God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[gnostic]

a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.
I have the stars overhead and the earth beneath my feet

Then bloody show that there are evidences for the Creator. If you don't have evidences to support the existence of god, then it is not science.

You are just using circular reasoning. This "there is the universe, therefore god exist" is nothing more than irrational belief, nothing more, nothing less.

WHERE ARE THE EVIDENCES FOR (your) CAUSE????

 

[gnostic]

I don't rely altogether on what someone wrote centuries ago.

And yet you do.

If you think God exist before the creation of the universe or the world, then you do rely on Genesis and John 1 (word or logo). That's not science; it is personal belief mixed with pseudoscience.

If you believe God created man and gave life, then that's not science; it just more of your pseudoscience and belief.

 

[Thief]

And yet you do.

If you think God exist before the creation of the universe or the world, then you do rely on Genesis and John 1 (word or logo). That's not science; it is personal belief mixed with pseudoscience.

If you believe God created man and gave life, then that's not science; it just more of your pseudoscience and belief.

nay.... lean to science!

cause and effect.
substance will remain at rest until something moves it.

that 'something' would be God.

 

[Thief]

and it also occurs to me....apparently no one else.....

an expansion would do so as a hollow sphere.....one percussion wave.
no rotation

If the substance was rotating BEFORE the expansion.....you would see a pinwheel...as the expansion 'gels'.

Something would have to be there to set the singularity in CIRCULAR rotation BEFORE the expansion begins.

evidence of the 'snap' of God's fingers in play.

 

[gnostic]

nay.... lean to science!

cause and effect.

You still don't understand "cause-and-effect", as it relates to science, thief.

For there to be a CAUSE, you need to provide EVIDENCES that this CAUSE is "real".

Do you have EVIDENCES that God (or spirit) exist? Yes? No?

If yes, then provide evidences that God is the CAUSE.

If no, then this God don't exist, and have no way being a creator of creation.

Claiming cause and effect, without evidences, is nothing more than empty claims. Empty as in "with no basis" to science.

You have continued to claim that your faith require no evidence, or you can't put god on to "petri-dish", and other such nonsensical excuses, only suggest to me, that you are not leaning towards science at all.

1. CAUSE require evidences for it to be "scientific".
2. EFFECT require evidences for it to be "scientific".
3. And CAUSE AND EFFECT require evidences for it to be "scientific".

If there are no evidences, then there is no science.

And please, for goodness sake, don't confuse "evidence" with "proof", because they are not the same things. Evidences are for science; proofs are for mathematics (like numbers, equations or mathematical models).

 

[Thief]

You still don't understand "cause-and-effect", as it relates to science, thief.

For there to be a CAUSE, you need to provide EVIDENCES that this CAUSE is "real".

Do you have EVIDENCES that God (or spirit) exist? Yes? No?

If yes, then provide evidences that God is the CAUSE.

If no, then this God don't exist, and have no way being a creator of creation.

Claiming cause and effect, without evidences, is nothing more than empty claims. Empty as in "with no basis" to science.

You have continued to claim that your faith require no evidence, or you can't put god on to "petri-dish", and other such nonsensical excuses, only suggest to me, that you are not leaning towards science at all.

1. CAUSE require evidences for it to be "scientific".
2. EFFECT require evidences for it to be "scientific".
3. And CAUSE AND EFFECT require evidences for it to be "scientific".

If there are no evidences, then there is no science.

And please, for goodness sake, don't confuse "evidence" with "proof", because they are not the same things. Evidences are for science; proofs are for mathematics (like numbers, equations or mathematical models).

There will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation, or a repeatable experiment.

your plea for evidence (other than what I have posted)....will forever go unanswered.

 

[gnostic]

cause and effect.
substance will remain at rest until something moves it.

that 'something' would be God.

That's nonsensical.

A car is substance or object, whether it be at rest or moving. Are you telling me God is moving the car, and not the mechanical of the motor moving the car?

If I push the wheel barrow is me that moving the wheel-barrow or God?

Can you show me evidences that God is moving anything at all? I am not asking for your wishful-thinking, I want evidences.

 

[Thief]

That's nonsensical.

A car is substance or object, whether it be at rest or moving. Are you telling me God is moving the car, and not the mechanical of the motor moving the car?

If I push the wheel barrow is me that moving the wheel-barrow or God?

Can you show me evidences that God is moving anything at all? I am not asking for your wishful-thinking, I want evidences.

poor analogies.....no focus.....no answer

 

[gnostic]

There will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation, or a repeatable experiment.

That's the stupid excuses you keep repeating.

If you can't provide evidences, then how can you possibly claim that you lean more to science?

Some invisible and powerful being that you believe to be moving substances, have no more validity than a delusional person thinking there is a pink elephant driving his car.

 

[Thief]

That's the stupid excuses you keep repeating.

If you can't provide evidences, then how can you possibly claim that you lean more to science?

Some invisible and powerful being that you believe to be moving substances, have no more validity than a delusional person thinking there is a pink elephant driving his car.

see previous post

 

[gnostic]

poor analogies.....no focus.....no answer

You are right. You have no focus, no answer, and you give lousy poor analogies.

 

[idea]

cause and effect... what causes everyone to hold the beliefs that they do? what causes different personality types, what causes new fashion trends, new political regiemes, new ages of the world - new worlds... The universe is made up of two basic entities - that which acts, and that which is acted upon.

 

[Thief]

You are right. You have no focus, no answer, and you give lousy poor analogies.

not I.....
I was speaking straight word.

 

[gnostic]

see previous post

What part of "EVIDENCE" that you don't understand?

Science is more than about Cause and Effect. Science is about evidences - EVIDENCES that verify if it is true, or refute it.

No evidences for CAUSE, then IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

It is that simple.

You say that you lean towards science...then good.

You say that you believe in cause and effect...but cause and effect are rather vague. If you are talking cause and effect in "science", then YOU WOULD NEED EVIDENCES! Not your imaginary wishful-thinking or your circular rationale.

 

[Milton Platt]

He used his "spirit before substance" or any number of variations, like "spirit first, then substance", in this thread and several other threads that I know of (and perhaps there a lot more threads out there, that I had not visit or read).

And not once, did he ever provide a definition to "spirit". Nor provide evidences for the existence of this "spirit".

He may say...


And YET, he go and fall back to and say thing like "Faith don't require evidences" argument, or his favorite one - "you can't put god (or spirit) on a petri-dish".

Yes, I do agree faith don't require scientific evidences, because faith is not science, PERIOD!

But it seem that he can't grasp, to have and understand scientific theory, you need EVIDENCES! It is as he's saying that faith and science are one-and-the-same.

What he has is his religious belief and his pseudoscience. Not science.

"I have science in current day..." Good grief.

Faith does not require evidence, only gullibility. If you have evidence faith is not required.

 

[Thief]

What part of "EVIDENCE" that you don't understand?

Science is more than about Cause and Effect. Science is about evidences - EVIDENCES that verify if it is true, or refute it.

No evidences for CAUSE, then IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

It is that simple.

You say that you lean towards science...then good.

You say that you believe in cause and effect...but cause and effect are rather vague. If you are talking cause and effect in "science", then YOU WOULD NEED EVIDENCES! Not your imaginary wishful-thinking or your circular rationale.

of course it circles.....back to God

 

[gnostic]

not I.....
I was speaking straight word.

No, Thief. You are using circular reasoning, not science.

You are saying like Earth exist, therefore God exist. That's circular reasoning, not science. This sort of cause-and-effect is pseudoscience, not science.

Scientific cause-and-effect required EVIDENCES for both CAUSE and EFFECT; not just evidences for EFFECT.

 

[Thief]

No, Thief. You are using circular reasoning, not science.

You are saying like Earth exist, therefore God exist. That's circular reasoning, not science. This sort of cause-and-effect is pseudoscience, not science.

Scientific cause-and-effect required EVIDENCES for both CAUSE and EFFECT; not just evidences for EFFECT.

oh! so you admit I have reasoning......good.

science takes us back to the singularity and stops there.
I don't have to.
I have reason to believe God set all things in motion.

including the singularity.
(cause and effect)

 

[gnostic]

cause and effect... what causes everyone to hold the beliefs that they do? what causes different personality types, what causes new fashion trends, new political regiemes, new ages of the world - new worlds... The universe is made up of two basic entities - that which acts, and that which is acted upon.

But none of those, would require "god" to be answer for any of the above.

Thief tried repeatedly tried to insert God into the equation of cause-and-effect, without substance or evidence to support his claim.

I could substitute his insertion with the word "fairy" into his style of cause-and-effect, and the same pseudoscience rubbish would come out.

Without evidences, then it is not science, no matter what his declaration to "cause and effect".

 

[gnostic]

oh! so you admit I have reasoning......good.

No, I said that you are applying "circular reasoning".

Do you know what "circular reasoning" or "circular thinking" mean?

If you don't know, then look it up. It has nothing to with you being "rational", thief. It's quite the opposite.