Exposing the Fallacies of Science/Atheist-ism & Proving Intelligent Design!

[QUOTE=lurch67]Just because you cant grasp concepts such as the big bang or natural selection or mutative adaptation, does not mean God exists.[/QUOTE]
Those concepts as you call them have nothing to do with what we're talking about.:facepalm

[QUOTE=Jello]Those concepts as you call them have nothing to do with what we're talking about.:facepalm[/QUOTE]


quote:
Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped. :end quote



This whole thread is creationism vs. evolution. :facepalm yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Bladers : Today at 01:47 AM.

[QUOTE=lurch67]quote:Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.

This whole thread is creationism vs. evolution. :facepalm yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Bladers : Today at 01:47 AM.[/QUOTE]
No it's not you idiot. It's creationism vs. abiogenesis and the Big Bang has no association with evolution whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Jello]No it's not you idiot. It's creationism vs. abiogenesis and the Big Bang has no association with evolution whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
So you have a better name for it, good for you. Bladers also brought up cosmic aligment and origins earlier. That is why I have included the Big Bang in that statement.

[QUOTE=lurch67]So you have a better name for it, good for you. Bladers also brought up cosmic aligment and origins earlier. That is why I have included the Big Bang in that statement.[/QUOTE]
They are two distinct theories. You were wrong, just stop.

[QUOTE=boozehound]also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.[/QUOTE]
Not true.:rolleyes:

[IMG]http://seemslegit.com/_images/f873f38ebb382656b4ee720311aa4265/1924%20-%20can%27t-hear-you%20creationism%20religion.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=lurch67][B]Again stories written about people centuries after they are dead without any other form of documentation are proof of nothing. [/B]Period. The bible and every single thing in it has to be taken in faith. Faith is the oppisite of proof. The whole resurrection story was stolen for pagan mythology in order to convert them. There is only one original story form the bible, old test or new, the story of Moses. Even the stories of Eden, Noah, and even the adventures of Jesus himself, are rehashed tales of other relgions prior to rise of Judaism.

And where are these people who rise from the dead with no assistance from medical personel? Is there a wave of Zombies coming we need to know about? I have brought people back from clinical death as an EMT, so does this make me a mircle worker too?[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Seriously, you don't know shit about what you're talking about in this thread on both science and history.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]Everything is shoddy unless you accept mediocrity (and calling it mediocre is being generous).[/QUOTE]
DNA replication is mediocre?:hammerhead:

[QUOTE=Jello]Not true.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science[/URL]
[QUOTE]In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[/QUOTE]

This guy jello really reminds me of shlver

[QUOTE=boozehound][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science[/URL][/QUOTE]
if you drop an object from a height under normal circumstances, it will fall. Is this a fact?

[IMG]http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpg[/IMG]

LOL @ Turkey!

USA! USA!

[QUOTE=boozehound]again, your quote is not from the link you provide. regardless, it does nothing to bolster your argument, as it says nothing about direct dates. all the direct dates are from at least 100 years after jesus' death. And, no, a RC date is not "when it was found".

Jesus, you must have the reading comprehension/intellectual capacity of a 3rd grader.[/QUOTE]

Its there. Try again.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible[/url]

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Its there. Try again.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible[/url][/QUOTE]
from your wiki
[QUOTE]The individual books of the New Testament may be dated with some confidence to the[B] 1st and 2nd centuries AD. [/B]The earliest fragment of the New Testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a piece of the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. For this reason, dating the composition of the texts relies on textual criticism, philological and linguistic evidence, as well as direct references to historical events in the texts rather than dating the physical manuscripts.[/QUOTE]

Frankly, this thread has made me lose any respect for you. Not because of your belief, but because of your complete lack of reading comprehension or understanding of the topic at hand. Its not that hard, try reading to understand sometime.

also, thats the same goddamned link I posted 3 or 4 pages earlier. and nowhere are there any references to NT manuscripts before the first century (about 100 years after his death for being a criminal terrorist).