Science Babble vs Truth

[Nimos]

I would like to say something here. I've been reading a few of the posts.
This has nothing to do with science in particular vs. the Bible. It has to do with my belief now in the existence of God. As a Maker and Creator. As a younger person I was not drawn to science. Although I did well in my classes. I also did not believe in, or understand the Bible, even though I was raised in a somewhat religious family in comparison with others. I have come to respect the Bible. Because of the confusion and horror often associated with religion, I eventually claimed to not believe in God.
(Things changed.)
Frankly, as I read rhese boards I am more interested in certain things regarding science. By that I mean reality. Such as why is there sometimes a thunder clap when there is a storm. And I'd love to find out particularly some day exactly how Thomas Edison performed his experiments. I'm very curious. So if that's what is called science, I'm for it.
But now I'm older and have come to believe there is a God who is superior and supreme. It makes much sense to me. That is now based on my perception of reality. By that I mean in part the difference between humans and others such as gorillas, chimpanzees, chipmunks, birds and the like, as well as perceiving the world around me. I no longer can believe that what we know and see came about without a directing (intelligent) force. By that force I mean that which produced progeneration or regeneration, somerimes called life.

Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want, but you ought to still have a good reason for why you think an intelligent creator is needed for this to happen. If you simply believe it because you can't explain or understand it, then you are basically doing an argument from ignorance or God of gaps, which is not meant personally, because a lot of people throughout the time have fallen for that, including Newton which is probably the greatest scientist to have ever lived, but as we know they have all been shown to be wrong.

So if by far the majority of scientists say that the lifeforms we know today is best explained by the theory of evolution and that this doesn't require or they see no evidence of there being an intelligent designer behind it. Then why would you see a need for a God when they don't?

The issue a lot of these scientists ran into such as Newton, were that they eventually couldn't explain something and it was first at that moment they invoked God, up until that point he weren't relevant. But as you know Einstein came along later and showed Newton where he had gone wrong and again there were no need for a God.

 

[nPeace]

It took people a long time figuring these things out, often having do to it with the church breathing down their neck, because it didn't match with what they wanted it to be.

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Later as we know now, the church have funny enough accepted that Earth is not in fact the center of the universe. This is just one example, then you can go through early history and see how many things the church have fought against, exactly as with evolution. And then later on, once it can't be denied anymore, they either ignore it or pretend like the bible always said it, or the bible didn't refer to that or that it was meant to be understood exactly as the scientist have figured it out after they did it.

Why you are telling me about people who did not and still do not teach or follow what the Bible says, I have no idea. Why are you telling me about people who were murdering other people while holding the Bible or walking around in religious robes? I was discussing the Bible, and its truth. Not men that speak lies. What do they have to do with truth?

But the Genesis account simply doesn't fit with science, which is also why many will hold the belief that it is just a poetic description of the creation. Or that God were the author of evolution etc.

There you go again. I'm sorry, but the Genesis account is in harmony with science. It doesn't fit with science babble. That is true.
Truth in poems and songs is still truth.

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that these were specifically from the bible and that it weren't normally like that. Most societies if not all at the time, didn't allow people to go around and murder and rob each other. It is nothing unique about the Israelites.

Pardon me? What are you referring to?
I demonstrated that people who lived by Bible standards benefit immensely.
People have discovered the value in many of the principles outlined in the Bible... some of which are only recently accepted.... Some of these many realize the need to return to, after they decried, some of those principles..

Keep in mind that many scientists, as you say, grew up in a home where the Bible was a very important "tool", or they were raised by someone who valued and quoted words from the Bible.

Were you always an Atheist? More than likely, you have some of those roots, which Atheists are painstakingly trying to remove.
Nevertheless, what we have been taught is lodged in our conscious, and yes, it does... it has trained our conscience... to a degree.
That's why there are some "decent" Atheists.

If you had solid evidence, I would strongly advice you to spend the time to present them here, because not only would you convince me, but you could change the whole world, not only when it comes to atheists, but believers as well. So I don't really see what could be more important than that and getting famous in the whole world as the first and so far only person ever to presented solid evidence for God.

That's funny Nimos. Very funny.
A man convinced against his own mind, or will is of the same opinion, or mind, still.
The person that only sees a "naturalistic" answer for everything, will never see anything besides that narrow view.
Just imagine the person who plants his feet between two long buildings or walls, and is determined to not see beyond that view.

It's as accurate as stated in Psalm 10:4. In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

I would be surprised if you denied this Nimos.
Take for example, this .. Is evolution more intelligent than we thought?
Please pay particular attention to the words used.
Professor Richard Watson says new research shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.
"When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces, it takes some imagination to understand how random variation and selection produced them. Sure, given suitable variation and suitable selection (and we also need suitable inheritance) then we're fine. But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory - but easy in learning theory.
"If evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces. Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."

I don't think I misunderstood his words, but please feel free to tell me if you think I did.
What is apparent to us through the senses, will... actually should lead to one conclusion. The evidence points to design. which follows that there is an intelligent designer.
However, the naturalist sees the same design, but the only answer. must be a "natural" one. Hence, natural selection is that designer, and of course, "we can find a perfect reason for why this is the case".

The evidence - circumstantial as is is - is interpreted in more ways than one.
Each person makes their choice. Each will accuse the other of imagination.
That's my point really Nimos. That is the purpose of this thread... to show that it's a matter - not of one side having evidence and the other not having any.
The Bible says, the evidence is clearly seen... that there is a creator.
(Romans 1:20) For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Scientists say, the evidence is clearly seen for natural processes being responsible for the universe and everything in it.
Atheists say, the evidence is clearly seen that there is no God.

I believe there will come a time will everyone living will agree on the same conclusion, but untill that time, there will always be this disagreement. There will be people who do not agree that natural processes were responsible for the universe, and everything in it. There will be people who do not agree that there is any creator... etc.
All one can do is present the evidence. The other will determine if they are convinced.
I really don't mind posting evidence, but I don't believe in doing so for the sake of... giving my fingers exercise ?
We have spoken at length on the thread "Evidence for God"... I believe, and I am sure we spoke at length on the thread "Why Trust the Bible".
I don't do reruns though, sorry. If it were your first time, I would oblige. Perhaps too, if I had time on my hands i might give it a second thought. As you can see, my time here recently has been scarce. I'm really busy. Who knows what the future may bring though, in this regard.

No. I am not fooled by those who say they "might learn" either, and they are still here on a debate forum, instead of on jw.org.
I believe the naturalist will also have a "natural" explanation for why the cockpit of the airplane has all these dial that needs to be precisely set for the flight to take its course and not end up, God knows where.
We are on a flight that seems to be "pre-programming" to take us safely through some dangerous airspace, yet some kind of "natural selection" must surely have been at work there too.
Sadly, they blame the mechanical failure on the pilot, and say that proves the dials precisely aligned on their own.

This might help. You probably will agree with one or more of the physicists.

 

[nPeace]

I think you misunderstand me.

Person A claim that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Person B claim that it is 200000 years old.
Person C claim that it is 4.7 billion years old.

You and me have to judge which of them is more likely to be correct. Person A say that he got this number because he added together some ages in the bible. Person B say that, he think its that old, because that seems like a lot. And Person C tells you:
One problem with this approach to dating rocks and minerals on Earth is the presence of the rock cycle. During the rock cycle, rocks are constantly changing between forms, going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary. Old rocks may even be destroyed as they slide back into Earth’s mantle, to be replaced by newer rocks formed by solidified lava. This makes finding an exact age for Earth difficult, because the original rocks that formed on the planet at the earliest stages of its creation are no longer here. The oldest rocks that have been found are about 3.8-billion years old, though some tiny minerals have been dated at 4.2 billion years.

To get around the difficulty presented by the rock cycle, scientists have looked elsewhere in the solar system for even older rock samples. They have examined rocks from the moon and from meteorites, neither of which have been altered by the rock cycle. The same techniques of radiometric dating have been used on those rocks. All the data from Earth and beyond has led to the estimated age of 4.5 billion years for our planet.

Wouldn't you agree that it is more likely that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old than any of the other options? And even if it turns out its only 4.3 billion years old, then its still far more accurate than 6000 years.

I know the bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, but you can add all the ages together and you get to around 6000 when we get to Adam, but despite that we also know that homo sapiens are way older than 6000 years anyway. But as mentioned above, most believers will argue that a day in Genesis can be millions or even billions of years. Because that is how they get around the 6000 years. Despite, that the bible clearly state that it is talking about a day.

But when all that is said, you and me as of the example above, still have to make up our mind about which of these claims are more likely to be correct. I assume we both agree that Person C is likely to be correct. But if we don't believe or trust in the method they have used for getting to the 4.5 billion, then why should we believe them over Person A?

And obviously my argument as mentioned here, is that we have fossils that are older and that the measurement of rocks etc. shows that the Earth must be older than 200000 years and therefore Person A and B must be wrong. And we have no reliable people claiming that our dating methods are wrong to the point where science is not the best answer we have when it comes to measuring the age of Earth.
So we have a good reason to believe Person C over Person A and B.


The point with this list of names is that you can add all the ages and get to the roughly the 6000 years. Which is why I highlighted Adam, as that is from the Genesis account. So if you believe the bible is correct in this naming of people, but don't agree that the Earth is 6000 years old, then surely the bible must have gotten something wrong here, because the ages will never add up to 4.5 billion. Which is why I said that a lot of people get around this issue, by saying that either Genesis is meant as just poetry (Which causes some issue with this timeline, because then who is Adam that is mentioned here?) or that a day in Genesis can be millions/billions of years. But regardless of how you twist and turn it, this puzzle will never add up, so something in the bible must be wrong here.

I think we can shake hands on two of your statements -
You and me have to judge which of them is more likely to be correct.
But when all that is said, you and me as of the example above, still have to make up our mind about which of these claims are more likely to be correct.

So rather than we go around in circles, with me repeating what I have said, and you not getting it - namely that you think you have this or that, or that "science" knows this or that, let's end on this good note. Each person will determine what is the most reasonable, sensible, logical, and clearly accurate or reliable... or what is truth... based on the evidence.

Nice having this discussion with you.
You can feel free to respond. I will pop on the forums at times, but it won't be as regular, and I just want you to know so that you be aware I might not give an immediate response.
Later.

 

[nPeace]

Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want, but you ought to still have a good reason for why you think an intelligent creator is needed for this to happen. If you simply believe it because you can't explain or understand it, then you are basically doing an argument from ignorance or God of gaps, which is not meant personally, because a lot of people throughout the time have fallen for that, including Newton which is probably the greatest scientist to have ever lived, but as we know they have all been shown to be wrong.

So if by far the majority of scientists say that the lifeforms we know today is best explained by the theory of evolution and that this doesn't require or they see no evidence of there being an intelligent designer behind it. Then why would you see a need for a God when they don't?

The issue a lot of these scientists ran into such as Newton, were that they eventually couldn't explain something and it was first at that moment they invoked God, up until that point he weren't relevant. But as you know Einstein came along later and showed Newton where he had gone wrong and again there were no need for a God.

I hear this idea mentioned by Atheists, but never have they been able to demonstrate that there is any truth to their god-of-the-gaps argument.
Do you have an actual reference to the claim that Newton invoked God because he could not find an explanation?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you have no idea if the translation you have been using, “close to the original”?

Quit this effort to obfuscate.
You can’t stand that the Bible is accurate in it’s revelation of there being “springs of the deep.”

I can’t help your discomfort.

Goodbye & take care, my cousin.

 

[Nimos]

Why you are telling me about people who did not and still do not teach or follow what the Bible says, I have no idea. Why are you telling me about people who were murdering other people while holding the Bible or walking around in religious robes? I was discussing the Bible, and its truth. Not men that speak lies. What do they have to do with truth?

To these people this were the truth, its no different from when I asked you earlier who decides whether YEC are right or not, you clearly think they are wrong yet they would disagree with you and say that your interpretation of the bible is wrong.

That is a huge issue with religions in general that it depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You simply claiming that their views are wrong doesn't make it so, since you haven't been able to demonstrate your own views as being the correct interpretation.

Were you always an Atheist? More than likely, you have some of those roots, which Atheists are painstakingly trying to remove.
Nevertheless, what we have been taught is lodged in our conscious, and yes, it does... it has trained our conscience... to a degree.
That's why there are some "decent" Atheists.

Yes have always been an atheist.

My point being that the bible is not unique in its views, lots of other cultures at the time followed similar rules, that you should not murder etc. So following common sense or any of the other cultures is equally as useful as following the bible in regards to this.

Professor Richard Watson says new research shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.
"When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces, it takes some imagination to understand how random variation and selection produced them. Sure, given suitable variation and suitable selection (and we also need suitable inheritance) then we're fine. But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory - but easy in learning theory.
"If evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces. Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."

There is a huge difference between saying something appears intelligently designed and it being so. It would be amazing if the polar bears lived where they do without any way to protect against the cold. Saying that they got fur due to something intelligent doesn't seem very likely, compared to them having gotten thick fur doing to evolution.

Saying that it is intelligently designed, is to look at it from a top to bottom approach, but evolution is bottom to top. Meaning that those polar bears that didn't evolved or got thick enough fur would have died from the cold and the rest would have made it so they could pass on their genes. Think about the million of species that have gone extinct, what does that tell you about them being intelligently designed?

I believe the naturalist will also have a "natural" explanation for why the cockpit of the airplane has all these dial that needs to be precisely set for the flight to take its course and not end up, God knows where.

Of course they do, the natural explanation is that we humans designed them and that all these buttons and switches have been added because we wanted them there to make airplanes better. So there is a perfectly natural explanation for it.

We are on a flight that seems to be "pre-programming" to take us safely through some dangerous airspace, yet some kind of "natural selection" must surely have been at work there too.

But we are not, and there are clear evidence for this not being the case. We know of 5 mass extinctions on the planet already and according to many scientists we might very well be heading for a 6 one at the moment.

A decent sized meteor from space could hit us and its lights out for humanity.

Each person will determine what is the most reasonable, sensible, logical, and clearly accurate or reliable... or what is truth... based on the evidence.

Yes, but my point being that adding together some ages from a book which is unverified as being accurate or even true, is not evidence worth anything.

I hear this idea mentioned by Atheists, but never have they been able to demonstrate that there is any truth to their god-of-the-gaps argument.
Do you have an actual reference to the claim that Newton invoked God because he could not find an explanation?

In that case you would have to read Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which I don't expect you will, haven't read it my self either.

The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

But as mentioned earlier, we know that Einstein explained it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I hear this idea mentioned by Atheists, but never have they been able to demonstrate that there is any truth to their god-of-the-gaps argument.
Do you have an actual reference to the claim that Newton invoked God because he could not find an explanation?

It's rather obvious that human beings have been placing gods in the gaps of our understanding for about as long as we've been on this planet.
What did human beings attribute lightning to, before they knew where lightning came from? Gods.
What did human beings attribute a bad harvest to, before they knew much about weather systems? Gods.
What did humans turn to before the understood the reproductive cycle? Gods.

We can see people doing this even today. I've seen several posters on this forum insert Gods into gaps when it comes to our understanding of evolution, or the origins or "fine tuning" of the universe or into miracle claims they can't explain, etc. Humans have created Gods to explain just about everything at some point in human history. Hence the reason there are so many Gods in the dustbin of our history.

Newton attempted to insert God into his (lack of) understanding of the workings of the solar system and planetary motion, suggesting that God had to periodically intervene to keep it all in working order.
No. 3012: Newton, God, and Gravity
What The 'God Of The Gaps' Teaches Us About Science

 

[gnostic]

Why you are telling me about people who did not and still do not teach or follow what the Bible says, I have no idea. Why are you telling me about people who were murdering other people while holding the Bible or walking around in religious robes? I was discussing the Bible, and its truth. Not men that speak lies. What do they have to do with truth?

That’s funny, when you considered that every things written and collected in the “bible” were written by men.

Those men who you say they would “lie”, are the same men who wrote those books.

You think the books were written by themselves?

And if the books were written by men, wouldn’t that mean those who wrote the NT are liars, therefore gospels and epistles are lies? The entire Bible is a whole lot of lies?

 

[YoursTrue]

Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want, but you ought to still have a good reason for why you think an intelligent creator is needed for this to happen. If you simply believe it because you can't explain or understand it, then you are basically doing an argument from ignorance or God of gaps, which is not meant personally, because a lot of people throughout the time have fallen for that, including Newton which is probably the greatest scientist to have ever lived, but as we know they have all been shown to be wrong.

So if by far the majority of scientists say that the lifeforms we know today is best explained by the theory of evolution and that this doesn't require or they see no evidence of there being an intelligent designer behind it. Then why would you see a need for a God when they don't?

The issue a lot of these scientists ran into such as Newton, were that they eventually couldn't explain something and it was first at that moment they invoked God, up until that point he weren't relevant. But as you know Einstein came along later and showed Newton where he had gone wrong and again there were no need for a God.

You say I ought to have a good reason as to why an intelligent creator is needed for ??? what to happen??? Life? The first thing in a universe that expanded? What??? lolol...okl, anyway...alright, I don't want to get too involved in every aspect or detail or what I think is creation, but! -- there are some questions that I am virtually guaranteeing you will have no answers other than -- somebody (with a capital S) had to make this possible. By this possible I mean forever. I don't mean in the next 1000 years, if humanity in its present state as if God does not exist, survives. (It won't though unless God makes it possible.) anyway -- some answers just have to be for some --
whatever...

Have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say I ought to have a good reason as to why an intelligent creator is needed for ??? what to happen??? Life? The first thing in a universe that expanded? What??? lolol...okl, anyway...alright, I don't want to get too involved in every aspect or detail or what I think is creation, but! -- there are some questions that I am virtually guaranteeing you will have no answers other than -- somebody (with a capital S) had to make this possible. By this possible I mean forever. I don't mean in the next 1000 years, if humanity in its present state as if God does not exist, survives. (It won't though unless God makes it possible.) anyway -- some answers just have to be for some --
whatever...

Have a good night.

Yes, change the word "God" to fairies and you will see why you need evidence.

"Fairies created the universe because you do not have another explanation". Does that sound very convincing to you? I hope not.

 

[YoursTrue]

To these people this were the truth, its no different from when I asked you earlier who decides whether YEC are right or not, you clearly think they are wrong yet they would disagree with you and say that your interpretation of the bible is wrong.

That is a huge issue with religions in general that it depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You simply claiming that their views are wrong doesn't make it so, since you haven't been able to demonstrate your own views as being the correct interpretation.


Yes have always been an atheist.

To these people this were the truth, its no different from when I asked you earlier who decides whether YEC are right or not, you clearly think they are wrong yet they would disagree with you and say that your interpretation of the bible is wrong.

That is a huge issue with religions in general that it depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You simply claiming that their views are wrong doesn't make it so, since you haven't been able to demonstrate your own views as being the correct interpretation.


Yes have always been an atheist.

My point being that the bible is not unique in its views, lots of other cultures at the time followed similar rules, that you should not murder etc. So following common sense or any of the other cultures is equally as useful as following the bible in regards to this.


There is a huge difference between saying something appears intelligently designed and it being so. It would be amazing if the polar bears lived where they do without any way to protect against the cold. Saying that they got fur due to something intelligent doesn't seem very likely, compared to them having gotten thick fur doing to evolution.

Saying that it is intelligently designed, is to look at it from a top to bottom approach, but evolution is bottom to top. Meaning that those polar bears that didn't evolved or got thick enough fur would have died from the cold and the rest would have made it so they could pass on their genes. Think about the million of species that have gone extinct, what does that tell you about them being intelligently designed?


Of course they do, the natural explanation is that we humans designed them and that all these buttons and switches have been added because we wanted them there to make airplanes better. So there is a perfectly natural explanation for it.


But we are not, and there are clear evidence for this not being the case. We know of 5 mass extinctions on the planet already and according to many scientists we might very well be heading for a 6 one at the moment.

A decent sized meteor from space could hit us and its lights out for humanity.


Yes, but my point being that adding together some ages from a book which is unverified as being accurate or even true, is not evidence worth anything.


In that case you would have to read Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which I don't expect you will, haven't read it my self either.

The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

But as mentioned earlier, we know that Einstein explained it.

My point being that the bible is not unique in its views, lots of other cultures at the time followed similar rules, that you should not murder etc. So following common sense or any of the other cultures is equally as useful as following the bible in regards to this.


There is a huge difference between saying something appears intelligently designed and it being so. It would be amazing if the polar bears lived where they do without any way to protect against the cold. Saying that they got fur due to something intelligent doesn't seem very likely, compared to them having gotten thick fur doing to evolution.

Saying that it is intelligently designed, is to look at it from a top to bottom approach, but evolution is bottom to top. Meaning that those polar bears that didn't evolved or got thick enough fur would have died from the cold and the rest would have made it so they could pass on their genes. Think about the million of species that have gone extinct, what does that tell you about them being intelligently designed?


Of course they do, the natural explanation is that we humans designed them and that all these buttons and switches have been added because we wanted them there to make airplanes better. So there is a perfectly natural explanation for it.


But we are not, and there are clear evidence for this not being the case. We know of 5 mass extinctions on the planet already and according to many scientists we might very well be heading for a 6 one at the moment.

A decent sized meteor from space could hit us and its lights out for humanity.


Yes, but my point being that adding together some ages from a book which is unverified as being accurate or even true, is not evidence worth anything.


In that case you would have to read Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which I don't expect you will, haven't read it my self either.

The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

But as mentioned earlier, we know that Einstein explained it.

OK, here we go.
Einstein couldn't say whether there is or is not a God. (He wouldn't dare because he evidently had no faith in any god in particular, raised as a Jew but did not believe...but I have my opinion about that and maybe one day I will meet him and we can share a meal and have a nice conversation about that.)
I won't go on right now about Einstein, a man of interest to many.

 

[YoursTrue]

To these people this were the truth, its no different from when I asked you earlier who decides whether YEC are right or not, you clearly think they are wrong yet they would disagree with you and say that your interpretation of the bible is wrong.

That is a huge issue with religions in general that it depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You simply claiming that their views are wrong doesn't make it so, since you haven't been able to demonstrate your own views as being the correct interpretation.


Yes have always been an atheist.

My point being that the bible is not unique in its views, lots of other cultures at the time followed similar rules, that you should not murder etc. So following common sense or any of the other cultures is equally as useful as following the bible in regards to this.


There is a huge difference between saying something appears intelligently designed and it being so. It would be amazing if the polar bears lived where they do without any way to protect against the cold. Saying that they got fur due to something intelligent doesn't seem very likely, compared to them having gotten thick fur doing to evolution.

Saying that it is intelligently designed, is to look at it from a top to bottom approach, but evolution is bottom to top. Meaning that those polar bears that didn't evolved or got thick enough fur would have died from the cold and the rest would have made it so they could pass on their genes. Think about the million of species that have gone extinct, what does that tell you about them being intelligently designed?


Of course they do, the natural explanation is that we humans designed them and that all these buttons and switches have been added because we wanted them there to make airplanes better. So there is a perfectly natural explanation for it.


But we are not, and there are clear evidence for this not being the case. We know of 5 mass extinctions on the planet already and according to many scientists we might very well be heading for a 6 one at the moment.
...

Mass extinctions, you say? OK -- is it that all life was exterminated, or just a portion of it? This next mass extinction you say many scientists are forecasting -- would that be because of human intervention in the state of life that is perhaps beneficial for life on earth, such as waste, toxic fumes, overuse of timber, etc.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mass extinctions, you say? OK -- is it that all life was exterminated, or just a portion of it? This next mass extinction you say many scientists are forecasting -- would that be because of human intervention in the state of life that is perhaps beneficial for life on earth, such as waste, toxic fumes, overuse of timber, etc.?

Just a large portion of it. If all life went extinct we would not be here.

 

[Nimos]

OK, here we go.
Einstein couldn't say whether there is or is not a God. (He wouldn't dare because he evidently had no faith in any god in particular, raised as a Jew but did not believe...but I have my opinion about that and maybe one day I will meet him and we can share a meal and have a nice conversation about that.)
I won't go on right now about Einstein, a man of interest to many.

No one can, because so far no one have been able to provide any evidence for one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want, but you ought to still have a good reason for why you think an intelligent creator is needed for this to happen. If you simply believe it because you can't explain or understand it, then you are basically doing an argument from ignorance or God of gaps, which is not meant personally, because a lot of people throughout the time have fallen for that, including Newton which is probably the greatest scientist to have ever lived, but as we know they have all been shown to be wrong.

So if by far the majority of scientists say that the lifeforms we know today is best explained by the theory of evolution and that this doesn't require or they see no evidence of there being an intelligent designer behind it. Then why would you see a need for a God when they don't?

The issue a lot of these scientists ran into such as Newton, were that they eventually couldn't explain something and it was first at that moment they invoked God, up until that point he weren't relevant. But as you know Einstein came along later and showed Newton where he had gone wrong and again there were no need for a God.

If I can explain how pencils are made, or how graphite is formed, why does that mean there is no need for a God? On the other hand, life itself tells a person there is a God. But it is possible, with all the confusion and horror stories around that many would come to the conclusion that there is no God. For my own experience, and I'm sure it's not everybody's, I have come to realize that there IS a God who is Supreme and who cares for people. But that's me and as logical as it seems to me, I realize it's not for everybody.

 

[Nimos]

Mass extinctions, you say? OK -- is it that all life was exterminated, or just a portion of it? This next mass extinction you say many scientists are forecasting -- would that be because of human intervention in the state of life that is perhaps beneficial for life on earth, such as waste, toxic fumes, overuse of timber, etc.?

More than 99 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 75 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of an eye in catastrophes we call mass extinctions.

The current talk about an extinction is because of how things are going on Earth mostly due to human impact on the environment.

It's impossible to deny — humans are destroying the natural environment at an unprecedented and alarming rate. According to a new report out Tuesday, animal populations have declined by such a staggering amount, that only an overhaul of the world's economic systems could possibly reverse the damage.

Nearly 21,000 monitored populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians, encompassing almost 4,400 species around the world, have declined an average of 68% between 1970 and 2016, according to the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2020. Species in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as global freshwater habitats, were disproportionately impacted, declining, on average, 94% and 84%, respectively.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one can, because so far no one have been able to provide any evidence for one.

The evidence is life itself. But moreso than that, yes, what really caused me to believe is my study of the Bible. Does God Exist? Is there a God? | Bible Questions (jw.org)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is life itself. But moreso than that, yes, what really caused me to believe is my study of the Bible. Does God Exist? Is there a God? | Bible Questions (jw.org)

You still do not understand the concept of evidence. And in this case you are wrong. Life itself does not support you.

 

[Nimos]

The evidence is life itself. But moreso than that, yes, what really caused me to believe is my study of the Bible. Does God Exist? Is there a God? | Bible Questions (jw.org)

Why is it that people think they can find evidence for God in the bible? Its the very book that makes the claim, obviously it is going to support it.

 

[YoursTrue]

More than 99 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 75 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of an eye in catastrophes we call mass extinctions.

The current talk about an extinction is because of how things are going on Earth mostly due to human impact on the environment.

It's impossible to deny — humans are destroying the natural environment at an unprecedented and alarming rate. According to a new report out Tuesday, animal populations have declined by such a staggering amount, that only an overhaul of the world's economic systems could possibly reverse the damage.

Nearly 21,000 monitored populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians, encompassing almost 4,400 species around the world, have declined an average of 68% between 1970 and 2016, according to the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2020. Species in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as global freshwater habitats, were disproportionately impacted, declining, on average, 94% and 84%, respectively.

OK, that's what I thought you meant, that mankind, the latest organism in the evolutionary process, has used his power to virtually ruin the earth. This time, I suppose. The Bible logically says that God will not allow that to happen. It says, in contrast, that God will ruin those who are ruining the earth. Revelation 11:18 - (it says that God will ruin those ruining the earth.)
So I knoiw you don't believe in the Bible, but I have come to believe it, since -- i.t ... m.a.k.e.s....s.e.n.s.e -- to me.