I don't believe in the Devil or Hell

[jcribb16]

I wanted to post this link, because I think it might add another dimension to this discussion: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11711228

I have to say, I like the turn the discussion has taken.  I absolutely love how this discussion, while heated, has remained civil for the last couple of pages.  Keep it up, Jcribb and Falconer!

Thank you.  That's all I'm asking is to be able to actually discuss and debate without the name calling. It gives both sides ample opportunity to be heard and able to respond back with answers.

[jcribb16]

When all answers and questions come from creationist websites, there will never be a 'favorable' answer given as to how things actually came into being. Is anyone on here, myself included, a nuclear physicist able to explain theories of redshift, collisional bonding of molecules, gravitational clustering that produces mass as a result of an explosion, etc. in such a way to be understood and thus a refute to creation and proof of evolution? No, plain and simple. Each side states it's opinions, as it has been done for many years and the sides look at each other and say.... I will say it has been a very civil and adult convo though, good on ya, and keep it going!

Sorry so late on this, haven't caught up until now, but love you too Falconer, hi "Sister in Warped Thinking" Amy, and hello Sheryl (saw that in some thread)!

So, then, Creation is just as much a possibility as Big Bang, etc.  I choose Creation.

I want to add here, that it makes sense for a Creationist to find answers from Creationist sites, just as Evolutionists use Evolution sites and youtube for their answers.  I try to find a medium between the two, but as you already know, it doesn't always work that way.

[queenofnines]

Please stop answering my questions for me.  My questions are NOT flawed and I DO believe in them.

Answering your questions for you?  What?  Not sure what you mean.  You directed 2 very tired and cliched queries towards Falconer, and I had more to add to what he said, so I did.

And your question IS flawed...I don't care if you don't like me, or you're the type of person who automatically disagrees with your opposition just to be stubborn, but love me or hate me, it doesn't change the objective truth: your premise is flawed.  I already explained to you why it is flawed, and if you still can't comprehend why, that makes me a very sad panda for the lack of logic going around in this forum.  

Don't you really want to know these answers or are you afraid it will knock your disbelief out in left field?

Well that's comical.  I already know your answer: "God did it!"  Never mind the pesky details!!  

And I did answer your first question in the second part of what I was saying for Q1.  Go back and read, plz.

[queenofnines]

As many people who are dying from, say, cancer, *there are just as many who overcome the cancer.

Do you still stand by that when the CDC reports cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death, second only to heart disease?  And what is the criteria upon which god "picks and chooses" who to save?  Why does the 9 year old leukemia girl deserve to die, but the serial killer inmate is allowed to go into remission?  Oh right; it's all part of god's special plan, isn't it?

You don't have to believe it since you don't believe in God or His Word, since that's where the mustard seed scenario comes from.  A person who refutes God the way you do is not open to wanting to understand that kind of faith.

Why are you bringing me into this?  Once again you are flat out ignoring the example that was presented of a million Christians just as good as you praying sincerely for cancer to go away, and nothing will ever happen.  And even if you want to bring me into it, I truly believed in god just 4 years ago and had faith that surpassed my Christian boyfriend's at the time.

[jcribb16]

queenofnines,

First, if you have to brag how much your faith was ("faith that surpassed my Christian boyfriend's at the time."), I just find it very odd that you have done a 180.  Like I said before, something in your life happened, that made you do a complete turn like that.

Second, I don't hate you as a person.  It's just not interesting to try and debate with you on religious issues because you don't debate. In the beginning, when I first joined, you did more debating with these issues. I enjoyed sparking with you.  But now, you come across as "It's your way or the highway" aspect, name calling, etc.  At least with Falconer, he's open enough to question and challenge my questions and comments, and vice versa.  I feel like whether he agrees or not, at least he is respecting what I have to say. He is not cutting me off as delusional and is acknowledging what I have to say.

Third, once again, my question was NOT flawed.  You just don't want to be backed into a corner when answering it. If you do not like what I am saying, that's fine.  You can ignore me.  I'm about ready to do the same, for reasons listed in my second comment.

[jcribb16]

Falconer,

An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule (this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material.)  Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design.

In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins.

Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life.

Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life.

The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.
(http://www.allaboutscience.org/)


Since the Intelligent Designer is God, there are many people who will try to discredit anything that comes from Him, because God can't be seen or touched or won't prove it openly.  Yet, these same people will put their belief and trust in the idea we evolved from animals, plants, etc. I don't buy that view.  That view could not have perfected what humans are in the first place.  How did something like the world come into random "matter and energy" existence and make itself automatically know how to make the sky, space, stars, ground, plants, waters. etc.?  That's going too far.  Only a designer can set such things into motion. In this case, God is the designer.

[Falconer02]

Someone has been trolling 4chan too much, methinks.

I actually laughed at this. Oddly enough, I don't even go to 4chan!  

but love you too Falconer,

Yay!

So, then, Creation is just as much a possibility as Big Bang, etc.  I choose Creation.

Furthest from. One teaches about progressing our knowledge through discovery and testing of the newfound unknown and building upon that through proofs. The other is trapped in ancient and superstitious thinking. Whenever real science contests creationism and corners it, creationists will create loophole reasonings (such as ID). Examples include "Each day in Genesis represents an entire eon!" or "The dinosaurs disappeared because they weren't on the ark!" which is just bull. I see it used all the time and it's absurd. It avoids the problems with it's own argument completely while attacking the other side. http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/  Srsly, wth?  

When you cripple the foundation of religious reasoning, the entire thing falls apart because there is no legitimacy. Because of this, there is cop-out reasonings like ID to crutch it back up. When you cripple the foundation of a scientific reasoning, you better the world around you. The fact that you're reading this post is proof of that.

http://lintbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/2007-01-1520-20science20vs20faith.png

I will say that ID is pseudoscience and any reputable scientist will discredit it due to it being untestable. It's just speculation. Evolution and abiogenesis are testable ideas and have actual proofs to them that you can see and (via microevolution and experiments) interact with. And since creationism teaches about your super-defined deity, I think ID is sort of a double negative because you're supposed to show trust and faith in your god, whereas ID just says that there could be a god or gods which loosens the legitimacy of that one god you support.

(http://www.allaboutscience.org/)

Because we can all trust a science site that says man came from apes!   I'm sorry to mock your source, but this site is taking things emotionally rather than stating unbiased logical information.
"Mixing god with science is like mixing astrology with astronomy"

excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule

Nature is an excellent example of the DNA molecule. ID is just trickery here unless you have some foundation that can be tested for it.
http://www.evolutionofdna.com/

Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life.
Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life.

Evolution does not state that. I'm not even sure what this means.

Since the Intelligent Designer is God, there are many people who will try to discredit anything that comes from Him, because God can't be seen or touched or won't prove it openly.

Given the lot of proofs I've posted, it would seem that this god is just more of a deceptive emotional trait.

How did something like the world come into random "matter and energy" existence and make itself automatically know how to make the sky, space, stars, ground, plants, waters. etc.?  That's going too far.

This is another eye-of-the-beholder argument. What if we evolved in a world where we had 3 suns, 5 moons, oceans were lava, we breathed methane, and had 6 eyes that only saw infrared light? That would be normal to you, and this current world would be completely bonkers in your mind. Everything you listed could be improved greatly to suit our needs. You seem to get this notion that nature is this precision marksman that can strike a bottle a mile away. It's not. Nature holds a shotgun and blasts it's intended target until it hits it. Those little round bb's that hit the bottle then have the challenge of struggling to survive. I'm sure this isn't the best example, but I think you'll get the point.

[jcribb16]

I'd like to say before I go any further, that some people who are opposed to God, or even the possibility to consider God, are going to always rationalize and/or explain away anything that a God believer will attempt to share. To them, all evidence put forward is not evidence to them and would be considered useless because they have concluded that there is absolutely no God.  Christians, on the other hand, will also try to prove the evidences of God and disprove what the evolutionists are trying to prove.  It's just a never-ending circle and will stay that way until the end of time.  Nevertheless, people on both sides will always continue to try and prove their side. With that said and behind me, I'll try to continue on.

1. Let's look at the earth.   Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.  No other planet has that given (or at least that hasn't been discovered.)  The earth is also located from the sun at just the right distance to not be torched or frozen.  It also is perfectly located the right amount of distance from the moon. This involves the tides gravitational pull, the tides moving the water, and also the mystery of the oceans and waters being held back from covering the earth again.  One thing I remember learning in science is that water in the winter freezes from the top - that way fish can still swim in the water and live.  Just these things alone do not support evolution.  They support some kind of creator or designer that knew what exactly was needed for everything to work together, in and organized way.

    **But yet, ""The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence." (Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter 11); (Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.";Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (New York: BasicBooks, 1998), 43.)
 

2.  Regarding the Big Bang: [Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."(Robert Jastrow; "Message from Professor Robert Jastrow"; LeaderU.com; 2002.)
     **They still don't know the cause, but can't accept that God was already there and caused it to happen.  Instead they keep trying their best to disprove that God had anything to do with it.  Actually that there is no God and it just could not happen that way.

That's all my brain will let me do at this point.  It's tuckered out.  I'm not finished, though!    

[queenofnines]

The Big Bang Theory is a man-made conclusion.

And looking at "this perfect universe with sky, ground, stars, waters, etc." (to quote you) and attributing it to god is...what?

But where do more of the facts lie?  

...Spoiler: not with a supernatural intelligence.

P.S. It took several billion years for the universe to form its various parts.  It took almost 10 billion alone to get to the earth making stage.  Sonny is not cuckoo for Cosmos Poofs here.

And then people evolved from what: animals, flowers etc.?

This naive statement makes me think you know very little about how evolution works.  Humans are animals; how many times do we have to go over this?  And ALL life shares common descent.  This is proven by DNA.

@Falconer and anyone else with an open mind: there is a great YouTube channel I just found called WhyEvolutionIsTrue.  It features a massive amount of documentaries on the subject from BBC, PBS, NOVA, National Geographic, universities, etc.  Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/user/WhyEvolutionIsTrue#p/p

Do you know how odd that sounds?

I think it is way more odd that I'm expected to believe that the first humans were made out of dirt and were placed in a garden with a forbidden tree and were tempted by a talking snake set in motion by an omniscient god who for some reason is really insecure and needs worship from his creations and I could go on and on...

[queenofnines]

if you have to brag how much your faith was ("faith that surpassed my Christian boyfriend's at the time.")

Not bragging.  Just pointing out that I think you'd be very surprised if you could look into the past with your own eyes and see that I was a dedicated Christian, since believers love to accuse atheists of never believing at all.  You find it odd because you're probably quite comfortable in your position and would never dream of investigating if your beliefs are actually true like I did.  They make you feel good; a bunch of other people agree with you...that's all you need to know.

I'd like to know why this thread has turned into a copy paste session of pseudoscience...?  It seems when the going gets tough, Xtians steamroll right over any logical arguments that have been made and instead try to pose a slew of scientific questions that don't always have solid answers to try and back their opposition into a corner.  Um, it's not really a debate when I'm arguing against words that have been copy pasted...it's okay to do here and there, but when you're using them as the bulk of your posts, it's not actually your argument.  

[Annella]

It would be good if only one person at a time addressed Jcribb so she can give you what answer or debate you are seeking.  Frankly, your like a bunch of snapping mutts all closing in with your own agenda or argument.  She's done an excellent job trying to answer all of you at one time, but it's not fair to lob questions at her when she's busy trying to bring this to completion with Falconer.  That's been your MO with every Christian on here.  All of you inundate a believer with questions all at once, when they are trying to answer a question to someone who has engaged them.

To Amy:  Makes me wonder what you meant by your glad that jordandog and I are back on.  Since we NEVER agreed on anything, and there was much discontent with being called a *bleep*, etc.  Is it because it's fun to watch this negative discord between 2 people?  I would question why you would think that is a good thing?  Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not here for cheap entertainment.

To qon:  I told you before.....and it goes now.  Quote the Bible all you want.  I will not answer you on any level like that, as you don't believe the Bible nor that God exists anyway.  You have no right to use either.  Therefore, you don't get any answer Biblical or otherwise when you think that will bring me out.  You don't believe scripture, so to post scripture back to you is a waste of my valuable time and effort.  Won't happen.

To jordandog:  I answered your post after your lengthy narration on the trinity vs One God.  Mostly for others who have questions concerning the One God message.  However, you are another one who does not believe in God or the scriptures...or you have said before.  What makes you think you can actually use them, if you don't believe them, or who they testify of?

Someone told me that $3 doesn't cover the aggravation and discourse that these debates (lol) generate.  I concur. If it was debating or discussing, it would be okay.  All to often though, it gets cut throat, name calling, etc.  My 30 posts are much better used in other threads.  While Jcribb hasn't gotten to the point of not answering your questions.....I have.  Say anything you want........I'm chicken, have nothing to say, don't know what I'm talking about......I don't care.  The truth is, I don't want to talk to any of you that do nothing but drag the Lord and the Bible in the mud.

Besides........time is going to answer ALL......lol

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on January 23, 2011, 04:23:04 pm
The Big Bang Theory is a man-made conclusion.

Quote from queenofnines:
And looking at "this perfect universe with sky, ground, stars, waters, etc." (to quote you) and attributing it to god is...what?

But where do more of the facts lie? 

...Spoiler: not with a supernatural intelligence.

Attributing it to a perfect creator/designer - that's what!

[Annella]

if you have to brag how much your faith was ("faith that surpassed my Christian boyfriend's at the time.")

Not bragging.  Just pointing out that I think you'd be very surprised if you could look into the past with your own eyes and see that I was a dedicated Christian, since believers love to accuse atheists of never believing at all.  You find it odd because you're probably quite comfortable in your position and would never dream of investigating if your beliefs are actually true like I did.  They make you feel good; a bunch of other people agree with you...that's all you need to know.

I'd like to know why this thread has turned into a copy paste session of pseudoscience...?  It seems when the going gets tough, Xtians steamroll right over any logical arguments that have been made and instead try to pose a slew of scientific questions that don't always have solid answers to try and back their opposition into a corner.  Um, it's not really a debate when I'm arguing against words that have been copy pasted...it's okay to do here and there, but when you're using them as the bulk of your posts, it's not actually your argument.  

Wait a minute.......you have copy and pasted your share of replies.  Also referring to atheistic YouTube channels numerous times.  You used the same argument with Sherene when she posted material from the website Godnscience.com.  I guess your the only one who can do it, but Jcribb can't?  Double standard!

It is her argument.  You can't limit her to certain material, if you can use the Bible against her when you don't even believe it?  Then your restricted using the Word of God for your argument!

[jcribb16]

Quote from queenofnines:
it's not actually your argument

I have tried my best to do most of my own writing on here.  I have shown quotes for a reason and showed them as quotes, because some of them actually include scientists that are evolutionists, but admittedly say that they aren't even sure of some of the questions of the cause.

I'm not any different than anyone else in here trying to make a point.  You like to use youtube (evolution, atheist) a lot in your answers. There is no difference there.  I'm not going to be put on the defense with you. You are doing just what I said you like to do when we don't agree with you or come up with answers/truth/possibilities that you don't like - cut down, cut off, make look foolish, etc.  You go on and do what you want to do.  I am pretty much speaking to Falconer and answering his questions/remarks as he is doing the same.  If you want to add your views like he is doing, wonderful.  If not, then I'm not going to put up with your attitude towards me.  You go too far stirring the pot instead of communicating like an adult should.

[jcribb16]

Quote from Annella:
It would be good if only one person at a time addressed Jcribb so she can give you what answer or debate you are seeking.  Frankly, your like a bunch of snapping mutts all closing in with your own agenda or argument.  She's done an excellent job trying to answer all of you at one time, but it's not fair to lob questions at her when she's busy trying to bring this to completion with Falconer.  That's been your MO with every Christian on here.  All of you inundate a believer with questions all at once, when they are trying to answer a question to someone who has engaged them.


Thank you, Annella. That means a lot!