Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Trailblazer]

I suspect that if Jesus was brought to the present he wouldn't recognize his teachings in the New Testament at all.

Especially would Jesus not recognize the stories about how He rose from the dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding of the secular science world is, they hold to theories which have never been proven such as the theory that everything came from nothing in some big bang where all the matter in the universe was contained in something the size of a pea.

They also force every student to accept the wild unproven theory that we evolved from apes, even though apes have always been and there no evidence of any evolution they won't issue a degree to students who don't accept their theories. so secular science relies on their circular arguments which I find disgraceful.

Okay so you know nothing of the sciences. It is never to late to pursue an education. As to theories being "unproven". Technically that is correct. In the sciences no theory is ever proven. Gravity is a theory by the way. It is "unproven". But if you accept the fact of gravity then by the same standards you should accept the theory of evolution. And if you use the legal definition of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution has been proven. Like it or not you are an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christians don't just have a blind belief without 100% evidence of what we believe. We have the perfectly preserved Word of our God and He promised us a lot of things if we put our trust in Him.

The only way to prove something is to put it to the test. Christians have all put Him to the test and He has proved to be exactly who He said He is and He has done everything He promised to do in our lives.

The Bible is the claim and it is not the proof. From the errors that you made in earlier claims of what is in the Bible it is rather clear that you have not studied the Bible very much. If you did you would realize that it is blasphemy to call the Bible the "perfectly preserved word of God". It is full of self contradictions and errors.

 

[Polymath257]

My understanding of the secular science world is, they hold to theories which have never been proven such as the theory that everything came from nothing in some big bang where all the matter in the universe was contained in something the size of a pea.

One of the things that always confuses me about the 'something from nothing' argument is that the *religious* view is saying the universe 'came from nothing' via God's word. It is the religious view, NOT the scientific view that 'something came from nothing'.

The scientific view is that whenever there was time, there was also space, matter and energy. At no time was there 'nothing'.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank goodness.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

But it seems more foolish people say that there is.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

You want something invisible that can be clearly seen? Infrared light. Or ultraviolet light. We *know* they exist and we know how to make them visible.

No deities needed.

That's the best you got?

Comparing "Nessie " or' Bigfoot " with "God ".

Nessie and Bigfoot didn't get the world's #1 best selling Book written about them.

And the book is largely fiction. is that the best you got?

If I wasn't listening, I'd have no material for a quote.

You want evidence?

I'm sure you're smart enough to find it, if you looked hard enough.

First of all, it isn't evidence if it has to be twisted to be consistent with your view.

it isn't evidence if it is equally consistent with a view and its opposite.

So, for example, the existence of the universe is NOT evidence for God. The reason? The existence of the universe is consistent with there being no God and knowledge of its existence doesn't change the probability of there being a God or there not.

Vague prophecies are NOT evidence for a God. Saying that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the end times isn't helpful because there has *always* been wars or rumors of wars. There is no time in history where that hasn't been the case.

Pointing to some vague numerology in David isn't evidence. Twisting the history to match some rantings from that text does NOTHING to prove the rants are valid. It only shows how far people are willing to wist to get things to match. And you can *always* go further into the rabbit hole and find *something* to confirm any view you want.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

This is a popularization of what has been discovered by our investigations, but there is a bit of a misunderstanding.

The universe is expanding. That is known. It was once much hotter and denser *everywhere* to the point that nuclear reactions were happening everywhere.

The idea that it 'came from nothing' is a misunderstanding of what the standard Big Bang model says. In fact, that model says that time itself began at a point about 13.7 billion years ago. There literally was no time prior to that in this model. So, no 'nothing' from which it came.

But, that model does not include aspects of quantum mechanics that we *know* would be relevant. We simply don't know in what way they would affect that conclusion. it is quite possible there was a 'Bounce' and a previous 'universe' from which ours arose by a phase transition. We simply don't know about this.

As for the universe the size of a pea, that is also an extrapolation and not actually considered accurate. We know our model works back to a time when the overall temperature was about a billion degrees, which means the observable universe (not the whole universe, mind you) would have been around 20 light years across. I'm not sure where the 'size of a pea' meme came from, but it is much more of an extrapolation than is warranted.



Except that you are wrong here. We *are* a species of ape. And we evolved from apes that were different than modern apes (as did the modern apes). This is NOT an 'unproven theory', but a scientific discovery that has been substantiated by mounds of evidence, from fossils, to DNA. Any student who does NOT know this is unworthy of a degree in certain areas of biology (where knowledge of evolution is crucial). it would be like saying a student of physics doesn't know Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism.

That you don't like a theory or that the theory disagrees with your religious views does NOT mean the theory is unproven. Sometimes, the problem is a misunderstanding of what the science actually says. Other times it really is that the evidence disagrees with your views.

That was a lot of words to justify something which has never been proven.
You haven't addressed the "everything came from nothing" problem and you haven't shown any credible evidence to support the theory of evolution so we are back at square one.

Have a look at what a proper scientist says about the matter below.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was a lot of words to justify something which has never been proven.
You haven't addressed the "everything came from nothing" problem and you haven't shown any credible evidence to support the theory of evolution so we are back at square one.

Have a look at what a proper scientist says about the matter below.

LOL! To even work at that site one must promise not to follow the scientific method. As a result they are of no use in a scientific debate. None of their claims are scientific at all.

You could learn the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. It is not that hard to understand. It applies to all of the sciences, not just evolution. There is one drawback. An honest person has to admit that there is only scientific evidence for evolution and there is none for creationism.

Your sources is not a "proper scientist". She is a liar.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Um, no. Even *religious* historians know that the stories we have of Jesus had substantial aspects of legend and mythology by the time the gospels were written.

There are those who question whether Jesus as described in the Bible even existed. I am not one of those. There were several different itinerant preachers at that time with essentially the same message as Jesus and who have miracles attributed to them. Jesus is one of many.

My view is that he was like the rest of these preachers: he preached and said some things that people liked. But his views on the Roman occupancy of Israel were such that the Romans couldn't allow him to continue. In particular, Jesus' association with the Zealots was rather damning in the Roman mind.

After his death, his legend grew (partly because of the influence of his brother, James) and once Paul got into the picture, the whole message changed (from being directed to Jews to being directed to everyone else). I suspect that if Jesus was brought to the present he wouldn't recognize his teachings in the New Testament at all.

That's your private individual view, but Jesus said He is the One true God who created everything that exists. My choice is to either believe people like you or believe the most famous and influential person in human history.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

And to condemn the rest. And he knew this ahead of time. That is evil.



It seems strange to me that you see this as reasonable.

Everyone hates God, before He saves them and those who are never saved continue to hate Him for all eternity. Why would anyone who is saved from an eternity in the lake of fire not love Him and love everything He does and stands for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your private individual view, but Jesus said He is the One true God who created everything that exists. My choice is to either believe people like you or believe the most famous and influential person in human history.

Jesus does not support your science denying beliefs. Even his one verse where he mentions Noah appears to be more poetic than saying that he actually existed.

Many Christians do not believe that God can lie. If God cannot lie then evolution is a fact.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

LOL! To even work at that site one must promise not to follow the scientific method. As a result they are of no use in a scientific debate. None of their claims are scientific at all.

You could learn the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. It is not that hard to understand. It applies to all of the sciences, not just evolution. There is one drawback. An honest person has to admit that there is only scientific evidence for evolution and there is none for creationism.

Your sources is not a "proper scientist". She is a liar.

Everyone knows what the scientific method is, it only works when you get water and boil and and observe that it boiled at 100 degrees c. Then you repeat it a few times and note down you discovered, but that method is useless if you can't go back to the begging of time to observe what happened.

The scientific method is useless in every aspect if you don't have access to material evidence. We would never lend our mind to some mad scientists with a wild imagination who pushes his fantasy as fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone knows what the scientific method is, it only works when you get water and boil and and observe that it boiled at 100 degrees c. Then you repeat it a few times and note down you discovered, but that method is useless if you can't go back to the begging of time to observe what happened.

The scientific method is useless in every aspect if you don't have access to material evidence. We would never lend our mind to some mad scientists with a wild imagination who pushes his fantasy as fact.

No, many people think that they know it. And no, there is no need to go back to the beginning of time. Why would you make such a claim?

You just demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method, and you definitely do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Your video refuted themselves in just over a minute. I was surprised that it took that long.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

The Bible is the claim and it is not the proof. From the errors that you made in earlier claims of what is in the Bible it is rather clear that you have not studied the Bible very much. If you did you would realize that it is blasphemy to call the Bible the "perfectly preserved word of God". It is full of self contradictions and errors.

We hear this all the time but we have never had anyone prove their claim as yet. So until one of you produce some evidence, we will have to keep all the claims in the trash can

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

No, many people think that they know it. And no, there is no need to go back to the beginning of time. Why would you make such a claim?

You just demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method, and you definitely do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Your video refuted themselves in just over a minute. I was surprised that it took that long.

The scientific method is a theory which was hashed up by some mad scientist. It has never been accepted as a fact, that's why secular science hinges on this thing called a "THEORY" which has never been proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We hear this all the time but we have never had anyone prove their claim as yet. So until one of you produce some evidence, we will have to keep all the claims in the trash can

Actually it has been proven time and time again. The problem is with the honesty or the education of the deniers. That you do not accept those facts does not mean that they do not exist.


To understand some of the scientific refutations you would need to understand at least the basics of science. People here will help you to learn the basics. I doubt if you will take anyone up on that offer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific method is a theory which was hashed up by some mad scientist. It has never been accepted as a fact, that's why secular science hinges on this thing called a "THEORY" which has never been proven.

No, the scientific method is what makes it possible for you to communicate here. The scientific method is not a "fact" it is a method that one uses to solve problems. Once again you demonstrate that you have no clue what you are talking about. Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method:

 

[Polymath257]

That was a lot of words to justify something which has never been proven.

It has been proven to the strict conditions of scientific investigation. Far, far more than is required in any court of law.

You haven't addressed the "everything came from nothing" problem and you haven't shown any credible evidence to support the theory of evolution so we are back at square one.

I didn't address the 'something from nothing' problem because science doesn't claim that. If anything, it is *religion* that claims that.

For evidence supporting evolution, look at a biology book. if you want, I can suggest one.

Have a look at what a proper scientist says about the matter below.

Hardly a 'proper scientist'. maybe you should ask an evangelical Christian? How about the director of the Human Genome Project? Francis Collins is both a well-known Christian evangelical AND a top notch biologist. But he is very clear that evolution has happened AND that both genetics and the fossil record prove this.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Actually it has been proven time and time again. The problem is with the honesty or the education of the deniers. That you do not accept those facts does not mean that they do not exist.


To understand some of the scientific refutations you would need to understand at least the basics of science. People here will help you to learn the basics. I doubt if you will take anyone up on that offer.

There's nothing to understand about secular science, it's just a bunch of theories which have never been substantiated.It's no more and no less than that

 

[Polymath257]

That's your private individual view, but Jesus said He is the One true God who created everything that exists. My choice is to either believe people like you or believe the most famous and influential person in human history.

No, actually, he didn't say that. Paul claims he said that, but Paul never actually met Jesus. Those who actually saw Jesus didn't report Jesus made such a claim.

 

[Polymath257]

There's nothing to understand about secular science, it's just a bunch of theories which have never been substantiated.It's no more and no less than that

I would challenge you to actually look into it and see just how far the evidence goes.

it is far more 'substantiated' than anything in the Bible, especially the New Testament.