About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[F1fan]

Although I'm reading one of Stephen Hawking's books now and he said something interesting about his malady as perceived by some in religion. He said that religion has imputed evil or sin to his condition. That is sad. Because I know God did not do that to Dr. Hawking and yes, I believe many have believed that which is sad. The reason it happened is because God PERMITTED it, He did not single out Stephen Hawking for that, or cause it to happen to him.

Then your interpretation and version of God plays dice with the universe. And since what happened to Hawking was not personal your God can't be omnipresent, nor omnipotent. Your God somehow has removed itself from what happens on earth, and how it functions. Of course this is directly inconsistent with as literal interpretation of the Jesus myth, that of his execution as payment for the sins of mankind. Why does God care one way, but not who gets debilitating diseases or cancers or other defects? This is the dilemma of modern people trying to make logical, literal sense of ancient stories.

 

[Apostle John]

Anything could have been made by God, but that hypothesis doesn't explain the unusual shape of Arrokoth. The collision+fusion hypothesis offers a possible explanation, but, in my opinion, the data are insufficient to make this any more than a hypothesis.

But you will believe in the evolution theory and other countless theories regarding creation and how we have come to exist to today, even though these theories have never been proven or demonstrated beyond doubt.

God could have made the unusual shape of Arrokoth to make atheists think it‘s possible for rocks to collide and stick together in space.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wishful thinking. And God does not "say" anything in the Bible. The Bible is a work of man.

Obviously the universe is not a "work of man."
But then, who knows? Maybe you think it could have been a work of some-thing or some-one that evolved a while back. Ya think? After all -- talk about evidence and proof -- who knows, maybe an evolved something made the universe, right? could be...or -- as has been offered, it could have come from -- nothing. (lol...)

 

[F1fan]

But you will believe in the evolution theory and other countless theories

Because theories in science meet a minimum 99.95% statistical requirement for success. We accept theories in science (not to be confused with conspiracy theories) because they follow facts and data to sound conclusions.

regarding creation

Creation in your context is a religious concept and not based in fact, so irrelevant.

and how we have come to exist to today, even though these theories have never been proven or demonstrated beyond doubt.

This is indicative of theists who broadly have contempt for science without showing any understanding of science, so your criticism is irrelevant to the well educated.

God could have made the unusual shape of Arrokoth to make atheists think it‘s possible for rocks to collide and stick together in space.

What a tricky, little God you have there. Any evidence? Of course not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I freely admit that I have nothing to explain how that was made naturally, if it’s indeed real. I’m certain your explanation will be left field.

Why do you value your own holy book so little? It tells you not to act this way. One of your explanations was "well maybe God lies". You did not realize it but that was what you essentially aid. Most Christians accept evolution because they do not believe that God lies. Once you understand the sciences well enough you will have to realize that for the myths of Genesis to be true God would have to be a liar.

And the definition for evidence in the sciences is very clear. Scientific evidence is any observation that supports (or opposes if you are looing for evidence against) a scientific hypothesis or scientific theory. That is it. So does that image support his hypothesis, yes. Yes it does. The only question that you might want to ask him is what test could refute his hypothesis.

Obviously the universe is not a "work of man."
But then, who knows? Maybe you think it could have been a work of some-thing or some-one that evolved a while back. Ya think? After all -- talk about evidence and proof -- who knows, maybe an evolved something made the universe, right? could be...or -- as has been offered, it could have come from -- nothing. (lol...)

How is this an answer to my last post?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you will believe in the evolution theory and other countless theories regarding creation and how we have come to exist to today, even though these theories have never been proven or demonstrated beyond doubt.

God could have made the unusual shape of Arrokoth to make atheists think it‘s possible for rocks to collide and stick together in space.

Those theories are all well supported by evidence. Evidence is all that we have in the real world.

 

[Apostle John]

Because theories in science meet a minimum 99.95% statistical requirement for success. We accept theories in science (not to be confused with conspiracy theories) because they follow facts and data to sound conclusions.

Creation in your context is a religious concept and not based in fact, so irrelevant.

This is indicative of theists who broadly have contempt for science without showing any understanding of science, so your criticism is irrelevant to the well educated.

What a tricky, little God you have there. Any evidence? Of course not.

That figure is blather and not fact.

Creation is a spiritual concept in my context and is fact until disproven by other facts.

Many Christians, too many to list, have progressed science more than atheists.

Genesis 1 provides evidence on The Creator God and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 tells us He can send delusions so that the ignorant believe them.

Good luck trying to convince others with your nonsense diatribes under different usernames.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That figure is blather and not fact.

Creation is a spiritual concept in my context and is fact until disproven by other facts.

Many Christians, too many to list, have progressed science more than atheists.

Genesis 1 provides evidence on The Creator God and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 tells us He can send delusions so that the ignorant believe them.

Good luck trying to convince others with your nonsense diatribes under different usernames.

Nope, sorry, logic does not work that way. And your version of creation has been shown to be wrong. We can't help it if you do not understand the sciences.

Any claim that wants to be taken seriously, has to be supported by evidence. Yours are not. You only have a long ago refuted book of myths.

Genesis is the claim. It is not the evidence.

 

[metis]

But you will believe in the evolution theory and other countless theories regarding creation and how we have come to exist to today,

One does not "believe" in evolution, as either they accept its reality, or they don't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That figure is blather and not fact.

Creation is a spiritual concept in my context and is fact until disproven by other facts.

Many Christians, too many to list, have progressed science more than atheists.

Genesis 1 provides evidence on The Creator God and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 tells us He can send delusions so that the ignorant believe them.

Good luck trying to convince others with your nonsense diatribes under different usernames.

What's the deal with accusing every person you interact with of having several different user names??

 

[F1fan]

That figure is blather and not fact.

False, but thanks for your blather.

Creation is a spiritual concept in my context and is fact until disproven by other facts.

So you assume creation until you have evidence to the contrary. Yet you have contempt for science and the facts that support it, so this is an invalid promise, as if we will take your word of honor given your other posts.

Many Christians, too many to list, have progressed science more than atheists.

Irrelevant who contributes more to science, as long as they get the science right. The question is why you reject the science that even Christians contribute to?

Genesis 1 provides evidence on The Creator God and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 tells us He can send delusions so that the ignorant believe them.

No it doesn't. They are just stories, and they are not consistent with what science explains about the universe.

You do seem to be an example of your god being tricky and fooling his followers. Note that you have poor understanding of science, and such people are defined as ignorant. So, there's some wisdom for you to ponder.

Good luck trying to convince others with your nonsense diatribes under different usernames.

I'm not sure what this means.

 

[Astrophile]

God could have made the unusual shape of Arrokoth to make atheists think it‘s possible for rocks to collide and stick together in space.

If so, he was guilty of intentional deception. By the way, did God make the same unusual shape of the nucleus of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko for the same purpose?

 

[Apostle John]

If so, he was guilty of intentional deception. By the way, did God make the same unusual shape of the nucleus of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko for the same purpose?

Why do you keep attaching photos if, like you say, they prove nothing.

 

[Apostle John]

What's the deal with accusing every person you interact with of having several different user names??

How would I know they’re different people? It’s all anonymous. They all appear to sing from the same hymn sheet accusing me of the same things. Therefore it’s the same person either running the forum or hiding behind a vpn.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How would I know they’re different people? It’s all anonymous. They all appear to sing from the same hymn sheet accusing me of the same things. Therefore it’s the same person either running the forum or hiding behind a vpn.

You found me out. Actually, I'm the only other poster in this thread but you. Every other account here is a sock puppet of this one. There's no fooling you, AJ.

 

[Astrophile]

Why do you keep attaching photos if, like you say, they prove nothing.

I didn't say that the photographs don't prove anything. On the contrary, they show that there are asteroids and cometary nuclei that have a bilobar shape that requires an explanation.

 

[Apostle John]

I didn't say that the photographs don't prove anything. On the contrary, they show that there are asteroids and cometary nuclei that have a bilobar shape that requires an explanation.

I like the way you give yourself frubals.

Have you got an explanation why space junk doesn’t coalesce? A recent news report said there‘s 200 trillion pieces. Why are scientists worried?
Also why isn’t the Earth bilobar shape and why is the moon where it is and the Earth where it is, both described as ellipsoid in shape?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the deal with accusing every person you interact with of having several different user names??

It's a conspiracy I tell you! How else could they all have the same answer to the question "What is 2 + 2?"

 

[Astrophile]

I like the way you give yourself frubals.

Always glad to oblige.

Have you got an explanation why space junk doesn’t coalesce?

Probably because its gravity is too weak and because it is in the stronger gravitational field of the Earth.

Also why isn’t the Earth bilobar shape and why is the moon where it is and the Earth where it is, both described as ellipsoid in shape?

The Earth is not bilobar because its gravitational field is strong enough to force it into a spherical shape. The Moon was probably ejected from the proto-Earth by a collision with a Mars-sized planet about 4.5 billion years ago; since then tidal interactions between the Earth and the Moon have slowed the Earth's rotation and driven the Moon outwards to its present distance. The Earth is ellipsoidal because of its rapid rotation. I doubt whether the Moon is ellipsoidal; its departures from sphericity may be due to impact excavation of the mare basins and deposition of ejecta from these basins to form the highlands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you keep attaching photos if, like you say, they prove nothing.

Once again, they are evidence. Science is evidence based. You keep misusing the word "prove". That word is not used in scientific discussions. One has to keep an open mind in the sciences. But if you insist, it is the accumulation of evidence that "proves" something. You have to make claims that are easily shown to be false to support your superstitious claims such as denying that images are evidence. Didn't I post the definition of scientific evidence for you? I can do so again.

There is no doubt that they are evidence. When one has a sufficient amount of evidence then a concept is taken as "proven" at least in the colloquial sense. In the sciences that is a big No No. In the sciences ideas are taken to be provisionally true. Gravity is not "proven" It is provisionally true, But if you accept gravity then you should accept evolution. There is even more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.