musKeeto:
And how is this similar to blind faith?

If you cant see it then you are indeed blinded by an irrational, illogical faith in pseudoscience.
What thehomer presents as "evidence" of the big bang is NOT evidence perse but arguments in favor of the big b[i]a[/i]ng as a valid theory. There is no empirical evidence in the lab to show that smashing two atoms together will generate any thing useful enough to become the earth.

davidylan:

What we have are explanations in search of a theory to justify. No evidence that a big b[i]a[/i]ng will create anything as complex as the earth and life forms.

Obviously, you're deeply ignorant on how science progresses for you to make such a statement.
So how do you think the earth and the organisms on the earth came into existence?

davidylan:

If you cant see it then you are indeed blinded by an irrational, illogical faith in pseudoscience.
What thehomer presents as "evidence" of the big bang is NOT evidence perse but arguments in favor of the big b[i]a[/i]ng as a valid theory. There is no empirical evidence in the lab to show that smashing two atoms together will generate any thing useful enough to become the earth.

Do you have evidence for another idea that is reasonable?

thehomer:

Obviously, you're deeply ignorant on how science progresses for you to make such a statement.
So how do you think the earth and the organisms on the earth came into existence?

As usual, since the atheist cannot cogently marshall his point, he plays musical chairs by pretending to ask a "question" he already knows the answer to.
We have discussed your question here times without number. The earth and organisms came into existence by the command of God (read Genesis 1 if in doubt).

The question being discussed here is the scientific alternative... pls stick to that. I for one am sick of ignorant dolts trying to avoid uncomfortable truths about the massive gaps in science and the blind faith required to believe that the earth somehow appeared by chance.

davidylan:

What came first... the earth or the physical laws? Explain pls.

As long as there are entities interacting, there are physical laws.

thehomer:

Do you have evidence for another idea that is reasonable?

Why should i? I think the bible idea is valid enough. you're the one trying to convince me you have a logical alternative. Try harder.

davidylan:

Why should i? I think the bible idea is valid enough. you're the one trying to convince me you have a logical alternative. Try harder.

How on earth is the Bible a valid idea? Do you now consider it to be a good source of scientific information?

Kay 17:

As long as there are entities interacting, there are physical laws.

and those entities interacting appeared from where? What came first? the interacting bodies or the physical laws?

If you say the interacting bodies then how did they start interacting AFTER the emergence of the physical laws? Did the moon float into place after gravity appeared?

If the physical laws came first then why? What was the point of a useless set of laws guiding the interactions of nothing?

thehomer:

How on earth is the Bible a valid idea? Do you now consider it to be a good source of scientific information?

Sorry, that is not the point of the discussion. Please answer the questions put to you. you can create another thread for this.

davidylan:

As usual, since the atheist cannot cogently marshall his point, he plays musical chairs by pretending to ask a "question" he already knows the answer to.
We have discussed your question here times without number. The earth and organisms came into existence by the command of God (read Genesis 1 if in doubt).

The question being discussed here is the scientific alternative... pls stick to that. I for one am sick of ignorant dolts trying to avoid uncomfortable truths about the massive gaps in science and the blind faith required to believe that the earth somehow appeared by chance.

No, we haven't agreed that the Bible even has a snowball's chance in hell of being valid.
We aren't really discussing the scientific theory, I'm simply telling you what scientists have discovered.
Since you've dragged your Bible in here, don't cry when it is easily shown for the myth collection it actually is.

davidylan:

Sorry, that is not the point of the discussion. Please answer the questions put to you. you can create another thread for this.

No, it is part of the discussion since you seem to think that the ideas in it can be compared to the theories put forward by scientists.

thehomer:

No, we haven't agreed that the Bible even has a snowball's chance in hell of being valid.
We aren't really discussing the scientific theory, I'm simply telling you what scientists have discovered.
Since you've dragged your Bible in here, don't cry when it is easily shown for the myth collection it actually is.

We have both agreed the bible is a myth times without number. you simply use it as a smokescreen when you cant cogently explain your own alternative... that the scientific theories are themselves empty myths that require as much blind faith to believe as the mythological bible.

thehomer:

No, it is part of the discussion since you seem to think that the ideas in it can be compared to the theories put forward by scientists.

DAft. At no point did i think biblical ideas are on par with scientific ideas EXCEPT the fact that both are founded on pure faith.

davidylan:

We have both agreed the bible is a myth times without number. you simply use it as a smokescreen when you cant cogently explain your own alternative... that the scientific theories are themselves empty myths that require as much blind faith to believe as the mythological bible.

How can we both agree to that when you just said you're basing your opinions on it?
I can explain the scientific ideas to you but you would be better off actually reading up on them. If you think the Bible can be compared to the work done by scientists, then you shouldn't be afraid to defend it with something better than blind faith.

davidylan:

and those entities interacting appeared from where? What came first? the interacting bodies or the physical laws?

If you say the interacting bodies then how did they start interacting AFTER the emergence of the physical laws? Did the moon float into place after gravity appeared?

If the physical laws came first then why? What was the point of a useless set of laws guiding the interactions of nothing?

I said Everything had always existed and that as long as entities interact, there is physical laws. So asking who came first is nonsensical.

thehomer:

How can we both agree to that when you just said you're basing your opinions on it?
I can explain the scientific ideas to you but you would be better off actually reading up on them. If you think the Bible can be compared to the work done by scientists, then you shouldn't be afraid to defend it with something better than blind faith.

I could explain the bible ideas to you but you would be better off actually reading up on them as well.

Here, i can attach links too - http://www.bible.com/

Atheists are such a dishonest ignorant lot. they open 100 threads a day demanding biblical explanations from you on the spot... ask them to defend their point and they either slink away or post 1000 links and ask you to go read on your own. You too should go and read. The bible is only a few pages long.

davidylan:

DAft. At no point did i think biblical ideas are on par with scientific ideas EXCEPT the fact that both are founded on pure faith.

Insane. If you don't think they're on par, then why are you citing it as your source of information on the origin of the earth and the organisms?
Maybe your illness is acting up again thereby causing you to confuse your faith and ignorance with evidence (which I've actually presented).

davidylan:

I could explain the bible ideas to you but you would be better off actually reading up on them as well.

Here, i can attach links too - http://www.bible.com/

I've read it. Now are you ready to defend it?

davidylan:

DAft. At no point did i think biblical ideas are on par with scientific ideas EXCEPT the fact that both are founded on pure faith.

Faith is blindly and unjustified assumptions. And faith is not a requirement for scientific theories.

thehomer:

I've read it. Now are you ready to defend it?

I read your links too long long ago, rather than defend it here you simply post more links. Go and read more...

here a few more links - http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/
http://www.bibleexplained.com/

thehomer:

Insane. If you don't think they're on par, then why are you citing it as your source of information on the origin of the earth and the organisms?
Maybe your illness is acting up again thereby causing you to confuse your faith and ignorance with evidence (which I've actually presented).

where did i do such a thing? projecting much?

The "evidence" your presented (aka the links you posted)... say exactly what?

davidylan:

I read your links too long long ago, rather than defend it here you simply post more links. Go and read more...

here a few more links - http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/
http://www.bibleexplained.com/

They're the same Bible aren't they? My point is that I posted three lines of evidence which I'm ready to defend can you present three lines of evidence from the Bible that you're ready to defend? Note that I didn't post links.

Kay 17:

Faith is blindly and unjustified assumptions. And faith is not a requirement for scientific theories.

it doesnt have to be a requirement, its just a part of it.

The first mistake the bible made is: failing to provide why it was necessary for God to design the world.

thehomer:

They're the same Bible aren't they? My point is that I posted three lines of evidence which I'm ready to defend can you present three lines of evidence from the Bible that you're ready to defend? Note that I didn't post links.

Did you read those links at all? One is a list of helpful bible commentaries to answer your questions and another is a step by step verse by verse explanation of the bible.

If you need more links just ask my dear. I too can post links too. Surely you are very interested in reading just as much as you ask me to read your own links.

Kay 17: The first mistake the bible made is: failing to provide why it was necessary for God to design the world.

As if science has provided us a rational for why the earth had to exist in the first place? what is the point creating humans so they can die after 70 worthless yrs? What are we recycling here? Our lives?

davidylan:

where did i do such a thing? projecting much?

The "evidence" your presented (aka the links you posted)... say exactly what?

I didn't post links.

This is from someone suffering from short term memory loss. Note the emphasis.

davidylan:

As usual, since the atheist cannot cogently marshall his point, he plays musical chairs by pretending to ask a "question" he already knows the answer to.
We have discussed your question here times without number. The earth and organisms came into existence by the command of God (read Genesis 1 if in doubt).
. . . .

Who made the above statements?

davidylan:

Did you read those links at all? One is a list of helpful bible commentaries to answer your questions and another is a step by step verse by verse explanation of the bible.

If you need more links just ask my dear. I too can post links too. Surely you are very interested in reading just as much as you ask me to read your own links.

Is something wrong?
Can you show me where I've posted a link on this thread? It looks as if you're already getting cold feet and wish to hide behind confused Bible writers.

thehomer:

They're the same Bible aren't they? My point is that I posted three lines of evidence which I'm ready to defend can you present three lines of evidence from the Bible that you're ready to defend? Note that I didn't post links.

Oh sorry... let me post bullet points then...

1. God created the earth
2. God created man in His own image
3. By faith, i can feel and acknowledge the presence of the Most High.

If you want further explanations of the above reasons why i believe the bible to be true... just ask... i have more links for you.

Two can play the dishonest game of musical chairs no?

thehomer:

Is something wrong?
Can you show me where I've posted a link on this thread? It looks as if you're already getting cold feet and wish to hide behind confused Bible writers.

just the same way you hopeless empty heads hide behind theories you dont understand. When pressed to provide evidence you simply show up with baseless bullet points saying nothing and links you cannot defend.

Dont worry, its not a case of cold feet. If you provide only links and bullet points, dont expect me to go into a lengthy explanation of my own viewpoint.

thehomer:

I didn't post links.

This is from someone suffering from short term memory loss. Note the emphasis.



Who made the above statements?

Read my first link. You should see evidence for my answer there.

davidylan:

it doesnt have to be a requirement, its just a part of it.

If Science uses Faith, why does it have space for Research? Why does it place a value on discovery?