Happy Atheist Forum

hi all

my name is angelo. i am a born again evangelical christian. i would like to share
my belief with who ever wants to know better the christian faith. i am not here to try to convert anyone , because, this is a personal decision, but to explain issues, that many of you might have pre judgement and not a comprehensive knowledge. I intend to respect anyone's convictions here, and expect the same of you.

So let me make my first question. Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

I am an atheist because there is no evidence to suggest the supernatural is anything but fiction. I don't really have a problem with other people believing in fiction, to each their own, but I've found that a more realistic and reasonable perception of the world is a more healthy way to live. I can't provide evidence that god doesn't exist, but that fact in and of itself proves reasonably that certain belief in god is illogical. I can easily demonstrate that evidence presented that god does exist is incorrect, and that ideas that spring from the theisticâ€"6,000 year old earth, intelligent design, etc.â€"not only are incorrect, but present a clear and present threat to scientific advancement as they only require their own personal interpretation of ancient religious texts for evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)

Quote from: "angelosergipe"hi all

my name is angelo. i am a born again evangelical christian. i would like to share
my belief with who ever wants to know better the christian faith. i am not here to try to convert anyone , because, this is a personal decision, but to explain issues, that many of you might have pre judgement and not a comprehensive knowledge. I intend to respect anyone's convictions here, and expect the same of you.

So let me make my first question. Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

Angelo.... a very familiar sounding name!!  maybe you might consider re-registering with an alternative name if you want to be taken as a serious debator in an atheist forum?

In answer to your first question: our 'evidence' that what you refer to as your 'god' does not exist is simply the lack of any evidence at all that he/she/it does.  

In return, let me put my first question to you: Do you believe in leprechauns?  If you do, tell me what evidence you have; If you do not, please tell me what evidence you have that leprechauns do not exist.
 
I am advised that thousands of Irish men have seen leprechauns on Saturday nights, but have not been told of any of them having seen your 'god'; given that most Irish are catholic with a direct link to Mr G and his 'holy mother', I am surprised that he/she/it allows the leprechauns to steal the limelight.

Hi angelosergipe!

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

Okay, 2 part question.

Part 1) I'm an atheist because I do not believe the religious claims about the existence of a god, heaven, hell, spirits, karma, afterlife, souls, etc.  In none of these cases has any argument been presented to me that seems sound.  None of these claims are believable to me either on the basis that they don't make sense or that there is no compelling evidence to support the claim.  Hence I am an atheist.

Part 2) I do not need evidence that god does not exist in order to not believe that he does.  To explain this further, I also do not have any evidence that god does exist.  Without this evidence, why would I believe god exists?  If I don't believe god exists, then I am an atheist.  Why?  Because I don't believe.  Simple.  The word "atheist" is a negative definition: it means "not a theist".  The theist makes a claim, "god or gods exist"; an "atheist" is defined as a person who rejects that claim.  The atheist may reject the claim either because he believes it to be false (there are no gods) -or- because he believes it to be unknown (there may or may not be any gods, but the claim put forward by the theist is without reason and/or evidence, so I reject this claim and fail to believe it on the grounds that the matter remains unknown).  This second form is usually termed 'agnostic atheism' or 'weak atheism'.  It is how I would describe myself.

This is a simple point, but one that is often misunderstood about atheism.  The problem with requiring evidence for the non-existence of things becomes apparent as soon as you change the subject from the god of the bible to something else.  For example: what evidence can you present that Thor does not exist?  What evidence can you present that the 'Flying Purple People Eater' does not exist?  Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. etc.  Yet without positive evidence of the non-existence of these things - do you believe they exist?  This is the problem.  If we make our default behavior to believe in anything that we can't positively disprove, we're going to have to accept all sorts of silly beliefs.  Isn't it better to only believe in things that we have a reason to believe in?  Not just believe in everything that can't be positively disproven?

most have said : there is no evidence to say God does exist. I don't agree categorically. First evidence God exists is creation.

Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it.

Since science generally agrees that the universe had a beginning ( the second law of thermodynamics also reforces this claim ), there was someone, or something, that started the whole process. Otherwise, nothing would have appeard.

The bible. it is impossible, that e genious mind simply invented the bible, and it is all fantasy. Archaeology confirms that the events, and places mentioned in the bible, existed.

The scientific correctness of the bible text.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm)

1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

Profecies :  over 1000 prophecies were made in the bible, and many fullfilled already, and many are in the way to be fullfilled. just see israel, that is a nation again. something, predicted in the bible a view thousend years ago.

Tesimonies : millions of people all over the world have been transformed and blessed by the message of the gospel. and inumerous can tell how God did interveen in their lives.

Maybe you should read some of the threads posted before on this website, then you might see that what you are telling is nothing new and has been refuted already hundreds of time.

Refuted successfully, I might add. Jeez, I myself could take apart each of these... but I already have. Ad nauseam.

Frankly, it frightens me that people can so easily suspend their reason to accommodate such fictions.

I'll go ahead and give my answer. Do you really believe that  the only reason there are Atheists are because we have never heard about god? I was raised baptist so I know what religion has to say.

I stopped believing in god when I realised how much I disagreed with what the church had to say. I can not get behind a god that is intolerant of his own creation. When I was younger and went to church I was only shown the nice bits of the bible. It wasn't until I started reading the other parts that I saw how terrible that book is.

And look Christians make up around 90% of the country. Please leave our very small percentage alone.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"most have said : there is no evidence to say God does exist. I don't agree categorically. First evidence God exists is creation.

You're not using scientific terms already causes problems with your case. If you mean the source of life on Earth, then we already have many wonderful theories, each with evidence. Some of that evidence is undeniable, none of it has anything to do with a mythological entity.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it.

Life can come from non-life, in fact. While I don't imagine googling "origin of life" is particularly difficult, nor is going to science class at school, I will briefly explain some evidence:
- The Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment) in the 1950s demonstrated how simply combining gasses present several billion years ago on earth,  water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), could create organic amino acids. This is proof positive of organic compounds from non-life.
- After WW2, scientist Sidney W. Fox studies spontaneous formation of peptides from amino acids (like those amino acids created from inorganic elements above). He was able to demonstrate that peptides could be formed by those amino acids spontaneously.
- Peptides and amino acids can catalyze aldol reactions, some of which can yield sugars. This can be a metabolic cycle.

Bam. Life.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Since science generally agrees that the universe had a beginning ( the second law of thermodynamics also reforces this claim ), there was someone, or something, that started the whole process. Otherwise, nothing would have appeard.

'Science' does not generally agree that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory, the most prevalent theory of the current incarnation of the universe, does not necessarily require an absolute beginning (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html). Some scientists believe that the universe had a beginning, an other scientists like myself disagree. Each side does have some evidence, fortunately, but none of it has anything at all to do with mythological figures. Even if the universe had a beginning, and we weren't able to explain it, reasonably, god would still be the least likely possibility. Why? God, according to most religious texts, exists outside any understandable rule of science. That automatically make him/her/it the most complex and thus least likely answer to any scientific question.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"lThe bible. it is impossible, that e genious mind simply invented the bible, and it is all fantasy. Archaeology confirms that the events, and places mentioned in the bible, existed.

Just like events from literally every mythology on Earth have some historical reference. This is simply because the authors wrote in actual occurrences for credibility. If I were to write a bible which included my full understanding of human history (which considering I'm a history buff, would be extensive), would that make it true? Obviously not as I myself would be making it up.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"The scientific correctness of the bible text.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm)

1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

Astronomy predates Christianity by thousands of years. The Indians were aware of a heliocentric universe thousands of years prior to the supposed birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It's not a prophecy if it's already been discovered.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Profecies :  over 1000 prophecies were made in the bible, and many fullfilled already, and many are in the way to be fullfilled. just see israel, that is a nation again. something, predicted in the bible a view thousend years ago.

Many? How many and which? I'd like to be able to refute them each for you.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Tesimonies : millions of people all over the world have been transformed and blessed by the message of the gospel. and inumerous can tell how God did interveen in their lives.

Millions of people are also made happy by Marijuana. Do you worship cannabis?

"and what evidence do you have to claim..."

I won't get into the details of this argument, but I do have something to say. The burden of proof is on you, man! Atheists claim there is no God based on the fact that He's nowhere to be found. Any relationship Christians claim with the almighty is imaginative at best. If we're supposed to have an intimate relationship with Jesus, then we should be able to call him on the phone or have lunch, you know?

I am an atheist primarily because it makes sense, not because anyone has specific proof. What’s more likely: that a man rose from the dead, or that somebody made it up? People like to make up spectacular and meaningful religious stories. They have done it for thousands of years. And if one religious narrative is made one up then it’s entirely possible they are all made up. Atheism, voila!

I used to be a Christian. In fact I was a Christian for the first 24 years of my life. I was the president of a high school Christian club, and also at my university. I many times considered ministry as a profession. I was tired of processing every sensory observation through my Christian filter. I would try and render every idea to the collective Christian world view. I realized how much richer life is when you don’t have to make sense of it through the pages of an ancient book. How boring it became, and how liberating it was when I finally just let go!

And by the way, you can't verify something you got out of the Bible with some other part of the Bible.

Good day!      

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it.

It's like I'm having a flashback...

quote from Angel..etc.: "Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it."

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!  Angel.. if you really want to continue these  arguments, please post something that we have not seen time and time before.  Not only is this clear plagiarism of another deluded individual who uses a similar posting name in atheist forums, but even the spelling mistakes are retained!  
Plagiarism has truly come of age with 'select-copy-paste!

Quote from: "angelosergipe"hi all

my name is angelo. i am a born again evangelical christian.

Surely, anyone who claims to be a Christian on the 'net cannot be one, if it is true that Jesus said that "you will know them by their fruits". So anything you write cannot be supposed to be a Christian argument.

Angelo, would you happen to be in Brazil?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"First evidence God exists is creation.

Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it.

No.

Really, who came up with this argument? It's ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing it. Saying how God exists because everything is "put together so perfectly" as if it's all so common sense and scientific and then turning around and saying the only reason for the IMPERFECT parts (e.g.; the pain of childbirth, birth defects and natural disasters)are because of Satan, that the universe was created in 7 days (Newsflash: The earth is billions of years old. Not thousands... BILLIONS), and that one day Jesus is going to come to earth to wield his magical powers is just absurd.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB).

Please tell me you're joking! Oh yes, the Bible is sooo scientific. Look, it says that there's sun during the day and there are moon and stars during night time! Oooh! That's so interesting! Good thing someone wrote that down. Oh, and speaking of your quote, here you go (from the King James version):
Jeremiah 31:35-17 - Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

First of all, if we lose the sun, moon, and stars, the people of Israel are not going to be the only DEAD PEOPLE. Oh, but we have measured to the center of the earth now, haven't we? Oh, but Israel is still around, isn't it? Oh, and hell? Yea, it wasn't there.

Gensis 1:16 says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Yes, the moon... it's a great light... not a bunch of dirt reflecting the sun. Oh, and those stars? They're not also suns that are just further away... they're just the little sparkley things.

I could go on FOREVER about contradictions in the Bible. What about the Tower of Babel? Just before that story, Genesis 10:5 says, "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." It's supposed to be providing an explanation to the different races of people with their own languages throughout the world. But, in chapter 11, it says that everyone spoke the same language until God got all butthurt that they were uniting themselves by building a tower to heaven (apparently, our sky scrapers are okay though... and God must have moved his heaven somewhere else) so he caused them all to speak seperate languages to divide them.

Religions spend SO much time looking for little loopholes or coming up with explanations for things but can somehow turn a blind eye to how silly it all is. Tell me who came first... Adam or the animals? Because Gen 1:25,26,27 says that Adam was created AFTERWARDS and Gen 2:18,19 said that he was created BEFORE. I mean, it's right there in black and white, staring at you in the face.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"So let me make my first question. Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

Hi Angelo... nice to have you here.

I do not claim to have any evidence that god doesn't exist... you cannot have evidence for something that doesn't exist.  That's not scientifically possible.  If you have evidence for something, it must exist.  So having evidence for something that doesn't exist is a red herring in this discussion.

It is incumbent upon the person making the claim that something exists to prove it exists.  And the fact that a book says it exists is not proof.  If that is all there is to prove it exists, then I posit that Harry Potter and Hogwarts exists.  Prove to me that it doesn't.  You can't.

I'm an atheist for many reasons, primarily because there is no evidence that a supreme being exists.  The possibility is so low, it's not worth looking for it anymore.  And if that god DOES exist, he's a mean, vindictive, manipulative being that doesn't deserve my devotion.  

I believe in being a good person because it's the right thing to do, not because a book tells me to.

So... what is your next question?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"most have said : there is no evidence to say God does exist. I don't agree categorically. First evidence God exists is creation.

Not true... the fact that we exist is a story that is covered by ALL religions so that doesn't prove the existence of the Christian god any more than it proves the existence of any other god(s).  I can provide evidence that the Big Bang resulted in our existence and it is just as valid (if not moreso) because of the evidence for it.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it.

You mean "life" right?  Where are you getting your copy and paste?  If you can't get "life," how did you get "codify"?  And codification doesn't prove the existence of god.  HUMANS came up with the code of DNA... just because DNA and a code thereof exists doesn't prove the existence of god.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Since science generally agrees that the universe had a beginning ( the second law of thermodynamics also reforces this claim ), there was someone, or something, that started the whole process. Otherwise, nothing would have appeard.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been manipulated by the religious community and the scientific community has refuted that repeatedly.  It's a we said/they said argument that means nothing and cannot prove god.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"The bible. it is impossible, that e genious mind simply invented the bible, and it is all fantasy. Archaeology confirms that the events, and places mentioned in the bible, existed.

There are MANY documents that mention many of the events mentioned in the bible.  The fact taht they are also mentioned in the bible doesn't prove the existence of god.  It proves that many people have a lot of the same ideas.  It happens now and it happened then.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"The scientific correctness of the bible text.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm)

1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

Profecies :  over 1000 prophecies were made in the bible, and many fullfilled already, and many are in the way to be fullfilled. just see israel, that is a nation again. something, predicted in the bible a view thousend years ago.

Tesimonies : millions of people all over the world have been transformed and blessed by the message of the gospel. and inumerous can tell how God did interveen in their lives.

Bull.  You cannot quote the bible to prove god any more than I can quote Harry Potter to prove Voldemort exists.  The "millions of people can't be wrong" theory is also bull.  YES they can be wrong... There are hundreds of thousands of Mormons as well... the fact that there are so many of them doesn't prove that belief system is true either.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"hi all

my name is angelo. i am a born again evangelical christian. i would like to share
my belief with who ever wants to know better the christian faith. i am not here to try to convert anyone , because, this is a personal decision, but to explain issues, that many of you might have pre judgement and not a comprehensive knowledge. I intend to respect anyone's convictions here, and expect the same of you.

So let me make my first question. Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

Hey, nice to have you here. I'm fairly certain that most of the people here do have a hefty dose of 'comprehensive knowledge' regarding religion - many of them are ex-Christians themselves - so nobody's really pre judging anything, as such. As for me, I've never been religious in any way, however I'm on several Christian forums and only one atheist one (I like having lots of people to disagree with cuz I'm just perverse that way :D

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Profecies : over 1000 prophecies were made in the bible, and many fullfilled already, and many are in the way to be fullfilled. just see israel, that is a nation again. something, predicted in the bible a view thousend years ago.

The only reason Israel is a nation again is because of that prophesy, you realise. As such it's completely self-fulfilling, much like many of the others. Either that or they're simply very vague and it would be shocking if they didn't happen sooner or later.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Tesimonies : millions of people all over the world have been transformed and blessed by the message of the gospel. and inumerous can tell how God did interveen in their lives.

Many more people have experienced placebo.

Does the Bible Contain Scientific Errors?

Many Christians assume the Bible contains scientific errors, and that it is authoritative only when it speaks on spiritual matters. But that is saying in effect that the God who wrote the Bible knew a lot about spiritual things, but not too much about science. To say that parts of the Bible are accurate, but others are not is to deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Since God knows all things, and what He speaks is true (cf., Titus 1:2), all that the Bible teaches is accurate, not just its spiritual truths.

The issue is not between science and Scripture; the issue is whether man will submit to the Word of God. Romans 1:28 describes people who refuse to submit as those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Because they rejected God's revelation of Himself as Creator, men came up with the only alternative: that the universe and everything in it just happened.

Lesson

I. THERMODYNAMICS

There are three principles basic to science: matter, energy, and the space-time continuum. Science tells us that none of the three can exist without the other two; therefore all three must have existed from the beginning of the universe. Note that Genesis 1:1 mentions all three: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

A. The First Law of Thermodynamics

The Bible says in Genesis 2:2 that "God ended His work which He had made." The matter and energy that was part of the original creation is all there will ever be; no new matter or energy is being created. The complete cessation of creative activity has been recognized by modern science as the first law of thermodynamics, or the law of the conservation of mass and energy. According to this law, which is one of the most universal and certain of all scientific principles, nothing is now being created or destroyed. That principle is illustrated in the following verses:

1. Isaiah 40:26--"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, who bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might; for he is strong in power. Not one faileth."

2. Nehemiah 9:6--"Thou, even thou art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are in it, the seas, and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all."

3. Ecclesiastes 3:14-15--"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it .... That which hath been is now, and that which is to be hath already been."

The Word of God accurately states the first law of thermodynamics.

B. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

This law, also known as the law of entropy, tells us that though energy cannot be destroyed, its ability to do useful work decreases. Systems tend to degenerate from a state of order to a state of chaos. Science tells us that eventually this process will lead to the death of the universe.

The Bible teaches that the second law of thermodynamics is a result of the Fall. Romans 8:20-22 says, "The creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Although that passage pictures the entire creation as progessively breaking down, it also gives us hope for the future. When God creates the new heaven and the new earth, the second law of thermodynamics will not operate. In that new creation there will be no more curse, death, decay, or sin.

II. HYDROLOGY

A. Defined

Hydrology is the branch of science that studies the waters of the earth. In the hydrologic cycle, water evaporates into the atmosphere and is redeposited onto the earth in the form of rain or snow. That precipitation feeds rivers, which flow into the ocean. Evaporation from the ocean forms clouds, from which precipitation falls on the land, and the cycle repeats itself.

B. Described

The science of hydrology was founded in the seventeenth century by Mariotte, Perrault, and Halley, but the hydrologic cycle is clearly described in Scripture:

1. Isaiah 55:10-11--"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (NASB).

2. Ecclesiastes 1:7--"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full." That's because of the hydrologic cycle.

3. Job 36:27-28--"He [God] draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly" (NASB).

4. Psalm 135:7--"He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain." This verse speaks of evaporation and precipitation.

5. Job 26:8--"He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not torn under them." This verse speaks of the formation of clouds by condensation.

6. Job 28:10--"He cutteth out rivers among the rocks." This verse describes run-off.

7. Job 38:22--"Hast thou entered into the treasuries of the snow? Or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail?" This speaks of the clouds.

III. ASTRONOMY

A. The Size of the Universe

1. Job 22:12--"Is not God in the height of heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" Although the height of the stars was unknown until the nineteenth century (Jean Sloat Morton, Ph.D., Science in the Bible [Chicago: Moody, 1978], p. 15), the book of Job recognized they were very distant from the earth.

2. Jeremiah 31:37--"Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord." This verse mentions the immense size of the universe. It also tells us that God will not permanently set aside Israel.

B. The Variety of Stars

1. Jeremiah 33:22--"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David, my servant." The invention of the telescope in the seventeenth century made men aware of the vast number of stars. Beforehand scientists had said the total number was only in the hundreds or thousands. Only about four thousand can be counted with the unaided eye. Today no one knows how many stars there are, but "with the giant telescopes now available ..., astronomers have statistically estimated that there are about 1025 stars (that is, 10 million billion billion) in the known universe. One can also calculate that this is about the number of grains of sand in the world" (Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], p. 156; The Genesis Record [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976], p. 384). The Bible is accurate when it states the impossibility of numbering the stars.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:41--"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory." With the development of modern astronomy has come the realization that there is great variety of sizes and degrees of brightness among stars. If the Bible had stated that all stars were the same, it would have been in error. However, it doesn't say that because God knows as much about stars as He does about salvation!

C. The Order of the Solar System

1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

2. Psalm 19:6--Referring to the sun the psalmist says, "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hidden from the heat thereof." This verse took on new meaning when it was discovered that the sun, along with the other stars in our galaxy, revolve around the center of the galaxy. Astronomy books currently teach that the sun completes one such circuit every 250 million years (e.g., Robert Jastrow and Malcom H. Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers [New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977], p. 6)

IV. GEOLOGY

A. Isostasy

Isostasy is a field of study within geology that deals with the balance maintained within the earth's crust. The differing weights of the various types of rock maintain a delicate balance; otherwise the earth would wobble in its rotation like a lopsided basketball. Isaiah 40:12 says, "[God] hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and measured out heaven with the span, and measured the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance." Psalm 104:5, 8 tells us that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter .... The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which [He] didst establish for them" (NASB). The Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

B. Geodesy

This branch of geology studies the size and shape of the earth.

1. The ancient views

a) The flat-earth theory

People in ancient times thought of the earth as being a flat disk, like a record, surrounded by a river called Oceanus. It was believed that anyone foolish enough to sail through the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar) would fall off the earth into nothingness.

b) The Ptolemaic theory

Ptolemy, in the second century after Christ, proposed a spherical earth as the stationary center of the universe, with the sun and the other heavenly bodies revolving around it. Not until the sixteenth century with the discoveries of

Copernicus was this theory abandoned.

2. The biblical view

In contrast to the widely held ancient belief that the earth was flat, the Bible clearly teaches that it is round. Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Job 38:14 says, "It [the earth] is turned like clay to the seal." That is a reference to the small cylinders used in ancient times to put one's seal on a clay document. Those cylinders had sticks through the center, like a rolling pin, and while the clay was still soft, they would be rolled across it, leaving the impression of the seal. The Bible tells us the earth rotates on its axis like a cylinder making a seal.

V. METEOROLOGY

A. Wind Circulation

In the seventeenth century George Hadley discovered that the winds circulate around the earth. Thousands of years earlier the book of Ecclesiastes referred to this phenomenon: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits."

B. Air Pressure

Before the time of Galileo, it was not known that the air had weight. Evangelista Torricelli, a student of Galileo, invented the first barometer, proving the air has pressure. However, Scripture implied that thousands of years before. Job 28:25 says, "He imparted weight to the wind" (NASB).

Oh, how I wish I had the time and inclination to write a rebuttal to this pap.

I have about half the time I need, but really no inclination to do this again. It's like the movie, Groundhog Day. Same thing over and over again.

This is right out of the creationist manual of argument for those who cannot think for themselves.

Please, somebody with more patience take this!

Really, anyone with an actual knowledge of the crap that this guy is spewing can take this one.

I have to go take some Tylenol.   :roll:

Please forgive my lack of tolerance tonight.

I'm atheist because MY belief is that hypocrisy is the ultimate sin. Since the bible is our only way of hearing god's word, really, and the bible is full of hypocrisy as well as mean-ness (hope that's a word), then even if it was true, I would simply reject it.

Also, I can't find anything to prove that god exists. Scientists have proved where we were two thousand years ago, and where the things we evolved from were WAY before that. They can calculate the size of a black hole, and see farther into space than ever before. I'm confident that one day, scientists will discover when (if at all) the universe and life started.

You know what's wrong with creepy, preachy religious freaks like this angelo dude? They don't know how to think for themselves.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm)

If you had any idea what you were actually talking about, you'd put it in your own words and maybe just quote your source. In fact, you just keep copy and pasting that same lame internet source. The only way I'm pretty sure that the first post is yours is because you don't know how to use proper grammar.

Any caveman could observe things like water cutting away at rocks and the sun coming up in the morning. The AUTHOR (aka, not you) who wrote this is pulling things out of his butt. Trying to turn "God and everything he does is awesome forever" into the conservation of energy is a pathetic and desperate attempt at word-play. Let's use this especially humorous example:
Psalm 135:7--"He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain."
Sooooo, from the ends of the earth? Not like... the oceans, rivers, or other "bodies of water"? No wonder churches got so upset when people found out that the earth is ROUND! Lol, "the ends of the earth", haha! "He maketh lightnings for the rain" is also laughable. What, we don't get to know where lightning comes from? Gee, that's too bad. Good thing scientists found out that AIR FLOW AND TEMPERATURE actually cause lightning, not your invisible friend, and it doesn't necessarily have to be raining.

QuotePsalm 104:5, 8 tells us that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter .... The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which [He] didst establish for them" (NASB). The Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

This author (once again... not you) is a moron. Quoting "established the earth upon it's foundations" is not something that I would think he would wave around. Yes, upon it's foundations... of turtles. *mocks you*

Here's another biblical contradiction... just for fun... because the only people are probably going to read this with any thought are my fellow athiests and not Mr. Angelo:
Matthew 19:26 - "With God, all things are possible"
Judges 1:19 - "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

(Heh heh... Nooo! Not iron! Hehe)

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting someone else's words instead of responding to anything that WE have said. So, you obviously don't care enough to respond to what we say or to use whatever misguided "knowledge" that you think that you have. Hence, you are completely wasting our time and energy. It is completely offensive that your original post said that you wanted to inform us of things that we didn't understand, and then plagerize someone else's words. I have further opinions... but they would involve some pretty nasty words, so I'll just stop here.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"most have said : there is no evidence to say God does exist. I don't agree categorically. First evidence God exists is creation.

You're not using scientific terms already causes problems with your case. If you mean the source of life on Earth, then we already have many wonderful theories, each with evidence. Some of that evidence is undeniable, none of it has anything to do with a mythological entity.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Live can come only from live. DNA has a Code. Codification means there is something complex and organized, and there must be a intelligent mind behind it, to codify it.

Life can come from non-life, in fact. While I don't imagine googling "origin of life" is particularly difficult, nor is going to science class at school, I will briefly explain some evidence:
- The Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment) in the 1950s demonstrated how simply combining gasses present several billion years ago on earth,  water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), could create organic amino acids. This is proof positive of organic compounds from non-life.
- After WW2, scientist Sidney W. Fox studies spontaneous formation of peptides from amino acids (like those amino acids created from inorganic elements above). He was able to demonstrate that peptides could be formed by those amino acids spontaneously.
- Peptides and amino acids can catalyze aldol reactions, some of which can yield sugars. This can be a metabolic cycle.

this experiment has not taken important facts in consideration. first of all, why should these elements react without a external power and force, to behave exactly the way needed, to create live ? chance give billions of other possibilities, no one will have live as a result. why should chance choose exactly the right elements , combinations, complexity and order, to create live ? it is mathematically impossible. its not reasonable.

QuoteBam. Life.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Since science generally agrees that the universe had a beginning ( the second law of thermodynamics also reforces this claim ), there was someone, or something, that started the whole process. Otherwise, nothing would have appeard.
'Science' does not generally agree that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory, the most prevalent theory of the current incarnation of the universe, does not necessarily require an absolute beginning (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html). Some scientists believe that the universe had a beginning, an other scientists like myself disagree. Each side does have some evidence, fortunately, but none of it has anything at all to do with mythological figures.

i think God as a possible cause of the universe has to  be taken as very probable possibility, and not as a mythological figure. it is very unlikely that the universe had no creator as origin. even if it was eternal, as you claim, this hiptheses brings severe problemas. where does the power and force come from, that holds materia together ? where do the physical laws come from ? gravity, for example ? to take it as granted and normal , acceptable fact, that it existed naturally without a creator, is not racional. racional, without taking god in consideration, is, that nothing would exist. for any reasonable person, these are obstacles, that cannot be solved. It takes a big portion of faith to believe , no God did it.

QuoteEven if the universe had a beginning, and we weren't able to explain it, reasonably, god would still be the least likely possibility. Why? God, according to most religious texts, exists outside any understandable rule of science. That automatically make him/her/it the most complex and thus least likely answer to any scientific question.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm)

One presupposition held by many scientists is that "the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge" (Pearson, cited by Clark, p. 201). In other words, science allegedly has absolute authority. Science says that truth is discovered empirically, while the Bible says that man can't find ultimate truth on his own (1 Cor. 2:9-11; Rom. 11:33). It is here that one of the fundamental conflicts between science and Scripture is found. Science holds that only that which is observable and testable is true. Christianity holds that ultimate truth is found only in God's revelation.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"lThe bible. it is impossible, that e genious mind simply invented the bible, and it is all fantasy. Archaeology confirms that the events, and places mentioned in the bible, existed.

Just like events from literally every mythology on Earth have some historical reference. This is simply because the authors wrote in actual occurrences for credibility. If I were to write a bible which included my full understanding of human history (which considering I'm a history buff, would be extensive), would that make it true? Obviously not as I myself would be making it up.?

it is highly improbable that someone would just invent a story, as the bible tells us. and if, people of the first century were not stupid. do you think thousends of christians, which lived in the roman empire, did let torture themself and be killed, just for a fictionary book ? these people had a real experience with god, same as christians today have. thats why their faith is so strong. all over the globe, even today, people are persecuted because of their christians faith. and these people do not give up their faith.  why ?

?

QuoteMany? How many and which? I'd like to be able to refute them each for you. ?

you will be able doing it, but beeing  highly irracional. in the book of daniel, he predicted the exact year, jesus would be crucified. how do you explain that ?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Tesimonies : millions of people all over the world have been transformed and blessed by the message of the gospel. and inumerous can tell how God did interveen in their lives
Millions of people are also made happy by Marijuana. Do you worship cannabis?

this is a stupid comparison. it seems you do not want to take the hipotheses God seriously, want you ?

Quote from: "myleviathan""and what evidence do you have to claim..."

I won't get into the details of this argument, but I do have something to say. The burden of proof is on you, man! Atheists claim there is no God based on the fact that He's nowhere to be found.:)

QuoteAny relationship Christians claim with the almighty is imaginative at best.
.:)

QuoteIf we're supposed to have an intimate relationship with Jesus, then we should be able to call him on the phone or have lunch, you know? .:)

I am an atheist primarily because it makes sense, not because anyone has specific proof. .:)

QuoteWhat’s more likely: that a man rose from the dead, or that somebody made it up? People like to make up spectacular and meaningful religious stories. They have done it for thousands of years. And if one religious narrative is made one up then it’s entirely possible they are all made up. Atheism, voila!.:)

QuoteI used to be a Christian. In fact I was a Christian for the first 24 years of my life. I was the president of a high school Christian club, and also at my university. I many times considered ministry as a profession. I was tired of processing every sensory observation through my Christian filter. I would try and render every idea to the collective Christian world view. I realized how much richer life is when you don’t have to make sense of it through the pages of an ancient book. How boring it became, and how liberating it was when I finally just let go! .

life without God makes no sense at all. its absolut emptyness.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"So let me make my first question. Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

Hi Angelo... nice to have you here.

I do not claim to have any evidence that god doesn't exist... you cannot have evidence for something that doesn't exist.  That's not scientifically possible.  If you have evidence for something, it must exist.  So having evidence for something that doesn't exist is a red herring in this discussion.

It is incumbent upon the person making the claim that something exists to prove it exists.  And the fact that a book says it exists is not proof.  If that is all there is to prove it exists, then I posit that Harry Potter and Hogwarts exists.  Prove to me that it doesn't.  You can't.

I'm an atheist for many reasons, primarily because there is no evidence that a supreme being exists.  The possibility is so low, it's not worth looking for it anymore.  And if that god DOES exist, he's a mean, vindictive, manipulative being that doesn't deserve my devotion.  

I believe in being a good person because it's the right thing to do, not because a book tells me to.

So... what is your next question?

you might stop to talk about proofs, since talk about it is senseless. we have no proofs wheter god exists, or not, so we should talk about evidence. is there evidence, god exists ? of course !! without god, nothing would exist. order and complexity is always a evidence and sign of a intelligence behind it.

Quote from: "rlrose328"You mean "life" right?  Where are you getting your copy and paste?  If you can't get "life," how did you get "codify"?  And codification doesn't prove the existence of god.  HUMANS came up with the code of DNA... just because DNA and a code thereof exists doesn't prove the existence of god.

you are plain wrong here :

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm (http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm)

Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.

 â€œâ€¦ no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”{Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6}. Many atheists today are leaving a false argument about proteins to accept an even more false argument about RNA. The fact that RNA is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells is powerful evidence against life forming without a Creator.

Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place working together. These brilliant solutions are scientific facts and constitute evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "rlrose328"You mean "life" right?  Where are you getting your copy and paste?  If you can't get "life," how did you get "codify"?  And codification doesn't prove the existence of god.  HUMANS came up with the code of DNA... just because DNA and a code thereof exists doesn't prove the existence of god.

you are plain wrong here :

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm (http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm)

Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.

 â€œâ€¦ no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”{Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6}. Many atheists today are leaving a false argument about proteins to accept an even more false argument about RNA. The fact that RNA is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells is powerful evidence against life forming without a Creator.

Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place working together. These brilliant solutions are scientific facts and constitute evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

What else ya' got? Keep trying. You believe a staff can turn into a snake, water can turn into wine, god was scared by a bunch of men building a tower to heaven, and other such tripe, but atheists are the ones who have silly believes.

Right. You're wasting your time partner.

By the way, these statements...

"The fact that RNA is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells is powerful evidence against life forming without a Creator.

Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place working together. These brilliant solutions are scientific facts and constitute evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead."

...are asinine. And what's even more asinine is that you will now, of course, make the leap that you not only know who that supposed creator is, but that you also know which religion it wants us to practice.  :lol:

angelosergipe - there's probably not much point in discussing this with you - you clearly have your mind made up.  The biblical quotes you give are, frankly, amazing.  Open up any other religion's "true" scriptures and you will find similar observations about the world.  Why do you not accept these scriptures as true?  In fact, these quotes amount to somebody saying "the sun appears to rise in the morning, and set in the evening, each and every day" from which you deduce "Eureka!  The book is true, god is real, and we shall have life everlasting!".  These quotes aren't explanations of anything - they are simple observations that anybody can make.

Here's a little bit of what I mean:

QuoteAs the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater

When it rains plants grow.  I noticed this too.

QuoteAll the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full

:lol:  This one was truly inspired.  Small point: some rivers run into lakes.  They don't all run into the sea.  Also - what would it be like if the sea were full?  I could imagine an empty sea - but a full sea?  When would we consider the sea "full"?  When it covers all the land?  What if it gets deeper - is it then "overfull"?  This statement is ridiculous.  "the sea is not full" - come on man, you must be able to appreciate a little bit of the humor in that statement?  Laugh with me, it'll feel good  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  

QuoteHe causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain." This verse speaks of evaporation and precipitation

Um, okay, other than the fact that we know the physical principles that cause evaporation and precipitation, and lightning (since you neglected to mention that one, which the verse clearly seems to speak about).  Where is the conclusion that these things are caused by 'Him' justified?  Last time I checked nobody detected any god fields making it rain - just plain old physics man.

QuoteHe bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not torn under them." This verse speaks of the formation of clouds by condensation.

Again - the process by which clouds and condensation form is well understood - no god required for an explanation.

QuoteHe cutteth out rivers among the rocks." This verse describes run-off.

Two complaints about this one:
1) Technically, the water cuts the rock, not god
2) Describing run-off is not the same thing as explaining it.  If the theory of gravitation had been tacked in here then I would have been impressed.  But it wasn't.

QuoteIs not God in the height of heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!

Is god in the 'height of heaven'?  Is this supposed to be obvious or something?  Care to give me an example of where this fact was established?

Also - interesting to describe the distance of stars from earth as "height".  One could almost think the description suffers from a flat-earth mentality......

Quote"Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord." This verse mentions the immense size of the universe. It also tells us that God will not permanently set aside Israel.

Heaven can't be measured because nobody can find it - if it doesn't exist, how would one measure it?  But you claim this is not about heaven, but about the universe.  Okay - except that the size of the universe has been determined.  Maybe not precisely, but pretty well, wouldn't you say?  And yet Israel is still a nation.  Curious, no?  Or, on the other hand, how could one argue that the 'foundations of the earth' have not been 'searched out'?  We know exactly how big the earth is, what is inside of it, etc. etc. etc.  And yet Israel is still a nation.  Another curiosity.

QuoteThus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

Okay - it is hard for me to tell what the 'fixed order' is in this statement.  Any claim that the stars are in a 'fixed order' is false - all the stars are moving.  Over a long time the constellations change because the stars are changing their relative positions.  This appears to happen slowly because they are so far away and so far apart - but none-the-less, no 'fixed order' here.  In fact, the constellations even appear slightly different from different positions on the earth's orbit.  This effect is known as 'parallax' and is a widely used technique to estimate the distance of stars from the earth.

If, on the other hand, the 'fixed order' is just that the sun is visible in the day and the stars at night ---- well, even my 3 yo daughter has recognized that little fact  :roll:  .  This is alleged to be some enormous discovery of great insight?  Come on.  If this stops happening, then there either is no more sun or no more earth --- so Israel no longer being a nation seems like a safe bet.  Unless, by that time, human beings manage to populate other planets or space stations/ships and take their nationalities along with them.  Then maybe there could still be an Israel.  What difference would it make?

Anyway --- these above statements are ridiculous, but I'm going to tread on whole new ground below.  These subsequent claims expose your position for what it really is: denial.  The below statements are not just indifferent, they are abjectly, demonstrably, false.

QuoteIsostasy is a field of study within geology that deals with the balance maintained within the earth's crust. The differing weights of the various types of rock maintain a delicate balance; otherwise the earth would wobble in its rotation like a lopsided basketball. Isaiah 40:12 says, "[God] hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and measured out heaven with the span, and measured the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance." Psalm 104:5, 8 tells us that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter .... The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which [He] didst establish for them" (NASB). The Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

BUZZ!  Sorry, thanks for playing, make sure to get your parting gift.

Simple fact #1: Your description of isostasy is incorrect.  Here's a better description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy

Simple fact #2: the earth does totter.  Have you never heard of the precession of the earth?  Here's another wiki description (I know, the wiki is dark secret knowledge that is hard to access and understand, which probably explains why so few creationists seem to be familiar with it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession

The precession is caused by the equatorial bulge --- the earth is not a perfect sphere.  The attraction of the sun and moon play on the imbalance of the bulge and induce the precession.  Now - because this is so important, I'm going to highlight it:

QuoteThe Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

Then the bible is wrong.  Period.  The earth is demonstrably not balanced.  The effects of this imbalance are measurable even without sophisticated telescopes and scientific equipment - the precession of the equinoxes was observed at least as early as several hundred years BC.

QuoteIn contrast to the widely held ancient belief that the earth was flat, the Bible clearly teaches that it is round. Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Job 38:14 says, "It [the earth] is turned like clay to the seal." That is a reference to the small cylinders used in ancient times to put one's seal on a clay document. Those cylinders had sticks through the center, like a rolling pin, and while the clay was still soft, they would be rolled across it, leaving the impression of the seal. The Bible tells us the earth rotates on its axis like a cylinder making a seal.

The bible teaches the earth is 'round'.  Oops.  Too bad it didn't teach that is was spherical - then it would have been right.  What is the "circle of the earth"?  See what I mean - the earth is not a circle - it is basically a sphere.  A somewhat squished imperfect sphere, but it more resembles a sphere than a circle.  And, point of fact, circles are still flat, right?  A circle is a two dimensional shape - in three dimensions the circle will appear flat.  Simple.

Job 38:14 doesn't seem to support your conclusion.  It says the earth is turned like the clay - not like the seal.  And, the clay is flat.  The clay is not spherical.  But besides all that, saying the earth turns like a cylinder is also not completely correct.  The earth turns like a sphere.

Conclusion?  You discount all the scientific theories of origin of life because they are not yet complete.  Until a scientific experiment can replicate, exactly, the environment of ancient earth and demonstrate the spontaneous formation of life you simply will not even listen.  Yet - you give all sorts of credence to these biblical quotes that aren't even correct.  While you require the science of origin of life to be brutally exacting, you accept a garbage story "like a balanced cylinder" about the earth's rotation and play horse shoes with it: "close enough - must be correct!".

This double standard might work for you --- but hopefully you at least understand why it does not work for me.  You are not comparing these positions equally at all which is why you have come to your conclusions.  Your biblical defenses are really just rationalizations.

Thanks to all who took the time to read through all this - sorry about the length.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"you might stop to talk about proofs, since talk about it is senseless. we have no proofs wheter god exists, or not, so we should talk about evidence. is there evidence, god exists ? of course !! without god, nothing would exist. order and complexity is always a evidence and sign of a intelligence behind it.

Talking about "proofs" is senseless?  But reading the bible as the ultimate proof is logical, right?  Bah.

There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists.  The bible is not evidence (reference my Harry Potter idea above).  Creation is not evidence because creation cannot be proven either... I say magic is real because in Harry Potter it's real.  There you go.  Magic is real.  That argument makes as much sense as your "we exist because god created us; therefore, god is real" argument.  It's specious at best and ridiculous at worst.  And what makes it heinous is that you insist that we ALL believe your delusion.

Without god, nothing would exist?  Without Thor, nothing would exist.  Without Yahweh, nothing would exist.  Without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nothing would exist.  Without Zeus, nothing would exist...  

Are you getting this yet?  You have your god and many MANY other cultures have their god as well.  Which god are you referring to?

Order and complexity exist in many places without proof of a designer.  Just because something is orderly doesn't mean there HAS to be a designer!  How pompous are the religious!  "Things are nice and orderly, therefore, GODIDIT!"  Ugh.  :roll:

I've got to study for a test... this is making my head hurt.  

Quote from: "angelosergipe"you are plain wrong here :

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm (http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm)

Is abiogenesis possible?

You can have your own truth... and anything you post quoted from a creationism or religious site will be your own truth... but you cannot have your own facts.

Scientists have been working on creating life from nothing for years, that is quite true.  And they are very close to doing so.  There is plenty of scientific evidence for the big bang and the resultant evolutionary trail of life.  But... and pay attention closely here, my religious friend... there IS NO EVIDENCE for the creationism story.  NONE.  The fact that we exist is the only proof you have and that is not proof.  We're talking scientific proof here, not religious proof.

Religious proof is this:  "It's in the bible, therefore, it IS fact."  

Scientific proof is this:  "We have tested, retested, re-retested this information, using multiple disciplines and multiple sources, multiple tests and multiple methods.  We have come to the conclusion that, based on the information and evidence we currently have, this can be considered a theory, which is as close to fact as we are comfortable with at this time."

You see the difference?  I hope so.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"order and complexity is always a evidence and sign of a intelligence behind it.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.norcalblogs.com%2Fwatts%2Fimages%2Fsnowflakes.jpg&hash=0895a5da9deabab4f95cda0188a3ee49ae42b227)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimongurney.co.uk%2Famerica%2Fbolivia%2Fsimon_mushroom_rock.jpg&hash=1de6eeb65bd6fd94ebe63fc6353178b148bd4f58)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdebtorby.typepad.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2F2007%2F06%2F22%2Fgog_balance_rock_1_2.jpg&hash=13639a7a5f9fa5b5f4b4ba5343ffcd55f8d6286e)

It's always interesting to see these people run themselves around in circles.

Angelo, you are still insisting that your God created everything without evidence (and trying to twist those Bible scriptures into evidence was just hilarious). You can believe whatever you want, but it seems rather um... dense... of you to register to an Athiest site, claim that you want to "educate" us, and then say, "I don't need proof, I just believe, neener neener". You seem unable to grasp what we are telling you. Read this sentance a few times, maybe it will dawn on you:

Just because we haven't been able to completely figure out Big Bang or evolution theories does not mean that your belief (for which you do not have the slightest bit of proof to back it up) is correct.

1. The Christians LET themselves be tortured and killed? LOL! Okay, here's a quote for you:
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
Go drink your purple kool-aid now.  :roll:

2. Along the same line of thought from number one... A lot of Athiests believe that a man named Jesus existed, but was not the son of God... people just claimed that he was.

3. That wasn't a stupid comaprision. There are all sorts of things that make people happy (since our thought and behavior is really based on firing neurons in our brains). Some pick lying to themselves about going to heaven when they die, some pick other things.

4. Oh, what a wonderful topic!  :D Are you aware that we are mocking you? Are you aware that "complexity and order" aren't always the best ways to describe the universe? Why did God create Tsunami's, huh? That was really lame of him.

7. I don't believe in God and my life is far from empty! Ugh, you don't even know me (or anyone else here), so don't tell US about our lives. I have wonderful family and friends, a good job, free time, and hobbies. I'll even have a kid one day which I've heard makes life FAR from empty! I'm tired of hearing THAT one, too. People who are wasting half of their lives sitting in church (which is worse than school), patting themselves on the back and telling themselves that they are happier than everyone else. Mind-control at it's finest.

I'm happier NOW than when I was tied down with the rules and hypocracy of religion. There ARE some people in this world who can accept life for what it is... short... and just enjoy it! Not everyone has to lie to themselves because they're afraid for what will happen when they die.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Talking about "proofs" is senseless?  But reading the bible as the ultimate proof is logical, right?  Bah..

i didnt say the bible is a ultimate proof, but the ultimate truth, based on my faith and believe. its different.

Quote from: "rlrose328"There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists. ..

if you think so, don't believe in him.

..

QuoteWithout god, nothing would exist?  Without Thor, nothing would exist.  Without Yahweh, nothing would exist.  Without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nothing would exist.  Without Zeus, nothing would exist...  ..

in fact, the truth is only one. i believe the God of the bible exists, and is the truth.

..

QuoteOrder and complexity exist in many places without proof of a designer.  Just because something is orderly doesn't mean there HAS to be a designer!  How pompous are the religious!  "Things are nice and orderly, therefore, GODIDIT!"  Ugh.  :roll: ..

just see my post of DNA and RNA, and convince yourself.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "rlrose328"There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists. ..

if you think so, don't believe in him.

 :bang:  :lol:

Quote from: "Bella"It's always interesting to see these people run themselves around in circles.

Angelo, you are still insisting that your God created everything without evidence (and trying to twist those Bible scriptures into evidence was just hilarious)..

if you do not consider it valid evidence, then don't believe it. it's easy. in my opinion, its conclusive evidence. any other thinking and not believe in God, is , in my opinion, totally irracional.

.

QuoteYou can believe whatever you want, but it seems rather um... dense... of you to register to an Athiest site, claim that you want to "educate" us, and then say, "I don't need proof, I just believe, neener neener". You seem unable to grasp what we are telling you. Read this sentance a few times, maybe it will dawn on you:

Just because we haven't been able to completely figure out Big Bang or evolution theories does not mean that your belief (for which you do not have the slightest bit of proof to back it up) is correct. .

sorry, but only the RNA and DNA facts are compelling and conclusive evidence. but if you dont think it is, so believe in something else.... you have anyway only a vague believe either, that god does not exist. however, once again, without god, nothing would exist, specially not live.


let me ask you something. What do you search here at this site ? and at this thread ? if you are so convinced, god does not exist, then just live your life, and dont bother yourself with these questions. and dont question others, that have their faith and belief, in what god it might be.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"this experiment has not taken important facts in consideration. first of all, why should these elements react without a external power and force, to behave exactly the way needed, to create live?

You're asking why naturally occurring elements may interact? It's so simple, I'm finding it hard to explain, so let me put it this way: have you ever taken a breath? What are you breathing in? I can tell you. You're breathing in nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and plethora of other elements and compounds. How do they come together? They are so prevalent that they eventually and statistically must occur in the same areas most of the time. Likewise, the water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), each compounds that are incredibly common on earth today just the same as they were several billion years ago, they statistically must combine, in fact they certainly combined often. This means that as these combined often, the created amino acids often. No external power and force was required for that combination just the same as no external power or force is required to have nitrogen and oxygen together in our atmosphere.
[quote author="angelosergipe"chance give billions of other possibilities, no one will have live as a result. why should chance choose exactly the right elements , combinations, complexity and order, to create live ? it is mathematically impossible. its not reasonable. [/quote]
Forgive me for saying so, but it's clear you do not have the scientific nor mathematical expertise to give an opinion on what may or may not be possible in the evolutionary processes.
[quote="angelosergipe"]it is highly improbable that someone would just invent a story, as the bible tells us. and if, people of the first century were not stupid. do you think thousends of christians, which lived in the roman empire, did let torture themself and be killed, just for a fictionary book ?[/quote]
The word is "fictional". And of course. Just like people have died for Judaism, Islam, roman and greek mythology. People like to die for their interpretation of the meaning of life, whether it's reasonable or not. Palestinian suicide bombers die because they may have had a family member's home bulldozed. American soldiers die because they are trying to secure a country that has natural resources. There are plenty of nonsensical reasons to die, and people die for them every day. Someone dying for something hardly makes it true.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"these people had a real experience with god, same as christians today have. thats why their faith is so strong. all over the globe, even today, people are persecuted because of their christians faith. and these people do not give up their faith. why ?

Christians aren't persecuted. They don't give up on their faith simply because they've been brainwashed. It's a simple process.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"you will be able doing it, but beeing highly irracional. in the book of daniel, he predicted the exact year, jesus would be crucified. how do you explain that ?

He predicted the death of a fictional character in a collection of books that was not assembled until 1000 years later or more. I'd call it evidence that the bible is fake.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"this is a stupid comparison. it seems you do not want to take the hipotheses God seriously, want you ?

I think the word if hypothesis, but considering the usage I'm not really sure. I take god about as seriously as I take Zeus.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"if you do not consider it valid evidence, then don't believe it. it's easy. in my opinion, its conclusive evidence. any other thinking and not believe in God, is , in my opinion, totally irracional.

The word is 'irrational'. Evidence isn't something that's subjective. Quite to the contrary, evidence is something that is definite. Scientific records are clear to anyone with an understanding of science.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"sorry, but only the RNA and DNA facts are compelling and conclusive evidence. but if you dont think it is, so believe in something else.... you have anyway only a vague believe either, that god does not exist. however, once again, without god, nothing would exist, specially not live.

The word is "life". This quote is precisely why I fear Creationism being taught in schools. The misinformation decimated in order to support unscientific theories tends to lead people to believe in things that simply aren't true.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"let me ask you something. What do you search here at this site ? and at this thread ? if you are so convinced, god does not exist, then just live your life, and dont bother yourself with these questions. and dont question others, that have their faith and belief, in what god it might be.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Bella"It's always interesting to see these people run themselves around in circles.

Angelo, you are still insisting that your God created everything without evidence (and trying to twist those Bible scriptures into evidence was just hilarious)..

if you do not consider it valid evidence, then don't believe it. it's easy. in my opinion, its conclusive evidence. any other thinking and not believe in God, is , in my opinion, totally irracional.

.

QuoteYou can believe whatever you want, but it seems rather um... dense... of you to register to an Athiest site, claim that you want to "educate" us, and then say, "I don't need proof, I just believe, neener neener". You seem unable to grasp what we are telling you. Read this sentance a few times, maybe it will dawn on you:

Just because we haven't been able to completely figure out Big Bang or evolution theories does not mean that your belief (for which you do not have the slightest bit of proof to back it up) is correct. .

sorry, but only the RNA and DNA facts are compelling and conclusive evidence. but if you dont think it is, so believe in something else.... you have anyway only a vague believe either, that god does not exist. however, once again, without god, nothing would exist, specially not live.


let me ask you something. What do you search here at this site ? and at this thread ? if you are so convinced, god does not exist, then just live your life, and dont bother yourself with these questions. and dont question others, that have their faith and belief, in what god it might be.

You are NOW coming to an Athiest site and telling us not to belive in God. I DO live my life and I enjoy discussing my beliefs with others. However, we have to deal with people like you. Read this blog:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... nd-an.html (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html)
We have to deal with persecution and harrassment from people like you all of the time. Yea, newsflash for you: WE are the minority. WE are the persecuted ones. Once again, you should be ashamed of yourself. You also need to stop claiming that there can't be life without God. You have NOTHING to back that up other than your faith... which proves nothing. Hence, your claims mean nothing.
 
YOU have come to ME with your ideas of God, NOT the other way around. I don't question you, I simply think you are blind and stupid... no questioning necessary. All of that questioning is long behind me and I spent years converting from Jehovah's Witness to Athiest. You have nothing new to tell me or anyone else here. You have nothing substantial to say to any of our arguments and I'm ready for you to run back to the little hole from which you came. Why are you even here? Did you really think that Athiests are just lost people who haven't done their homework?! I don't "search" this site, I look at the most recent posts. I enjoy mocking religion with intelligent people (aka, not you) and I'm disgusted about the mob-mentality acts that religion glorifies.

"Don't bother myself with these questions". Oh, really? You have failed to respond to ANY of the biblical quotes that I have posted. Like I said, I could write a book. Trying to discuss religion with you is like trying to debate Nietzsche with a dalmation. When you can't plagerize someone else's words, you have nothing substantial to say (well, not like the other author did either... but at least he could form coherent sentances).

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"this experiment has not taken important facts in consideration. first of all, why should these elements react without a external power and force, to behave exactly the way needed, to create live
You're asking why naturally occurring elements may interact??

It's so simple, I'm finding it hard to explain, so let me put it this way: have you ever taken a breath? What are you breathing in? I can tell you. You're breathing in nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and plethora of other elements and compounds. How do they come together? They are so prevalent that they eventually and statistically must occur in the same areas most of the time. Likewise, the water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), each compounds that are incredibly common on earth today just the same as they were several billion years ago, they statistically must combine, in fact they certainly combined often. This means that as these combined often, the created amino acids often. No external power and force was required for that combination just the same as no external power or force is required to have nitrogen and oxygen together in our atmosphere.
[quote="angelosergipe"chance give billions of other possibilities, no one will have live as a result. why should chance choose exactly the right elements , combinations, complexity and order, to create live ? it is mathematically impossible. its not reasonable.
Forgive me for saying so, but it's clear you do not have the scientific nor mathematical expertise to give an opinion on what may or may not be possible in the evolutionary processes.

but one thing i can say, without need to have any expertise.  
there are endless combinations possible, why should exactly the ones have happened, that were needed to create live ? and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ? this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic.

^Because that's the way that evolution happened. If something happened differently, we could all have five heads or have gills. If you were sitting there with your four other heads, asking that same question, how would it be any different? If you do some research on Darwin's "natural selection" you'll see that it's all very random and THIS is just how it ended up. There doesn't have to be some magical "driving force". There just has to be enough reproduction. I know it can be hard to understand... but humans are not the center and only reason for the universe existing.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"there are endless combinations possible, why should exactly the ones have happened, that were needed to create live ?  and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ? this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic.

Ah - but there is a driving force.  It is called 'natural law'.  Here's video from youTube that addresses this subject of probabilities and the problem with looking backwards at end results, and in assuming that 'randomness' governs the progression of physical events:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

Since you have a fascination with order and design,

Quote from: "angelosergipe"order and complexity is always a evidence and sign of a intelligence behind it.

and to flesh out the counter-example Squid posted, here's another video by the same presenter than deals with this problem:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0

One further pic, I always thought basalt columns were another good example of high order in the natural world:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.simonward.com%2Fwallpaper%2Fcauseway.jpg&hash=a68712c5b80ced152c28194a323042219708423f)
Almost looks like a tile floor, doesn't it?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"but one thing i can say, without need to have any expertise.

Somehow I doubt it, but go on...

Quote from: "angelosergipe"there are endless combinations possible,

Wrong. There's a finite number of outcomes and considering how prevalent all of the compounds and elements were, it was a statistical inevitability. It's not just possible, but it was absolutely probable. And not just once, but millions (billions? trillions?) of times. And it did happen. You see, we're both living proof.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ?

Again, you need to be more schooled before discussing this topic. You're reaching for conclusions without understanding the evidence. At all. And based on grammar and syntax, I would guess that you may be in middle school.  
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039306 ... C26PI6UA6B (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393061639/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1B7OPPFY4P74V&colid=14IC26PI6UA6B)
This is one of my favorite books. It's a simple and clear presentation of verifiable scientific evidence that paints a beautifully simple picture.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic.

The word is rational. Again.

No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

Quote from: "Bella"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "rlrose328"There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists. ..

if you think so, don't believe in him.

 :bang:  :lol:

LOL!  Yup... you'd think that was as obvious as the nose on his face, eh?  :roll:

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"there are endless combinations possible, why should exactly the ones have happened, that were needed to create live ?  and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ? this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic

Ah - but there is a driving force.  It is called 'natural law'.  Here's video from youTube that addresses this subject of probabilities and the problem with looking backwards at end results, and in assuming that 'randomness' governs the progression of physical events:.

ok, and who put these natural laws in place ? to say: they just existed always is not a rational answer. and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place. its the same as to say that the words of a book did be put in place randomly. that makes no sense either.

Quote from: "Willravel"No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

 english is not my native language. i made  a 3month english course. thats my base.

dna genome project tells you wrong :

Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is, have been revealed to mankind. Today, everyone who considers the results of this project and finds out that a single human cell contains enough information to be stored in thousands of encyclopaedia pages, grasps what a great miracle of creation this is.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html (http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html)


For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Willravel"No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

 english is not my native language. i made  a 3month english course. thats my base.

dna genome project tells you wrong :

Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is, have been revealed to mankind. Today, everyone who considers the results of this project and finds out that a single human cell contains enough information to be stored in thousands of encyclopaedia pages, grasps what a great miracle of creation this is.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html (http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html)


For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

We see mutation all the time. We see it in everything from tiny bacteria to Galapagos finches. It's a normal part of life. As mutations happen, organisms tend to become more complex. Now, allow for 4 billion years. That's 4,000,000,000 years of mutation and natural selection of successful mutations. Of course we're complex.

Dude, this is ridiculous.  There is numerous proof of genetic mutation and the beneficial side effects.  The most striking that leaps to my mind is evolution of bacteria to digest nylon: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Also,

Quote from: "angelosergipe"a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place.

you state this as if it were fact, with absolutely nothing to back it up.  In other words, you don't understand how natural law can lead to order or complexity, so you just pretend this is true.  There are countless scientific observations that contradict your own personal emotional predilections.  You have ignored Squid's pictures: is a snowflake not ordered and complex?  Does this mean god makes snowflakes?  If not, then natural law has clearly led to an ordered and complex arrangement of molecules.

This is true in the biological realm as well.  Consider the following, from Dr. Theobald's excellent paper on Talk Origins, also about the nylon eating bacteria:

QuoteSecond, increases in complexity due to gene duplications and mutations have been observed in the wild and
the lab (Copley 2000; Futuyma 1998, p. 274; Lederberg and Lederberg 1952; Lee et al. 1998; Ohno 1984;
Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994; Salamone et al. 2002). For example, Flavobacterium recently
evolved the ability to metabolize the exclusively man-made chemical nylon as its sole carbon source. This
ability required the duplication and mutation of genes for three different enzymes (Negoro et al. 1994;
Ohno 1984; Okada et al. 1983). These results have also been duplicated in the lab (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Some of these studies have demonstrated that new enzymes have evolved with increased specificity for
their substrates (Salamone et al. 2002). This is not ad hoc nor is it "liberal"—it is factual.

Source: Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The text I quoted appears on page 184.

The important thing to grasp is that the effects of mutation, following natural law and leading to new, complex, ordered functions has been observed in the lab.

And what do you have to say about it?  You just claim

Quote from: "angelosergipe"and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place

What am I supposed to do?  Just take your word for it, over documented scientific lab results?  Why on earth should I do that?  And why do you cling to your own notion while discrediting the evidence to the contrary?

One final thing,

Quote from: "angelosergipe"ok, and who put these natural laws in place ? to say: they just existed always is not a rational answer.

Okay - you say that claiming natural laws have always existed is irrational.  Why?  What rational problem is there with this statement?

Presumably, you would say "nothing can always exist, everything must come from something else".  And yet, in a moment of blatant contradiction, you're probably going to claim in the same sentence that god has always existed.  Am I wrong?

Quote from: "SteveS"Presumably, you would say "nothing can always exist, everything must come from something else". And yet, in a moment of blatant contradiction, you're probably going to claim in the same sentence that god has always existed. Am I wrong?

That's the best thing I've read all day.

Won't do any good folks.  He won't listen to anything you say and simply fall back onto the usual argument from personal incredulity while slinging out straw men versions of biological theories.  He's not here to exchange information but to keep talking until you agree with his ideas which he has no empirical support for.  He's tried this approach on other boards.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Willravel"No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

 english is not my native language. i made  a 3month english course. thats my base.

dna genome project tells you wrong :

Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is, have been revealed to mankind. Today, everyone who considers the results of this project and finds out that a single human cell contains enough information to be stored in thousands of encyclopaedia pages, grasps what a great miracle of creation this is.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html (http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html)


For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?

We see mutation all the time. We see it in everything from tiny bacteria to Galapagos finches. It's a normal part of life. As mutations happen, organisms tend to become more complex. Now, allow for 4 billion years. That's 4,000,000,000 years of mutation and natural selection of successful mutations. Of course we're complex.

i think you did not read carefully my last post. It can be 4 trillion years, it does not matter.  

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces39.html (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences39.html)

DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors;d if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?  Each requires the other.

Quote from: "Squid"Won't do any good folks.  He won't listen to anything you say and simply fall back onto the usual argument from personal incredulity while slinging out straw men versions of biological theories.  He's not here to exchange information but to keep talking until you agree with his ideas which he has no empirical support for.  He's tried this approach on other boards.

And for this reason, I'm keeping quiet.  It's of no use any way, one way or the other.  

Yet if we keep quiet, he (and other lurking xtians) will assume we have no more arguments and that they win by default.

No matter how you look at it, we lose in the discussion.  We quietly win because we have evidence and proof on our side... but in the discussion with xtians, we lose and will every time.  :roll:

Quote from: "angelosergipe"i think you did not read carefully my last post. It can be 4 trillion years, it does not matter.  

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces39.html (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences39.html)

Again, you cannot make a point in this discussion by using a "creation science" website.  There is no such thing as "creation science."  It's a misnomer that has no place in any true science forum or discussion.  There is nothing scientific that can be tested and/or proven, so it's an irrelevant field of pseudo-study.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors;d if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?  Each requires the other.

So your bottom line point of proof is that DNA exists therefore, there is a god?  I can just as easily state that because DNA exists, there ISN'T a god and I'm just as correct as you are.  Another straw man argument... another falsehood by the religious society to discredit evidential science.


OOOps... and I just said I wasn't going to reply.  Geez... the "quote button" finger is just not attached to the brain today.  LOL!

Quote from: "SteveS"Dude, this is ridiculous.  There is numerous proof of genetic mutation and the beneficial side effects.  The most striking that leaps to my mind is evolution of bacteria to digest nylon: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Also,

Quote from: "angelosergipe"a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place
you state this as if it were fact, with absolutely nothing to back it up.  In other words, you don't understand how natural law can lead to order or complexity, so you just pretend this is true.  There are countless scientific observations that contradict your own personal emotional predilections.  You have ignored Squid's pictures: is a snowflake not ordered and complex?  Does this mean god makes snowflakes?  If not, then natural law has clearly led to an ordered and complex arrangement of molecules..

http://www.icr.org/article/266/ (http://www.icr.org/article/266/)

The growth of ice crystals does not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution. Ice crystal growth is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, and both are evidences for God's oversight and care for His creation. God is a God of beauty and order, and wishes for us to study His creation to learn more about Him.

The theory of evolution suggests that increased organization has developed simply by random processes. Prigogine 4, for example, in attempting to make this argument, has stated ". . . in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures." However, random processes in the physical world always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics. If simple physical processes like the mixing of gases always becomes more disorderly, why should complex biological processes naturally become more orderly? Prigogine (4), after attempting to demonstrate self-organization in non-equilibrium systems by random processes states, "Unfortunately, this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small." Furthermore, crystal order results from the withdrawal of heat energy, whereas evolutionists argue that evolution sustains itself by the addition of heat energy from the sun. The two are not analogous at all. Still further, evolution is supposed to be open-ended, continuing indefinitely its growth in order, whereas a crystal, once formed deterministically by the pre-coded system which produced it, is at a dead end, and can go no further toward higher order.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place

What am I supposed to do?  

in your case, i would start to think and use your brain.

The people at creationscience.com have no scientific understanding of the world. Their research is truly useless and ultimately is destructive to actual science, which uses the scientific method to develop understanding of the universe, not the bible. When you use the bible or any non-scientific and supernatural texts or information as a starting point for scientific understanding, you undercut yourself considerably and usually doom yourself to misunderstanding.

DNA probably came from viruses (http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2006.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177180979&archive=&start_from=&ucat=9&).

Here's the thing: science, in it's current state, cannot answer every question. You see, science is not like god. It can be fallible and it's ever changing. But it's important to remember one thing: if science can't explain something, that does not automatically mean that it can be attributed to god. Science cannot conclusively prove exactly what happened at the dawn of the current incarnation of the universe. We've got good ideas supported by evidence, sure, but it's not certain. Does that mean it was god? Of course not, and I'll tell you why: whereas theories like big bang have evidence, god never has evidence. There's no evidence short of an ancient mythological collection of stories and fables to suggest god has anything to do with anything. To instantly run to that as evidence is to ignore what evidence really is. I hope you're reading this, because it's important.

I am not a scientist I am just a normal everyday person who happens to think that someday through science all of our questions will be answered and then we will have new questions to hunt the answers for. To say that because we dont have all the answers now means that god must have done it is just silly. Aside from that all that angelo seems to be saying is all the same stuff we have heard time and time again and there really is no point in argueing with someone who thinks copy and paste is a gift from god.

Yes nature is complex, but that doesn't mean, nor indicate, not explains that there is be a magical creature behind it. From a logical point of view that is absolute nonsense, because you'd end up with the questions like "If complex things need a maker then who created the maker?" or "Why did the all powerful guy in the sky didn't do a better job?".  Also even if your creator story is true (what you can't prove ofcourse) then there is not a single thread of evidence that that creature would have been the christian god of the bible. If you read the bible well, the god of the bible is a rather silly, imperfect nasty piece of shit who prefers to rather to destroy things than to create. Not really a worthy candidate for supremacy.

angelogersipe:

Gripe #1:

Quote from: "angelosergipe"The growth of ice crystals does not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Who said it does?  I offered this in rebuttal to the point that natural law cannot create ordered complex structures.  Since you applied the rebuttal to the theory of evolution, I take it that you have conceded the point about natural law.  Which makes sense, since you went on to quote:

Quotein a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures

Sounds like a concession to me.  I'm glad we can agree on this point.

Gripe #2:

Quote from: "angelogersipe"

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "angelogersipe"and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place

What am I supposed to do?

in your case, i would start to think and use your brain.

Totally ignored my point and answered with a personal insult.  Thanks, by the way.  How about addressing the question,

Quote from: "Steve"Okay - you say that claiming natural laws have always existed is irrational. Why? What rational problem is there with this statement?

Presumably, you would say "nothing can always exist, everything must come from something else". And yet, in a moment of blatant contradiction, you're probably going to claim in the same sentence that god has always existed. Am I wrong?

Its okay - I'll give you a second go at it - maybe I was confusing.  To reiterate, why is it irrational to say that natural law could possibly have always existed?  If nothing can exist always, then did god exist always?  These are questions, and they are not rhetorical - normally, this is the point where you would give me some sort of answer....

Gripe #3: You ignored my comments on the precession of the earth.  The earth does totter, due to mass imbalance (equatorial bulge), yet you claimed the bible teaches the earth is balanced.  Do you concede this point that the bible is wrong in this regard?

Fun With Contradictions

Quote from: "SteveS"there is a driving force. It is called 'natural law'.

Quote from: "angelogersipe"who put these natural laws in place ?

(implied answer: God)

Quote from: "angelogersipe"God is a God of beauty and order

Quote from: "angelogersipe"However, random processes in the physical world always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

Recap: God is a god of beauty and order, and so god created natural laws (i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics) that dictate that physical processes will always move in the direction of greater total disorder.  See the issue I have with this?

A few final points

Quote from: "angelogersipe"The theory of evolution suggests that increased organization has developed simply by random processes.

Not random!  Natural law, chemistry, physics - these are the forces that dictate the way molecules interact.  They are decidedly non-random!

Quote from: "angelogersipe"If simple physical processes like the mixing of gases always becomes more disorderly, why should complex biological processes naturally become more orderly?

Because

Quote from: "angelogersipe"in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures

Does the biological arena seem like an isolated system to you?  Apparently, because you quote

Quote"Unfortunately, this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small."

And yet, it does happen.  Remember this bit:

Quote from: "Willravel"Life can come from non-life, in fact. While I don't imagine googling "origin of life" is particularly difficult, nor is going to science class at school, I will briefly explain some evidence:
- The Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950s demonstrated how simply combining gasses present several billion years ago on earth, water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), could create organic amino acids. This is proof positive of organic compounds from non-life.
- After WW2, scientist Sidney W. Fox studies spontaneous formation of peptides from amino acids (like those amino acids created from inorganic elements above). He was able to demonstrate that peptides could be formed by those amino acids spontaneously.
- Peptides and amino acids can catalyze aldol reactions, some of which can yield sugars. This can be a metabolic cycle.

Now before you go weird on me, these experiments show that the components of life can form naturally.  Nobody is suggesting that a giraffe just popped randomly into existence because the sun was shining that day  :roll:

Characterizing evolution and abiogenesis as complex living organism spontaneously forming by a random process is a clear strawman.  Nobody (besides creationists, anyway) makes these assertions about these fields of study.  

Quote from: "angelogersipe"If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?

Abiogenesis is an current field of research that remains baffling.  But people are actively studying and researching in this area.  Nobody, that I can tell, currently has an answer to this question you pose.  Does that mean god must have done it?  I say this is a fallacy of false alternatives.  The fact than something is currently unknown leads only to a conclusion that it is currently unknown.  Abiogenesis has not revealed that the formation of life is impossible --- only that it is currently understood to be unlikely.  Unlikely and impossible are very, very different.

Reality Check - Get Back on Track

You cannot prove creation by discrediting abiogenesis or evolution: you must provide evidence of creation.

So - if god created DNA and it's repair mechanism, how did god do it?  Has anybody observed a creation event in a laboratory?  Did god create DNA directly, or did he create simpler forms first, like an RNA or PNA or PAH world first?  Did he create organisms directly of eukaryotic cells?  Or did he go with prokaryotic cells, and then subsequently modify them?  And, in each of these cases, what positive evidence can you present to support your answers?  In other words, evidence that god performed these acts, not simply arguments that evolution or abiogenesis might be incorrect.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Does the Bible Contain Scientific Errors?

Many Christians assume the Bible contains scientific errors, and that it is authoritative only when it speaks on spiritual matters. But that is saying in effect that the God who wrote the Bible knew a lot about spiritual things, but not too much about science. To say that parts of the Bible are accurate, but others are not is to deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Since God knows all things, and what He speaks is true (cf., Titus 1:2), all that the Bible teaches is accurate, not just its spiritual truths.

The issue is not between science and Scripture; the issue is whether man will submit to the Word of God. Romans 1:28 describes people who refuse to submit as those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Because they rejected God's revelation of Himself as Creator, men came up with the only alternative: that the universe and everything in it just happened.

Lesson

I. THERMODYNAMICS

There are three principles basic to science: matter, energy, and the space-time continuum. Science tells us that none of the three can exist without the other two; therefore all three must have existed from the beginning of the universe. Note that Genesis 1:1 mentions all three: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

A. The First Law of Thermodynamics

The Bible says in Genesis 2:2 that "God ended His work which He had made." The matter and energy that was part of the original creation is all there will ever be; no new matter or energy is being created. The complete cessation of creative activity has been recognized by modern science as the first law of thermodynamics, or the law of the conservation of mass and energy. According to this law, which is one of the most universal and certain of all scientific principles, nothing is now being created or destroyed. That principle is illustrated in the following verses:

1. Isaiah 40:26--"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, who bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might; for he is strong in power. Not one faileth."

2. Nehemiah 9:6--"Thou, even thou art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are in it, the seas, and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all."

3. Ecclesiastes 3:14-15--"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it .... That which hath been is now, and that which is to be hath already been."

The Word of God accurately states the first law of thermodynamics.

B. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

This law, also known as the law of entropy, tells us that though energy cannot be destroyed, its ability to do useful work decreases. Systems tend to degenerate from a state of order to a state of chaos. Science tells us that eventually this process will lead to the death of the universe.

The Bible teaches that the second law of thermodynamics is a result of the Fall. Romans 8:20-22 says, "The creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Although that passage pictures the entire creation as progessively breaking down, it also gives us hope for the future. When God creates the new heaven and the new earth, the second law of thermodynamics will not operate. In that new creation there will be no more curse, death, decay, or sin.

II. HYDROLOGY

A. Defined

Hydrology is the branch of science that studies the waters of the earth. In the hydrologic cycle, water evaporates into the atmosphere and is redeposited onto the earth in the form of rain or snow. That precipitation feeds rivers, which flow into the ocean. Evaporation from the ocean forms clouds, from which precipitation falls on the land, and the cycle repeats itself.

B. Described

The science of hydrology was founded in the seventeenth century by Mariotte, Perrault, and Halley, but the hydrologic cycle is clearly described in Scripture:

1. Isaiah 55:10-11--"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (NASB).

2. Ecclesiastes 1:7--"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full." That's because of the hydrologic cycle.

3. Job 36:27-28--"He [God] draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly" (NASB).

4. Psalm 135:7--"He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain." This verse speaks of evaporation and precipitation.

5. Job 26:8--"He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not torn under them." This verse speaks of the formation of clouds by condensation.

6. Job 28:10--"He cutteth out rivers among the rocks." This verse describes run-off.

7. Job 38:22--"Hast thou entered into the treasuries of the snow? Or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail?" This speaks of the clouds.

III. ASTRONOMY

A. The Size of the Universe

1. Job 22:12--"Is not God in the height of heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" Although the height of the stars was unknown until the nineteenth century (Jean Sloat Morton, Ph.D., Science in the Bible [Chicago: Moody, 1978], p. 15), the book of Job recognized they were very distant from the earth.

2. Jeremiah 31:37--"Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord." This verse mentions the immense size of the universe. It also tells us that God will not permanently set aside Israel.

B. The Variety of Stars

1. Jeremiah 33:22--"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David, my servant." The invention of the telescope in the seventeenth century made men aware of the vast number of stars. Beforehand scientists had said the total number was only in the hundreds or thousands. Only about four thousand can be counted with the unaided eye. Today no one knows how many stars there are, but "with the giant telescopes now available ..., astronomers have statistically estimated that there are about 1025 stars (that is, 10 million billion billion) in the known universe. One can also calculate that this is about the number of grains of sand in the world" (Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], p. 156; The Genesis Record [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976], p. 384). The Bible is accurate when it states the impossibility of numbering the stars.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:41--"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory." With the development of modern astronomy has come the realization that there is great variety of sizes and degrees of brightness among stars. If the Bible had stated that all stars were the same, it would have been in error. However, it doesn't say that because God knows as much about stars as He does about salvation!

C. The Order of the Solar System

1. Jeremiah 31:35-36--"Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night...'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the Lord, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever'" (NASB). When I was a kid I remember thinking it was amazing how the planets all stayed in their orbits. The orbits of the moon and planets are so constant that eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy.

2. Psalm 19:6--Referring to the sun the psalmist says, "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hidden from the heat thereof." This verse took on new meaning when it was discovered that the sun, along with the other stars in our galaxy, revolve around the center of the galaxy. Astronomy books currently teach that the sun completes one such circuit every 250 million years (e.g., Robert Jastrow and Malcom H. Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers [New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977], p. 6)

IV. GEOLOGY

A. Isostasy

Isostasy is a field of study within geology that deals with the balance maintained within the earth's crust. The differing weights of the various types of rock maintain a delicate balance; otherwise the earth would wobble in its rotation like a lopsided basketball. Isaiah 40:12 says, "[God] hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and measured out heaven with the span, and measured the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance." Psalm 104:5, 8 tells us that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter .... The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which [He] didst establish for them" (NASB). The Bible teaches that the earth is balanced.

B. Geodesy

This branch of geology studies the size and shape of the earth.

1. The ancient views

a) The flat-earth theory

People in ancient times thought of the earth as being a flat disk, like a record, surrounded by a river called Oceanus. It was believed that anyone foolish enough to sail through the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar) would fall off the earth into nothingness.

b) The Ptolemaic theory

Ptolemy, in the second century after Christ, proposed a spherical earth as the stationary center of the universe, with the sun and the other heavenly bodies revolving around it. Not until the sixteenth century with the discoveries of

Copernicus was this theory abandoned.

2. The biblical view

In contrast to the widely held ancient belief that the earth was flat, the Bible clearly teaches that it is round. Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Job 38:14 says, "It [the earth] is turned like clay to the seal." That is a reference to the small cylinders used in ancient times to put one's seal on a clay document. Those cylinders had sticks through the center, like a rolling pin, and while the clay was still soft, they would be rolled across it, leaving the impression of the seal. The Bible tells us the earth rotates on its axis like a cylinder making a seal.

V. METEOROLOGY

A. Wind Circulation

In the seventeenth century George Hadley discovered that the winds circulate around the earth. Thousands of years earlier the book of Ecclesiastes referred to this phenomenon: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits."

B. Air Pressure

Before the time of Galileo, it was not known that the air had weight. Evangelista Torricelli, a student of Galileo, invented the first barometer, proving the air has pressure. However, Scripture implied that thousands of years before. Job 28:25 says, "He imparted weight to the wind" (NASB).

Ange,
In future posting, please remember to cite sources as required per the forum rules...or even better, use your own words rather than copy and pasting...its much more personal that way.

Source link:  http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm)

Anyway, welcome to the forum.  Have fun and be sure to keep an open mind.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"in your case, i would start to think and use your brain.

Oh, the irony.

1. The fact that humans and fruit flies share 70% of their genes supports evolution and not creationism.

2. As it has been pointed out to you, you're trying to say that there MUST be a creator because we exist but that God exists WITHOUT a creator. For all you know, there were green aliens hanging out in this section of the galaxy in their flying saucers and created Earth with their superior intelligence before their mommies called them home for dinner.

Nice catch, fearless leader!

Quote from: "Squid"Won't do any good folks. He won't listen to anything you say and simply fall back onto the usual argument from personal incredulity while slinging out straw men versions of biological theories. He's not here to exchange information but to keep talking until you agree with his ideas which he has no empirical support for. He's tried this approach on other boards.

Seconded. I think that answering this person is waste of time, given their apparent inability to actually listen to a word that has been said. He/she has completely ignored every single point that has been raised, either relying on blind repetition of already demolished statements or condescending gestures to try and put down other people's intelligence. Failing that, the jumped up bugger doesn't even bother to respond at all and moves on to spout yet more pseudo-science and plainly ridiculous assumption based shite as if he's giving a theatrical lecture and we're all his crooning disciples. Lack of appreciation, that's all it amounts too.

Angelosergipe: earlier, I wasted a good 10 minutes of my life politely responding to the bollocks you've been dishing out, only to have you put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la'. In fact that's more or less exactly what you've done with everyone else here. To be honest, I don't care if you're deluded, in denial or simply incapable of understanding all of these big words and ideas that people are taking time to show you. It doesn't matter to me what excuses could potentially be made on your behalf. I just think that your approach to holding a 'debate' has been bloody rude, so far. You seem to think that the accomplishment of voluntarily blind belief allows you to talk and not listen. People of your ilk are more damaging to my health than years of chain smoking and alcoholism could ever be. Keep it up and they'll probably introduce a tax on exposure to you. That's all I can really be bothered to say.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"People of your ilk are more damaging to my health than years of chain smoking and alcoholism could ever be.

Blah!  By way of bumping you into better health, let me recognize that I read your earlier post and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Much of my own objections to the OP's argument were expressed in your post.  So - at least understand that some of us are taking the time to read and understand what the others are writing, even if angelo is not.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"Keep it up and they'll probably introduce a tax on exposure to you.

Come to think of it, the discussion has been quite taxing!  (pun intended)

To your health, Mister Joy,  :cheers:

It's true... as much as Mr. Born Again has pissed me off with repeatedly posting large amounts of junk written by someone else and basically ignoring anything that he can't find specifically on that site (and even insulting some people in all of his godly "goodness"), I've read some interesting things from the other members of this site.

Quote from: "SteveS"Blah! By way of bumping you into better health, let me recognize that I read your earlier post and thoroughly enjoyed it. Much of my own objections to the OP's argument were expressed in your post. So - at least understand that some of us are taking the time to read and understand what the others are writing, even if angelo is not.

Aye, a lot of interesting stuff has been said by everyone. The arguments and ideas I've read from all bar angelo have been pure gold, actually. It annoys me that he hasn't given them a single moments thought. In fact, if nobody minds, I may have to nick some of them for the next time I'm faced with a bible-bashing evangelical. :lol:

Please go right ahead. I've got my doctorate in arguing with overzealous (no pun intended!) religious people.

Quotethis experiment has not taken important facts in consideration. first of all, why should these elements react without a external power and force, to behave exactly the way needed, to create live ? chance give billions of other possibilities, no one will have live as a result. why should chance choose exactly the right elements , combinations, complexity and order, to create live ? it is mathematically impossible. its not reasonable.

If you look at recreating the universe as it currently is, then that would be near impossible; but, that is not what you are talking about. Seems to me that the universe looks just fine the way it is. The universe has come together exactly the way it did. Why should it look any different at all? If you think the universe was designed with you in mind, then it would need a creator. However, isn’t that an arrogant way to think of the universe? Try looking at the steps that brought you here, rather than looking in the other direction. You are not the center of the universe, nor are human beings, this planet, this solar system, or this galaxy. You happen to be here the way you are.

If I were god and I designed the universe I would remove cancer, viruses, autism, blindness, deafness, radiation, all objects that can’t be seen with the naked eye, outer planets and stars, the requirement to breath, eat, defecate, and reproduce. Oh and nothing could kill you except me. I would answer every prayer and I would make an appearance more often. If the universe had a creator, it would be a much different world.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"In fact, if nobody minds, I may have to nick some of them for the next time I'm faced with a bible-bashing evangelical.

By all means, if you find my words worthy - nick away!

It's not a question of whether your words are worthy enough for me to nick, Steve, it's a question of whether I'm worthy enough to nick 'em.

By the way, angelo, while I still think you're an impolite git, my response there was slightly over-heated. I should show more reserve. I apologise for being so blunt.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"hi all

my name is angelo. i am a born again evangelical christian. i would like to share
my belief with who ever wants to know better the christian faith. i am not here to try to convert anyone , because, this is a personal decision, but to explain issues, that many of you might have pre judgement and not a comprehensive knowledge. I intend to respect anyone's convictions here, and expect the same of you.

So let me make my first question. Why are you atheist, and what evidence do you have to claim, God does not exist ?

If you're here to "explain issues", it seems rather contradictory for you to start out by employing the fallacy of demanding we prove a negative, i.e. God doesn 't exist.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces39.html (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences39.html)

"Creation Science" is NOT "science". It is religionspeak, devoid of evidence, and lacking scientific attributes such as falsefiability.
If your religion is moral based, why do you need resort to deception here?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"God is a God of beauty and order, and wishes for us to study His creation to learn more about Him.

Really! Then why did God forbid Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is,

So how does a spiritual being impregnate a human woman? How can such differenr\t species produce offspring? Is it just magic?