Evolutionist contradict themselves and debunked-Story of Creation is Biblical Fact

[psychoslice]

There is no such thing as a biblical fact, case closed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's been something people have been saying for awhile. Perhaps maybe even before our species was around.

(sorry for slow responses)

yes, since the dawn of our ability to contemplate these things, most people have concluded a creation event and hence a creator for it.

everybody except atheists at the time, who claimed static/eternal models for the exact opposite rationale: no cration= no creator

That makes no sense, and if the laws of nature are so "too simple" then why haven't we figured out things such as gravity?

That's what I'm saying, nature is NOT simple, as much as atheists have tried, we can't show how it all runs on some automated system that spontaneously created itself without purpose

Who says we are the beneficiaries of creation? What exactly is this creation? You will need to define and provide evidence. And, we actually have received a radio transmission, although it's origin is unknown. And it's very likely we are going about it the wrong way, because we have a few different ways of transmit communications, so it may just be we are doing something comparable to listening for an AM frequency when we need to be looking for FM frequency.

As Genesis states, the heavens and the Earth.

It's interesting that the simplest mathematical pattern drifting across space, is interpreted as a 'WOW' signal, that strongly suggests alien intelligence (ID) what other explanation could there possibly be!!?
while a vast array of complex interactively functional algorithms permeating all of space/time matter/energy- may be safely assumed by default, to have blundered into existence for no particular reason!

You clearly don't understand how these predictions work. When you observe something, you make a hypothesis, and you test it. If the hypothesis is true, it will be able to predict future outcomes of a given event. There is no way to test for a creator, nor any future events to predict.

once again, you could have argued this with atheists, they very clearly stated that a creation event had overt religious overtones for them, and so they proposed 'non-created' models of the universe that if true, would make God redundant.

So when it comes to testing a hypothesis for atheism, it's heads we win, tails.... doesn't count, let's toss again.

None of the testable atheist creation myths were validated, only the creation event the Priest Lemaitre put forward.

Now they have moved on to 'multiverses' is there anything less testable? than an invisible infinite probability machine inherently beyond any investigation whatsoever?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry to butt in here, but as an atheist, I wanted to reply to this.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I look at it this way. I don't see any reason to attribute the creation of the universe to a supernatural deity that hasn't even been shown to exist in the first place.

That's fine, but the point again was, as above, you could have argued that with atheists cosmologists at the time who played a large role in delaying scientific progress on this point, the theistic implications of a creation event was exactly their complaint

no creation = no creator, hence all the static models totally unsupported by any evidence ever. I agree entirely with their rationale.

Had the universe turned out to be static, I'd be happy to accept the implication; no creation = no creator

I agree with what atheists saw as the opposite implication also, that of observed reality today. The only difference is, I'm happy to accept that also.

I don't see how invoking an even bigger mystery as an explanation actually gets us anywhere in explaining anything. I don't understand why the default position would be to invoke an invisible anthropomorphic creator as an explanation for everything we see in the universe. I think the default position should be that we don't know, pending further investigation, and go from there and go out and learn how things work. .

I very much agree here!, there should be NO default explanation, we have zero reference for how universes are usually created do we?

Many atheists here do not agree with this though, they see atheism/ naturalism as the default explanation, shifting the burden of proof to every other explanation but their own.

And if you want to assert that some god put it all together, then I think you should have to first demonstrate that such a god exists

Same would apply to a flying spaghetti multiverse, which is inherently beyond the possibility of observation, or any other naturalistic mechanism

I may have given you a similar analogy, but if we see HELP written on a deserted island beach in rocks, we have no direct observation of it's cause

So do we have to find the castaway FIRST to even assert that he exists?
And meanwhile default to the explanation that the waves just washed the rocks up that way?

after all, invoking a castaway invokes a bigger mystery right? We already know the waves are capable of doing this, so why not assume that nice simple explanation?

Invoking a beginning, a creation event also invoked a bigger mystery did it not? as did sub atomic physics/ quantum mechanics, other galaxies, dark energy/matter, biology, DNA, the universe does not seem to be as big a fan of Occam's razor, as are people who simply prefer simple explanations

We have no proof either way, but we have supporting evidence, probability, logical deduction. Ultimately I think the odds heavily favor God- defined as intelligent creator of the universe.

But I acknowledge my faith, I can't prove it

 

[metis]

But then the problem becomes what caused God? Or is it Gods? How could one possibly tell? If one says that God(s) was/were always there, then that opens up the concept of "infinity", so why is it supposedly not possible that there never was a true "creation" to begin with?

 

[Noitall]

There is no such thing as a biblical fact, case closed.

I love the Cherry allegory.....

 

[Noitall]

But then the problem becomes what caused God? Or is it Gods? How could one possibly tell? If one says that God(s) was/were always there, then that opens up the concept of "infinity", so why is it supposedly not possible that there never was a true "creation" to begin with?

The problem with calling what created everything God is that it legitimizes every religion and all the other rules they make up for that religion. Religions typically act against non believers or other believers in order to justify their beliefs. Try getting elected for a government position in the US or Canada if you say you don't believe in God.

 

[metis]

The problem with calling what created everything God is that it legitimizes every religion and all the other rules they make up for that religion. Religions typically act against non believers or other believers in order to justify their beliefs. Try getting elected for a government position in the US or Canada if you say you don't believe in God.

It actually legitimizes none of them since all religions have dogmas that are based on beliefs that are typically all but impossible to objectively confirm and are not based on evidence per se. The approach I take is along the line on Baruch Spinoza's basic concept he often called "Nature", used in an all-inclusive manner, and he also used that term as an alternative name for "God". Where I differ from him is that I'm not even willing to go that far in declaring that there must be a God or Gods since it's simply well beyond my pay-grade.

As far as your last sentence is concerned, I'm all-aboard with ya.

 

[Noitall]

It actually legitimizes none of them since all religions have dogmas that are based on beliefs that are typically all but impossible to objectively confirm and are not based on evidence per se. The approach I take is along the line on Baruch Spinoza's basic concept he often called "Nature", used in an all-inclusive manner, and he also used that term as an alternative name for "God". Where I differ from him is that I'm not even willing to go that far in declaring that there must be a God or Gods since it's simply well beyond my pay-grade.

As far as your last sentence is concerned, I'm all-aboard with ya.

Agree....The reason religions appeal to so many is because it gives them some hope for an after life. It makes people feel better if they think that they will meet their spouses or children or friends in an after life. I'm an atheist and even I would have liked to believe that I would enter some kinda heaven where I would meet everybody else I knew. My own mother at the end was tired of life and wanted to be with her husband. He had died some dozen years before. It also appeals to us because it suggests that we have a soul or some kind of spirit that differentiates us from other animals. This allows us to treat them as we wish whether it is for pets, slave labour or as food. People used to cite God and the bible as a rationale for slavery. We have and still use God as a reason to wage war.

 

[metis]

Agree....The reason religions appeal to so many is because it gives them some hope for an after life. It makes people feel better if they think that they will meet their spouses or children or friends in an after life. I'm an atheist and even I would have liked to believe that I would enter some kinda heaven where I would meet everybody else I knew. My own mother at the end was tired of life and wanted to be with her husband. He had died some dozen years before. It also appeals to us because it suggests that we have a soul or some kind of spirit that differentiates us from other animals. This allows us to treat them as we wish whether it is for pets, slave labour or as food. People used to cite God and the bible as a rationale for slavery. We have and still use God as a reason to wage war.

Agreed.

One of the greatest Jewish sages historically was Maimonides, who did believe in heaven but taught that one should not use that as a justification for doing good because then they are only doing good for selfish reasons. Therefore, we shouldn't even consider it, but instead do good simply because we should appreciate our life and the life of all others, as God created us all and He didn't have to do that. I can live with that approach even if it's more theistically dogmatic than I would be willing to go.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

yes, since the dawn of our ability to contemplate these things, most people have concluded a creation event and hence a creator for it.

That point being referenced that plenty of people of many cultures and backgrounds have reckoned the Earth and universe had a beginning at some point in time. Really though, it doesn't require religion or science to recognize this.

That's what I'm saying, nature is NOT simple, as much as atheists have tried, we can't show how it all runs on some automated system that spontaneously created itself without purpose

What do atheists have to do with it? Scientists are figuring out how the universe works, and just because they haven't figured out everything yet doesn't mean they won't.

It's interesting that the simplest mathematical pattern drifting across space, is interpreted as a 'WOW' signal, that strongly suggests alien intelligence (ID) what other explanation could there possibly be!!?
while a vast array of complex interactively functional algorithms permeating all of space/time matter/energy- may be safely assumed by default, to have blundered into existence for no particular reason!

Actually, to anyone who thinks rationally and scientifically, it isn't a strong suggestion of alien intelligence because we don't know the origins of the signal. It's just as likely some asteroids far away collided and the materials to make this signal just happened to rub up against each other in a manner that created the transmission. It's an unsolved mystery, and it's likely we never will solve it.

once again, you could have argued this with atheists, they very clearly stated that a creation event had overt religious overtones for them, and so they proposed 'non-created' models of the universe that if true, would make God redundant.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would an atheist argue a "creation even" with "overt religious tones," only to propose a model that makes god redundant?

So when it comes to testing a hypothesis for atheism, it's heads we win, tails.... doesn't count, let's toss again.

It's not a heads or tails thing. A proper hypothesis will make predictions that explain our observations. In the case of the Big Bang, we see cosmic bodies drifting further out into the universe. In the case of Intelligent Design, we find bombardments of deadly solar radiation giving us cancer and that our planet sits within an asteroid belt.

None of the testable atheist creation myths were validated, only the creation event the Priest Lemaitre put forward.

What is it with your "atheist this" and "atheist that?" Just because someone doesn't believe in your god or believe in a cosmic puppeteer doesn't make them an atheist. Einstein did not believe in any sort of personal deity (he though it was childish to do so), but yet he was not an atheist and he did work to translate the functions of the universe and explain it through mathematics.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

yes, since the dawn of our ability to contemplate these things, most people have concluded a creation event and hence a creator for it.

everybody except atheists at the time, who claimed static/eternal models for the exact opposite rationale: no cration= no creator

Guy, we've had these kinds of discussions before and I have concluded that you are utterly un-educatable; as your history is utterly reversed. "Static Universe" was held in high regard by atheists, theists and deists alike; Einstein, the deist (he wasn't an atheist though disdained the idea of a "personal god") declared his inclusion of a "universal constant" in his formulas his "biggest blunder". "Newton", whom you love to quote mine, and who was a deist (giving credit of the motion of the planets to a "god"), gave no indication of believing anything other than the common wisdom of the day -- "static universe".

Heck, with your bastardized versions of history, I'll bet you think the British won the American War for Independence?

yes, since the dawn of our ability to contemplate these things, most people have concluded a creation event and hence a creator for it.

What "everyone thought" or what "most people believe" doesn't matter. guy. If we say this enough times, maybe it will sink in. "shaving causes hair to grow back thicker" and "we only use 10% of our brain" and many other ideas are no less and no more true based upon the number of people who believe them to be true. The evidence that the number of people believing in a certain thing is not a reliable method to measure the truth or falsehood of any claim. I don't know how many different ways we can say the same thing to you or how many examples we can give before you will come to understand that "Well, most people have concluded a creation event and hence a creator for it" has completely nothing to do with "whether or not a creation event hence a creator for it".

That's what I'm saying, nature is NOT simple, as much as atheists have tried, we can't show how it all runs on some automated system that spontaneously created itself without purpose

It's not "atheists" who are looking for scientific explanations for our existence. It's "scientists" who are looking for scientific explanations for our existence. But for you, any "science" that contradicts or fails to conform with your notion of creation or "truth" are the enemy and a part of a grander conspiracy.

once again, you could have argued this with atheists, they very clearly stated that a creation event had overt religious overtones for them, and so they proposed 'non-created' models of the universe that if true, would make God redundant.

Source for your information?

None of the testable atheist creation myths were validated, only the creation event the Priest Lemaitre put forward.

But the "creation event" that Priest Lameitre put forward IS the "Big Bang" theory, which you hold that atheists hold is a "non-created models of the universe; no creation = no creator". You are so confused ...

Had the universe turned out to be static, I'd be happy to accept the implication; no creation = no creator

Why? If a god can create a static universe, why can't that same god create an expanding universe? If a god can create an expanding universe, why can't he create a static universe?

Many atheists here do not agree with this though, they see atheism/ naturalism as the default explanation, shifting the burden of proof to every other explanation but their own.

Ridiculous statement. Atheism is not an explanation for anything dealing with the natural world. In fact, it isn't an explanation of anything. You cram together atheism, naturalism, darwinian evolution, social Darwinism, moral relativism and anything else you don't like under one heading and call it "atheism". That is one of the reasons why you are so confused.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My son (3rd) is being taught the Big Bang theory in which he is having issues with. So while doing some research and what I found was amazing. I encourage you to watch you tube "what you aren't being told about astronomy by Skip Pssaris.

Yes, it's important to substitute scholarly journals with vlogs on youtube.

At least you are confused about the Big Bang. I once had a call from a student's parent saying the homework was too hard because they (the parents) didn't know what "nouns" were.

He was an engineer for the US Military Program.

So, no astronomy experience?

You guys DO know there are different branches of science, right? Do you just think that because a doctor and a dentist are both in the medical field, the dentist can take out your appendix?

He explains how our universe is not billions of years old more like 6000 years old.

If I told a military engineer that any calculations on a chopper's time of arrival are silly and I should just calculate it based on a chopper I piloted in a video game, would that engineer laugh at me?

Things have definite durations. There are trees on this planet with origins that are almost 10k years themselves. Rocks can be dated. While dating can be revised, it's NEVER to the extent creationists suggest. It's not "well, we were wrong about it being a million years ago, more like yesterday" and more like "well, we were wrong about it being 5 billion years ago, more like 3 billion years ago".

What aspect of the Big Bang Theory is your son having issues with? What are these issues?

Is it really the son with the issues?

Intelligence and education are not defenses against sloppy thinking.

I feel sorry for any soldiers who have to use any of the stuff he engineers.

He said to me Mama, how can something like come from nothing. What do you tell a 3rd grader?

That's what creationism teaches, not the Big Bang. The Big Bang only says that everything was crammed in real tight to begin with and then spread out pretty quickly.

I work in a school, and what they are teaching now, especially in history, is incomplete watered down versions of the Truth. For instance, the Holocaust is just a blurp, as if they want us to believe it never happened. The Civil War is taught without the realities of the brutality. Native American history is taught without the true significance of how profound. They (the Establishment) won't tell you about Wounded Knee massacre, or all the treaties that were made and broken or how the Europeans forced them to give up their way of life or die. Everything just seems so minimized and justified, and denied.

Oh, man, they took down trip1.org. It was a fun site for kids.

This looks good for astronomy

One for biology

Don't trust textbooks. As you noted, they are full of crap thanks to politics. However, this is the 21st century, and kids don't have to be trapped by such propaganda anymore. Also, read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" to get an appreciation for just how bad it is in the textbook field.

I used to teach 4th grade. Looking stuff is a specialty. Feel free to PM me information requests at any time

(I just don't do others' homework, LOL.)

We've only seen a very tiny portion of the universe, so of course we won't have it all figured out now, or for awhile. But we most certainly can and will learn. Even when I was a kid the idea of 3D printers and instant global communication was something more of science fiction than reality. As a species, when someone says it can't be done, we have a pretty good record of proving them wrong.

We had to dream up inventions in 4th grade, I think. I drew up a pen that used some sort of radio waves or something to write by itself and had an antenna. Now we have those pen scanners and 3-D printing pens and such. I want a time machine so I could get the patent rights on the stuff I thought up first, LOL.

But God never has done or will ever do any of those things. He is incapable of any evil. That's just my thoughts.

The problem is that the bible specifically notes in places that God does, indeed, do such things.

Most people don't have a good sense of what is in the bible. They only learned the "Sunday School Version" which, like our textbooks, are rampant with propaganda.

God may not lie, but the authors in the bible sure do enjoy it quite often.

I'm still less than 10 minutes into these vids ...

Your sacrifice will be remembered throughout the ages.

So in some cases even atheists are open to the possibility of ID

How many supporters of ID would be willing to say that the Great Spirit or Brahma or Ptah or Raven or Coyote or Marduk or the sons of Borr created the planet?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At least you are confused about the Big Bang. I once had a call from a student's parent saying the homework was too hard because they (the parents) didn't know what "nouns" were.

 

[Noitall]

Yes, it's important to substitute scholarly journals with vlogs on youtube.

At least you are confused about the Big Bang. I once had a call from a student's parent saying the homework was too hard because they (the parents) didn't know what "nouns" were.


So, no astronomy experience?

You guys DO know there are different branches of science, right? Do you just think that because a doctor and a dentist are both in the medical field, the dentist can take out your appendix?


If I told a military engineer that any calculations on a chopper's time of arrival are silly and I should just calculate it based on a chopper I piloted in a video game, would that engineer laugh at me?

Things have definite durations. There are trees on this planet with origins that are almost 10k years themselves. Rocks can be dated. While dating can be revised, it's NEVER to the extent creationists suggest. It's not "well, we were wrong about it being a million years ago, more like yesterday" and more like "well, we were wrong about it being 5 billion years ago, more like 3 billion years ago".


Is it really the son with the issues?


I feel sorry for any soldiers who have to use any of the stuff he engineers.


That's what creationism teaches, not the Big Bang. The Big Bang only says that everything was crammed in real tight to begin with and then spread out pretty quickly.


Oh, man, they took down trip1.org. It was a fun site for kids.

This looks good for astronomy

One for biology

Don't trust textbooks. As you noted, they are full of crap thanks to politics. However, this is the 21st century, and kids don't have to be trapped by such propaganda anymore. Also, read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" to get an appreciation for just how bad it is in the textbook field.

I used to teach 4th grade. Looking stuff is a specialty. Feel free to PM me information requests at any time

(I just don't do others' homework, LOL.)


We had to dream up inventions in 4th grade, I think. I drew up a pen that used some sort of radio waves or something to write by itself and had an antenna. Now we have those pen scanners and 3-D printing pens and such. I want a time machine so I could get the patent rights on the stuff I thought up first, LOL.


The problem is that the bible specifically notes in places that God does, indeed, do such things.

Most people don't have a good sense of what is in the bible. They only learned the "Sunday School Version" which, like our textbooks, are rampant with propaganda.

God may not lie, but the authors in the bible sure do enjoy it quite often.


Your sacrifice will be remembered throughout the ages.


How many supporters of ID would be willing to say that the Great Spirit or Brahma or Ptah or Raven or Coyote or Marduk or the sons of Borr created the planet?

Is parents a noun?

 

[viole]

Agree....The reason religions appeal to so many is because it gives them some hope for an after life. It makes people feel better if they think that they will meet their spouses or children or friends in an after life. I'm an atheist and even I would have liked to believe that I would enter some kinda heaven where I would meet everybody else I knew. My own mother at the end was tired of life and wanted to be with her husband. He had died some dozen years before. It also appeals to us because it suggests that we have a soul or some kind of spirit that differentiates us from other animals. This allows us to treat them as we wish whether it is for pets, slave labour or as food. People used to cite God and the bible as a rationale for slavery. We have and still use God as a reason to wage war.

Imagine how huge the family table will look in Heaven.

GranGranGranGranGranGran..dad fish, please, can you pass me the salt?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

None of the testable atheist creation myths were validated, only the creation event the Priest Lemaitre put forward.

Lemaitre didn't put forward any creation event. In his own words:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

 

[Walter Russell]

My son (3rd) is being taught the Big Bang theory in which he is having issues with. So while doing some research and what I found was amazing. I encourage you to watch you tube "what you aren't being told about astronomy by Skip Pssaris. He was an engineer for the US Military Program. He entered the program as an evolutionist and atheist. During his course of research and his findings he is now a creationist and Christian. He breaks down many claims from evolutionists have made and show how they are inconsistent , contradictory and lacking and facts to prove their theories. He speaks about how the universe began and it could not have been. Ultimately, the Bible accounts are true. He explains how our universe is not billions of years old more like 6000 years old. His backs up all his claims scientifically by what we know as fact. Such how a dust particle cannot become a planet and based on speeds of revolution with certain planets show how young our universe is. He also addresses the function of the moon, why its there, is for us. So, if you think about it, it really is the only thing that makes sense. There never was or ever will be life on another planet. So, God created everything for our benefit. and he is the Grand Master of everything. he is the ultimate scientist and He doesn't have to prove Himself.

Walter Russell teaches,
The universe is currently out breathing as you and I would exhale. Aeons from now man will observe the universe in breathing as we inhale.
This is the universe creating and destroying itself over and over eternally.

As above, so below.

If you want both the spiritual and scientific explanation of the universe than you need to read Russells book "The Secret of Light".
Also "A New Concept of the Universe" is great to but I prefer the former.

 

[McBell]

Walter Russell teaches,
The universe is currently out breathing as you and I would exhale. Aeons from now man will observe the universe in breathing as we inhale.
This is the universe creating and destroying itself over and over eternally.

As above, so below.

If you want both the spiritual and scientific explanation of the universe than you need to read Russells book "The Secret of Light".
Also "A New Concept of the Universe" is great to but I prefer the former.

Do you mean:

https://archive.org/details/WalterRussellTheSecretOfLight​

 

[gnostic]

Walter Russell teaches,
The universe is currently out breathing as you and I would exhale. Aeons from now man will observe the universe in breathing as we inhale.
This is the universe creating and destroying itself over and over eternally.

As above, so below.

If you want both the spiritual and scientific explanation of the universe than you need to read Russells book "The Secret of Light".
Also "A New Concept of the Universe" is great to but I prefer the former.

Both books are more pseudoscience philosophy than science, WR.

 

[Walter Russell]

Do you mean:

https://archive.org/details/WalterRussellTheSecretOfLight​

Yes