to believe whatever he wants. That's why you believe in the evolution and bigbang theories and I believe in the Bible's creation story.

It was a human, who claimed that your God told him this thing. Neither the story, nor the claim of inspiration have been proven

It has been proven through fulfilled prophecies.
It's been proven in a lot of ways.

Why “A".. why not many? And what gives you the impression that the said supreme being, if it exists.. is your God . And not the muslim or Hindu one?

It could be millions. But it's one creator.
The Muslims claims to worship the Jewish and Christian God.

cornelboy:


The bigbang is a theory about the creation of the universe while the Bible creation story focus on how life started on earth. That's two different things.

Your bible story mentions the sun, moon, and stars... It makes claims about the universe as much as the big bang does.

What's the scientific explanation of how life started on earth?

I don't have one.

The bigbang still remains a guess work or a theory. It's never been a proven fact.

If you don't know what a scientific theory means.. then just say so. Coming here to say something based on evidence is guess work is incredibly fallacious

Sorry they don't have any evidence.
Both evolution and bigbang theories are speculations from the scientists.

I'm not going to partake in this “nuh uh" "is too" game with you today.

I did go through the links.
Scientists explaining what happened billions of years ago is like a prophet predicting the future.
In a nutshell, scientists predict the past while prophets predict the future

If for some reason, you choose to place scientists and prophets in the same category, then it shows how little you know about the scientific method.

Where's the solid data?

What exactly do you mean by this? Do you want to see a picture of the CMB? Or do you want to see the calculations based on the telescope readings.. or is it the journals on evolution you're looking for?

Because if for some reason you think scientists explaining something is similar to a prophet, then you will of course equate their writings to the writings of a prophet.. or attribute the CMB to Photoshop...

So you know what? Let's forget the science now. Let's forget big bang.. and evolution.

Let's imagine for a moment that science doesn't exist, and that we just found ourselves on planet earth.

Go ahead and prove to me, how the biblical creation story is true. I'm waiting

It says the article was designed for children. You can bring the adult ones.

Okay.
So after God created everything, he blessed his creatures and told them to multiply and dominate the earth.
How would they multiply?
By using the reproductive organs he made in them.
You see everything was already planned. It didn't happen by chance.

No no no. Don't skip the creation part. Tell me.. or rather.. show me.. the proof that the earth was indeed created according to the biblical narrative.

Were the scientists there when everything happened?
If we should go along with the big bang story, anything can come before anything since everything happened by chance.

Statements like this are evidence that you did not in fact, go through the links i sent. Nowhere does anyone say the big bang happened by chance.

Stop the strawman.

God did everything to make the earth habitable for living things.

Strawman. I didn't ask for that.

God inspired them about things that would happen in the future and it did happened.
Ordinarily, those people couldn't know what would happen in the future but God has the power to know the future and he inspired them.

Man... All i asked is proof of inspiration. I didn't ask about prophecy. You're the one that said predicting the future is what prophets do.

Pointing to prophecies, whether or not they were fulfilled says nothing about what happened at the beginning of the universe.

Everyone has the right to believe whatever he wants. That's why you believe in the evolution and bigbang theories and I believe in the Bible's creation story.

Accepting something based on substantial evidence, is not the same as believing something without evidence.

But I hear you.. I didn't directly see the big bang happen.. and i wasn't in the lab with the scientist studying the changes in species with respect to their environment.

So please sir, kindly show me the proofs for your own belief.. so I'll know if we're dealing with “guesswork" or facts

It has been proven through fulfilled prophecies.
It's been proven in a lot of ways.

Prophecies are irrelevant here. They're certainly not perculiar to your religion.. and they play no part in whether or not the stories are true.

Prove the story.. prove the inspiration.. stop trying to avoid the burden of proof by turning to ambiguous prophecies

It could be millions. But it's one creator.
The Muslims claims to worship the Jewish and Christian God.

Yet they seem to be saying vastly different things. Not to mention that other gods exist in other religions. What makes you think the “supreme being" isn't one of the other gods in the other religions... Or none at all

cornelboy:

It's very unreasonable to wake up one day and start investigating what happened 4000 years ago.
Like what exactly do you want to investigate?

The fact that you don't see any substantial evidence about events that happened hundreds of years ago doesn't automatically proves that the stories are fictional.
They are real.

That is why we have archaeology

FOLYKAZE:

That is why we have archaeology

So how would archeology prove that biblical character like Moses and Aaron his brother existed?
What exactly do you have in mind?

Dear Wilgrea7,
Water boils at 100°c at sea level. That's absolutely correct. I can put some water on fire, boil it and confirm it myself.

Science can tell us how things work, what they are made of, mode of operation etc.

But when scientists start making up stories about what happened billions of millions of thousands of years ago, it would only remain speculations based on their personal observations and not a proven "facts".

For example, I read an article that explains that the first humans in Savannah Africa started evolving the thumb in order to make tools and survive in his harsh environment. It's crazy. They were never there to witness how and when it happened.
It takes nothing but faith to believe their stories.

You should stick with your belief and I stick with mine.

cornelboy:
Dear Wilgrea7,
Water boils at 100°c at sea level. That's absolutely correct. I can put some water on fire, boil it and confirm it myself.

Science can tell us how things work, what they are made of, mode of operation etc.

You seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it at the same time.

You dismissed the evidence for the big bang and evolution on the grounds that you did not directly experience it, or at least measure the said findings by scientists.. but you accept the statement that water boils at 100°c even though you've not directly measured it with a thermometer (i assume).

Statements like these only prove my point further..

Science is not like religion, that requires you to accept anything on “faith". Claims in science are always subject to rigorous tests, and are either discarded or accepted based on the evidence. Being testable and falsifiable is one of the pillars of the scientific process.

When a scientific fact is asserted.. it is because it passed through these rigorous tests by multiple people, under multiple different circumstances.

And you know what else? Anyone with the proper knowledge and/or equipment, can test these things for themselves too. Including you. Scientific verification is not restricted to lab-coat wearing individuals.

Just as if you had a thermometer and a cup of water, you could verify the boiling point, that's the same way you can verify other things too.

For example.. the CMB photos aren't something scientists sneakily cooked up in a lab. It was detected by certain types of telescopes like the microwave or radio telescope.

If you had one, you could see the CMB for yourself. It's not some hidden thing. It's literally something that's detectable from any place on earth, as long as you have the necessary equipment.

Same goes for the data on evolution. The photos that show the phenomena known as evolution is something that's readily available for you, or anyone else to observe. The archeological findings are very real things that do point to something.

These are not “speculations" .. these are solid data. The theories we invent around them aren't speculations. They are derived from the very solid data that exists everywhere.

But when scientists start making up stories about what happened billions of millions of thousands of years ago, it would only remain speculations based on their personal observations and not a proven "facts".

What exactly do you mean by “personal observation "?

For example, I read an article that explains that the first humans in Savannah Africa started evolving the thumb in order to make tools and survive in his harsh environment. It's crazy. They were never there to witness how and when it happened.
It takes nothing but faith to believe their stories

I don't know how true that statement, or article is.. but If an evolutionary biologist for example makes a statement like that.. it isn't because some God of evolution “inspired" them to do so.

For example, they could observe older fossils, and see that as they go back in time the thumb size gets progressively smaller (I'm talking by the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years) .

The data on the thumb size is as clear as can be. To explain why something like this would happen, and having an idea about the nature of life as hunter gatherers, they can speculate that tool making, or some other factor led to the increase in the thumb size as time went on.

And of course, it's a speculation.. but not a baseless one. The solid data on the thumb size from the archeological findings would be very much real.. and the speculation or hypothesis is made based on that.

Before such statement graduates to become any sort of popularly accepted theory, there's a lot of rigorous testing it would have to undergo. That's how the scientific method works.

I'm not necessarily saying the article you saw was true or false. I neither know it's origins or authors. I'm just giving an example on how someone would arrive at such a statement, based on evidence available.

It is only in the absence of any supporting evidence, that the claim remains a claim, and nothing more.

cornelboy:

Dear Wilgrea7,
Water boils at 100°c at sea level. That's absolutely correct. I can put some water on fire, boil it and confirm it myself.
Science can tell us how things work, what they are made of, mode of operation etc.
But when scientists start making up stories about what happened billions of millions of thousands of years ago, it would only remain speculations based on their personal observations and not a proven "facts".
For example, I read an article that explains that the first humans in Savannah Africa started evolving the thumb in order to make tools and survive in his harsh environment. It's crazy. They were never there to witness how and when it happened.

It takes nothing but faith to believe their stories.

You should stick with your belief and I stick with mine.

Atheists do deceive themselves a lot claiming they don't need FAITH at all since everything they talk about is testable but i wonder how they come about evolution and the big bang if not by faith!

cornelboy:

So how would archeology prove that biblical character like Moses and Aaron his brother existed?
What exactly do you have in mind?

Contemporary documents in Egypt
Remains of Israelites in Egypt
Tomb grave
Etc

None of these have been found till date. This is why lotta archaeologist dropped the fruitless search...

The actual evidence concerning the Exodus resembles the evidence for the unicorn," writes Baruch Halpern of Pennsylvania State University.

Wilgrea7:

You seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it at the same time.
You dismissed the evidence for the big bang and evolution on the grounds that you did not directly experience it, or at least measure the said findings by scientists.. but you accept the statement that water boils at 100°c even though you've not directly measured it with a thermometer (i assume).
Statements like these only prove my point further..
Science is not like religion, that requires you to accept anything on “faith". Claims in science are always subject to rigorous tests, and are either discarded or accepted based on the evidence. Being testable and falsifiable is one of the pillars of the scientific process.
When a scientific fact is asserted.. it is because it passed through these rigorous tests by multiple people, under multiple different circumstances.
And you know what else? Anyone with the proper knowledge and/or equipment, can test these things for themselves too. Including you. Scientific verification is not restricted to lab-coat wearing individuals.
Just as if you had a thermometer and a cup of water, you could verify the boiling point, that's the same way you can verify other things too.
For example.. the CMB photos aren't something scientists sneakily cooked up in a lab. It was detected by certain types of telescopes like the microwave or radio telescope.
If you had one, you could see the CMB for yourself. It's not some hidden thing. It's literally something that's detectable from any place on earth, as long as you have the necessary equipment

Before, it's believed that water boils at 100 °c.
It was later discovered that the boiling point of water changes at different altitude.

The fact is that science is not 100% reliable. New knowledge could be discovered tomorrow and the ones around would be replaced.

Have both the bigbang and the evolution theories been rigorously tested by many people and under different circumstances?
No!

The bigbang and evolution gibberish still remain a guess work from the scientists.
It has never be a fact.
And it only takes faith to believe their made up stories as facts.

Same goes for the data on evolution. The photos that show the phenomena known as evolution is something that's readily available for you, or anyone else to observe. The archeological findings are very real things that do point to something.
These are not “speculations" .. these are solid data. The theories we invent around them aren't speculations. They are derived from the very solid data that exists everywhere.

The theories are nothing but speculation na

I don't know how true that statement, or article is.. but If an evolutionary biologist for example makes a statement like that.. it isn't because some God of evolution “inspired" them to do so.

Why would you even cite article you're not sure of it reliability?
What if God was the creator and he really inspired some people to write some books, how would you know?

For example, they could observe older fossils, and see that as they go back in time the thumb size gets progressively smaller (I'm talking by the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years)

Lol. Why would the thumbs become progressively bigger?
Is evolution some kind of magical effect
The scientists assumed the thumbs evolved in homo sapiens because it fits in their other assumption that humans evolved from apes.

The data on the thumb size is as clear as can be. To explain why something like this would happen, and having an idea about the nature of life as hunter gatherers, they can speculate that tool making, or some other factor led to the increase in the thumb size as time went on.

Fairytale!

And of course, it's a speculation.. but not a baseless one. The solid data on the thumb size from the archeological findings would be very much real.. and the speculation or hypothesis is made based on that.

Technically not 100% reliable.

Before such statement graduates to become any sort of popularly accepted theory, there's a lot of rigorous testing it would have to undergo. That's how the scientific method works.

Not every scientists believe in both theories.

I'm not necessarily saying the article you saw was true or false. I neither know it's origins or authors. I'm just giving an example on how someone would arrive at such a statement, based on evidence available.

So it might be false after all.

It is only in the absence of any supporting evidence, that the claim remains a claim, and nothing more

They are enough evidences for me that an intelligent being designed the universe and started life on earth.

cornelboy:


Before, it's believed that water boils at 100 °c.
It was later discovered that the boiling point of water changes at different altitude.

The fact is that science is not 100% reliable. New knowledge could be discovered tomorrow and the ones around would be replaced.

Your analogy fails terribly here for several reasons.

1. You're making reference to a case where knowledge isn't being replaced. It's simply being updated. The idea that water boils at 100 degrees is still very much true. Only that it does that at a certain altitude, while it changes at higher or lower altitudes depending on factors like pressure. Knowledge got updated... not replaced.

2. You're trying to imply that since science regularly updates it's facts, then the current ones shouldn't be accepted. There's absolutely no logic behind that thought process. Plus, new knowledge in science is something we celebrate, not shun.

Have both the bigbang and the evolution theories been rigorously tested by many people and under different circumstances?
No!

Did you actually bother to look up scholarly articles on both topics, or did you just come here to type this because you're bent on having a disagreement with "science"

The bigbang and evolution gibberish still remain a guess work from the scientists.
It has never be a fact.
And it only takes faith to believe their made up stories as facts.

The theories are nothing but speculation na

If you're going to insist on regurgitating the same narrative despite my explanations as to why they are not mere "speculation", then have it your way.

Why would you even cite article you're not sure of it reliability?

Oh.. I didn't know you were referring to the one I sent you. I thought you were telling me a story about an article you read a while back, and not this one.

What if God was the creator and he really inspired some people to write some books, how would you know?

What if the people lied about the inspiration? How would you know? If God indeed spoke something to somebody, then their so called writings would not contradict reality. But in your situation, you want to dismiss science as mere speculation to protect your unsubstantiated beliefs. But shielding them from scientific verification won't automatically make them true.

Lol. Why would the thumbs become progressively bigger?
Is evolution some kind of magical effect
The scientists assumed the thumbs evolved in homo sapiens because it fits in their other assumption that humans evolved from apes.

No one said humans evolved from apes. No one said evolution has a "magical effect". Here's my advice to you. If you want to dismiss something on the grounds of not being true, at least know what it is you're dismissing.

If you're not willing to learn about what evolution and the big bang are, but insist on dismissing them based on what you think they are, then you're not doing yourself any service. If anything, you'll only appear more intellectually dishonest.

Not every scientists believe in both theories.

You seem not to have paid any attention to what I've been saying recently, so I won't bother.

They are enough evidences for me that an intelligent being designed the universe and started life on earth.

What parts of the big bang or evolution are not "intelligent". A lot of theists agree with the data behind both the big bang and evolution, and accept that whatever or whoever created the universe, chose to do so through those means.

Your issue isn't about whether or not a God created the universe. It's that you want to believe that your specific God, created the universe in the specific way as described by the biblical narrative, that you choose to deny the very real science that contradicts it.

If a scientific theory agreed with the biblical creation narrative, you would be the one shouting it on the rooftops that science has found proof of "God". But when it contradicts, you're the first to discard it.

Wilgrea7:

Your analogy fails terribly here for several reasons.
1. You're making reference to a case where knowledge isn't being replaced. It's simply being updated. The idea that water boils at 100 degrees is still very much true. Only that it does that at a certain altitude, while it changes at higher or lower altitudes depending on factors like pressure. Knowledge got updated... not replaced.
2. You're trying to imply that since science regularly updates it's facts, then the current ones shouldn't be accepted. There's absolutely no logic behind that thought process. Plus, new knowledge in science is something we celebrate, not shun.
Did you actually bother to look up scholarly articles on both topics, or did you just come here to type this because you're bent on having a disagreement with "science"
If you're going to insist on regurgitating the same narrative despite my explanations as to why they are not mere "speculation", then have it your way.
Oh.. I didn't know you were referring to the one I sent you. I thought you were telling me a story about an article you read a while back, and not this one.
What if the people lied about the inspiration? How would you know? If God indeed spoke something to somebody, then their so called writings would not contradict reality. But in your situation, you want to dismiss science as mere speculation to protect your unsubstantiated beliefs. But shielding them from scientific verification won't automatically make them true.
No one said humans evolved from apes. No one said evolution has a "magical effect". Here's my advice to you. If you want to dismiss something on the grounds of not being true, at least know what it is you're dismissing.
If you're not willing to learn about what evolution and the big bang are, but insist on dismissing them based on what you think they are, then you're not doing yourself any service. If anything, you'll only appear more intellectually dishonest.
You seem not to have paid any attention to what I've been saying recently, so I won't bother.
What parts of the big bang or evolution are not "intelligent". A lot of theists agree with the data behind both the big bang and evolution, and accept that whatever or whoever created the universe, chose to do so through those means.
Your issue isn't about whether or not a God created the universe. It's that you want to believe that your specific God, created the universe in the specific way as described by the biblical narrative, that you choose to deny the very real science that contradicts it.
If a scientific theory agreed with the biblical creation narrative, you would be the one shouting it on the rooftops that science has found proof of "God". But when it contradicts, you're the first to discard it.

I don't need science before I believe that an intelligent being is behind creation.
Science deals with what we can see and experiment with it.
So there's no way science could prove that an invisible God (spirit) exist.

The lack of believe in God is not connected with science. Anybody can choose to believe whatever he likes.
We have many old and modern scientists that believe in the existence of God.