God Exists, Can You Prove Me Wrong ?? (Page 3)

Blackshoes: Zanjan: There's nothing that says Moses didn't have written acounts of what happen ..
There's nothing that said he did ?It's just spectulation either way ..

ghostgeek:

Zanjan: Many parts of stories in the Torah are identical to those in the Hindu religion, which is the oldest surviving religion. However mucktified some of those texts are, we can compare what is the same, and follow continuing comparisons through all the religions of God. Truth stays the same.

Zanjan: Ghost, false prophets serve a purpose - they keep the flakes out of my religion.

xxxWesxxx: Blackshoes, you left out the part in Genesis 2 that says "god" waited until after resting on the seventh day, to make man...which really clashes with Genesis 1, where it says he created man on the sixth day. Is there a reason you left this blatant mathematical impossibility out?

xxxWesxxx: chayi: "The whole creation is connected, and God is in me, and out side me, and there is no out side spirital, by the spirit of life, and even physical, you cannot live with no air or eating and drinking, you must have the sun and everything in the world and universe to be perfect, so everything is totally 1 and connected"

I felt I had to copy this one...as it shows the fundamental flaw in this train of logical fallacies.

1. The burden of proof lies solely on the person making the positive claim. In order to demonstrate that "god" exists outside of you, then you must present evidence of this. Furthermore, you continue on by making the statement that nothing is outside the spiritual. Can you prove this? Physical, is by definition, outside of spiritual. If it were not, then even in your own logical construct, your spirit could not exist after death, which defies the notion of eternal life, but also of the existence of a god absent a physical form. Third, you claim that the spiritual and physical existences are connected, yet have demonstrated no such proof.

2. Logical conclusions are what follow necessarily from logical premises. Where the logical argument may be valid, it can still be wrong, if the logical premises are not true. In order for one to accept your logical conclusion, they therefore, necessarily require that the premises be true. If any one of the premises are rejected, or simply not accepted as true, then the logical conclusion fails to follow. The notion of using the logical conclusion (e.i. that the spiritual and physical existences are connected) in order to prove the premises true, is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. One cannot begin by accepting the logical conclusion as true, in order to demonstrate the premises true, that prove the logical conclusion one must necessarily accept in the first place. Therefore, it becomes logically necessary to first demonstrate that the spiritual and physical existences are connected, in order to conclude that. First things first, one would necessarily have to demonstrate that there even is a spiritual existence at all. Having failed to do so, one cannot force the logical conclusion of it's connection to the physical. Furthermore, your argument fails miserably, because that which is connected to the physical world, leaves behind physical evidence. Thus, if the spirit is connected to the physical, then it is a logical absolute that one must see this spiritual influence on the physical. And thus, we are back to square one: what physical proof (as you have asserted the existence of by claiming the connection) do you have of the spiritual existence at all?

Blackshoes: xxxWesxxx: You either Don't know or understand that writers of the book of Genesis would write the first paragraph First'. Then the second paragraph would explain it in more detail ..Adam was created on the six day ..
That's just how things were written durring that time ..

ghostgeek: I think you may be wrong on that one Blackshoes. In my BIble it says God created both male and female on the sixth day, i.e., both Adam and Eve.

xxxWesxxx: Blackshoes, your argument fails logically. Since there are so many areas in which need to be pointed out, I will break them down into points of your argument, numbered for ease of addressing:

1. There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator."

This statement is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. Seldom, if ever, are there only two choices. Furthermore, seldom, even in the rarity that there are only two choices, are both choices mutually acceptable. Often, one choice is less valid than the other. In the case of your argument, it is the choice of a creator which is less valid.

To assert only two options, as explained, is a logical fallacy. Perhaps there were two creators. Perhaps they are not eternal. I can create an aquarium, stock it with fish, and act as an all-powerful creator of their world....yet if I were to die, it wouldn't mean the aquarium never existed. A perfect analogy? No. But it does demonstrate the flaw in this "logic". Perhaps there were more than one creator. There could be an endless number of possibilities as to whom these creator(s) is/are. What reason do we have to conclude it is the one you thought up?



2. "Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option."

Again, a false dichotomy fallacy. No, there is not only two choices here. But, having already addressed the absurdity of this, I will move on.

a: Something exists. Indeed it does. And what can logically be concluded from this? That something exists. That's it and that's all. To assert that this means anything more is intellectually dishonest. That something exists is not the question. How it came to exist is, and the simple fact that it does exists does not satisfactorily conclude that.

b: Something cannot come from nothing. Indeed, this sounds logical, and it follows from common sense. But to argue that something is true merely because you cannot imagine it not being true, or to argue that something is false, because you cannot imagine it true - essentially appealing to "common sense", is a logical fallacy called an argument from personal incredulity. For unless you are infallible, and omniscient, then you simply cannot know all the information that would be required to determine this satisfactorily. There may be, in many cases, information that you have missed, or have misunderstood, or simply overlooked. Thus, the argument from personal incredulity becomes a commonly used, but highly wrong, fallacious argument.

When we take this point into formal logic, it falls apart on all levels. While it is indeed true that all of our experiences of "something", have shown us it coming from something else - these are of limited use to us here, as we are not speaking of the same definition of "something". When steel is used to make a building, it is something coming from something, not nothing. But that is precisely the point. All of our examples are not truly applicable to this argument at all, as they are merely recombinations of existing matter, into new forms of matter. This is merely examples of change, or new forms being built. These changes have all been examples of rearranging of existing materials, and unless you have experienced what no one else on Earth has, then we have not yet seen a single example of something coming from nothing. Thus, we cannot use our own experiences to form a logical absolute about this statement, without resorting to an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. Thus, we cannot say for certain whether it is possible, or impossible for something to come from nothing, or whether this would require a 'cause', such as a creator.

Going one step further, the only examples we have of "nothing", are defined within the realm of physics. Within this field of science, quantum particles do in fact, jump into and out of existence all the time. Of the known universe, 96% is made up of dark matter and dark energy, and 4% of hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements, that is what makes up planets and life, etc., account for less than 0.4% of the existence of the universe. That matter itself contributes to some 4% of the universe would, under your logic, defy the scientific data. Nearly 99% of the mass of the universe, comes from nothing. In fact, the empty space between the particles in your body, contribute to more than 90% of your mass. The reason is simple. Virtual particles fluctuate into and out of existence within the empty space. The closest example we have to the nothing you describe, is a state within physics (and indeed it should be), which has no laws, no matter, no space, no time, etc. etc., yet things come into and out of existence all the time.

Thus, your premise falls apart logically. To assert an answer to the unknown, by no means of reasoning, is logically invalid. Furthermore, the only answers we can give to the topic of what you assert, fly directly in the face of it. Thus, we cannot logically conclude that something cannot come from nothing, but rather that it may be possible for something to come from nothing, but we cannot say for certain, as we cannot define exactly what this nothing is.

c: if the existence of "god" is NOT denied, then it logically follows that "god" must have come from somewhere in order to exist, under your own logical premise that something cannot come from nothing. If "god" is not "something", then he necessarily is "nothing". If "god" is nothing, then your argument fails. If "god" is something, then he necessarily defies your own logical premise, and thus, you must abandon it altogether, as it logically does not follow without an ad hoc reasoning fallacy.


4. "To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning."

This falls under the category of an etymological fallacy. To define the universe as all of existence is to change the meaning implied by this scientific and philosophical evidence. This is known as a bait and switch, and is an outright lie. The universe, in it's current state, had a beginning, and this much is irrefutably known. But to assert that this means the existence of whatever our universe came from had a beginning, or is somehow the same thing, is absolutely dishonest. Our universe originated from the expansion of what is often referred to as a 'singularity', which is a name given to a state of existence to which we have no scientific answer. To assert that this singularity had a beginning is false. The current scientific position on this topic is a simple "we don't know". Many have postulated, some with great evidence and math to support, such as Steven Hawking and Laurence Krauss, but even these great minds admit they cannot say for certain. They reserve the intellectual honesty to admit they haven't the answer, but think it makes sense what they postulate.


5. "Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity."

a: Which touches base with premise 3, for which I already covered under subsection b. Indeed, everything for which we know to exist has a cause. Bt what we have witnessed coming into existence, was not coming into existence from nothing, rather from existing materials, which have been reassembled. Indeed, such reassembly is, as far as we can tell, causally governed...but we have no experience with such objects coming into existence from nothing. Therefore, we cannot conclude, based on these observations, that creation from nothing, if it ever happens, should be expected to be causally governed in the same way. Again, this brings us back into the example of quantum particles coming into and out of existence on their own all the time. Such is precisely what one would expect to be the case, had the universe been created from nothing, and precisely what would also require no causation whatsoever.

b: The topic of the laws of physics in here does not follow logically, and for two reasons.

1. The further back we go in time, the more these laws break down (which is necessary under Einstein's general relativity), and;

2. The concept of a creator, as well as his creation from nothing, defies these very laws entirely, including, but not limited to, the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, such statements, verbatim, in regards to the second law of thermodynamics is remarkably peculiar to me, given that this very law defies more religious claims than it supports. One cannot help but wonder if the reason so many argue about it, and it alone, is because they know not the laws of thermodynamics, and are merely using what they have been told by others, or if they truly don't understand just that one law...but that is another topic entirely.

Given these two subsets, it follows necessarily, that the use of the laws of physics, in arguing this premise, is fundamentally flawed. Given that the four forces of the quantum universe (gravitation, electromagnetic, and the weak and strong atomic), are all in relation, it logically follows that when we alter one, it affects the relationship with the others. Furthermore, given that the electromagnetic force is governed by the speed of light, it also means that changing this force affects the concept of light as we know it. Given that the speed of light, under general relativity, is the fundamental limit of time itself, we have no choice but to accept the mathematical inevitability that these laws break down as we go back in time. To put it simply, as the expanding universe shrinks (as if going back in time), the force of gravity acting upon closer objects increases. As the force of gravity increases, the other three forces decrease proportionally. As the gravity increases, it causes more pressure on the objects crushing them together under their own weight. This means the breakdown of the other forces (two of which are required to bind atoms, the other which determines the speed of light). This increase in gravity, and breakdown of the other forces means the forces are essentially, one. It also means the universe gets small, and extremely hot. It also means the force gets stronger, crushing it smaller and smaller. It also means that this would require a massive variation in the energy causing expansion, to overcome the gravity. This also means that the inflation would be rapid (much like when you blow and blow on a balloon, and then all at once, poof, it appears much larger, slowly expanding with each breath after the first initial inflation). This also means gravitational waves (which have just been detected), which also means continued expansion, radiation from this energy burst, the formation of particles of matter from the energy as the energy of expansion from the universe slowed (E=mc^2), which also means the slowing of expansion, and energy particles to c^2 (Square of speed of light), both forming particles, and the electromagnetic force (thus the speed of light was set), which also means the cooling of the universe, which also means the formation of the weak and strong atomic forces, which means binding of atomic particles into hydrogen and helium, which means collisions with antimatter creating massive energy, as well as with each other creating massive nuclear energy from the fusion of atoms into denser elements (such nuclear energy is called a star), which leads to the burning out of these atoms, to a supernova burst, fusing heavier elements, to form planets, and organic matter, as well as new stars. Thus, what mathematically follows from a reverse engineering of the universe through general relativity, is a mathematical inevitability of the Big Bang, which then leads to the expansion process and a mathematical inevitability of leading to general relativity, and the laws of physics.

Thus, it follows logically, that since these laws have broken down in the origin of the universe, they didn't apply. Since they didn't apply, the concept of an eternal universe going through stages of inflation and collapse (The big Crunch), becomes logically valid. So too, does the concept of a universe forming from a complex system of multiverses, or even in the simplest form, the universe forming from a singularity itself, which was either eternal, or eternally "nothing", and thus you have it that it logically follows as a valid conclusion, that the universe COULD have formed from nothing (or it could have formed from any number of ways). Thus, it becomes illogical to assert an Affirming a disjunct (A, or B. A, therefore not B) fallacy.


6. "Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists."


This statement is so wrought with fallacies it is hard to begin.

a: The development of purpose and meaning, morals, and value, have all been the product of the process of evolution. These traits helped to guide our primeval ancestors away from danger, towards protection, and to survivability. The existence of these within individuals lends no credibility to the false assertion that the universe itself therefore necessarily requires them.

b: The claim that only a mind can create a mind is problematic for several reasons, but we shall focus on the two most obvious points:

1: If only a mind can create a mind, then who or what created the mind of "god"? If "god" does not require creation of his mind, as this premise demands, then the same can be said for any mind. The construct of "god" becomes an ad hoc, or special pleading fallacy. If only a mind can create a mind, and it requires greater intelligence to create the mind being created, then we are left with an infinite regress of more and more complex minds that require more and more complex explanations. Thus, it follows naturally that the only logical solution is to merely assume that one of these minds must necessarily not require creation...and given Occam's razor, the logical conclusion would be that the simplest mind would be the most satisfactory explanation. Thus, the premise is self-refuting.

2: We have absolutely no examples of a mind being created from another mind. On the contrary, reproduction does show us constant examples (in the case of humans, more than 7 billion living examples), of a mind being created naturally, through simplistic means...developing from a simple cell to complex. Thus, the only examples of a mind that we have, are precisely counter to your claim. Further, we have not one example of a mind outside of a brain.

c: Non-life cannot produce life: This statement is yet another example of an argument from personal incredulity, as well as an etymological fallacy. First, you must define what you mean by life. Then you must give examples of why you have concluded as such. Surely no one will argue that humans are life, and that humans cannot come from non-living stone. But such arguments are precisely the worst examples of arguments, as the go against everything that science demonstrates, and in fact, are the precise arguments that the bible presents for explaining life. Stone, as an example, is not organic. The simple biological fact is that life cannot come from inorganic matter. This is true, and it leads us to a logical assumption that life cannot come from non-life. But that is where our assumptions get the best of us. For if we look at the objective facts, and not what we conclude based on ignorance, then we can see through this blind assumption. Life can, and does come, from organic matter. Organic matter can, and does come, from inorganic matter. To assert that this is impossible, is simply absurd, and demonstrably false. Organic matter is carbon-based matter. That is to say, the difference between organic, and inorganic, is a carbon atom fused to a hydrogen atom. To foolishly claim that carbon cannot bond with other elements is to say life cannot breathe. For we take in an oxygen molecule, which is two bonded oxygen atoms, O^2, and we exhale Carbon Dioxide, or CO^2. You may note that the only difference between these is the fusion of a carbon atom to the molecule. Thus, we have observable evidence that carbon can, and does, bond to other elements. Thus, we have observable evidence, that the carbon bonded organic molecules, can, and do form naturally. Amino acids, for example, have been formed naturally in the lab time and time again. This on its own cannot answer the question of where life came from, but that really isn't the question at all. The question is CAN life come from non-life? Whether or not it even has is not the question. The question is, CAN it. Well, yes.

Life is an arbitrary word. It has no real definition. Even within the field of biology, many debate over what is classified as such (Virologists seldom agree on whether a virus is alive or not). The reason, life, as is the case with all definitions in biology, is not black and white. Consciousness is another. Some animals possess the ability to comprehend they are alive, yet are unaware that their quality exists within others as well. A fish can retain enough memory to know what it's food container looks like. I have tested this with many forms. My angelfish displayed the ability to recognize a container of food they hadn't seen in more than a week. Would you consider this consciousness? If so, then why are such fish unaware of the difference between a live and dead fish? The answer is simple, consciousness is not black and white. There are varying degrees of it. So to, is life. There are varying degrees of life. A virus, for instance, is nothing more than a DNA or RNA sequence, coated in a protein. This chemical virion particle can be placed into an open container for a million years, and nothing will change. Does this mean it isn't alive? If you introduce a cell to the container, the virion will insert, and the virus reproduce. Does this mean it's alive? Given both of these states, wouldn't that make a virus somewhere in between alive and not alive? The concept of evolution follows naturally that all life, including the modern cell, has evolved...and we know this to be true. Here is how:

Life is made up of DNA. DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is made up of 4 nucleotides. Nucleotides are made up of elements. So the question of can life come from non-life, really begins with the question of can nucleotides synthesize naturally? Yes.

The primordial Earth consisted of many gases, Hydrogen, Hydrogen Cyanide, Methane, and Ammonia for example.

Joan Oro (1961), conducted an experiment by placing hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in a solution subject to conditions similar to the primordial Earth. Naturally, all on their own, this solution produced adenine, which, along with ribose, a sugar, and phosphates, make up one of the four nucleotides that make up DNA.

In the 1980s, researchers discovered that the clay substrate found on ocean floors acts as a catalyst to bond nucleotides into chains of polynucleotides (multiple nucleotides fused together).

So what does this mean for life? Well, polynucleotides in the correct sequences, that is to say, if the correct nucleotides fused in this clay in the correct pattern, are capable of self-replicating. These self-replicating polynucleotides are better known as Ribonucleic Acid, or RNA. Naturally, it follows that given the conditions, not all replications would have been perfect. But some would have survived: those best suited to remain bonded and not broken apart. Here we have the first example of natural selection by environment, and the first example of what could be considered the "origin of life". Would you call this alive? Probably not...but like the consciousness of a child, the process is gradual. They first learn they are alive, then they learn to recognize other living beings. Then they learn motor skills, to move, to speak, to think, etc.. Over time, the gradual changes add up to a massive change in the end. At no point can you look through a child's development and pick a directly defined moment when they developed consciousness, and life works the same way.

So what happened once these RNA molecules began to replicate as they naturally do to this day? Well, in the examples of clay substrates, we can find examples of another organic molecule called lipids. These lipids (fatty acids, glycerolipids, etc.) tend to bunch together. They form spherical patterns called micelles. If an RNA molecule attracted these lipids (even by simply having one loosely cling to it), it would form a spherical layer around the RNA protecting it. This would be an example of a primitive cell structure.

Now that we have the first RNA cells reproducing, how could this form DNA? Well, RNA, a single strand, bonding with another strand (likely considering the replication process) would form a double strand form of RNA, which is known as DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid. The major difference between RNA and DNA, is that DNA requires proteins called amino acids to replicate.

So now the question becomes, could amino acids form naturally from non-amino acids?

Yes. Within the clay substrate is a mix of chemical elements. Several examples have been successfully demonstrated in the laboratory of amino acids forming from natural conditions here on Earth. Examples of meteors have shown traces of them as well, which could demonstrate the possibility that they formed on another planet, and were transferred here. Whichever route was true, it really doesn't matter, as we know the conditions for the formation of amino acids does naturally occur.

So there you have it. Yes, it is possible that life could have arose from non life. Whether or not life arose naturally without supernatural help, or with it is really irrelevant to the subject of possibility, and as I have demonstrated, given the proper natural conditions, it is possible for life to arise from non-life.

d: "Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness."

Which I believe has been thoroughly covered enough under the last subsection to show this as untrue. I will, however, add that this is demonstrably false, as when you have sex, your unconscious sperm cells mix with the unconscious egg cells of your partner, to form an unconscious embryo that develops into an unconscious child, that grows into a conscious being. With the gradual accumulation of attributes of consciousness, something can climb from the ranks of 'unconscious' to 'conscious'...which again, is arbitrary, as the term has no real meaning. There is no defining point of conscious or unconscious.



e: "The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists."


Therefore his name is Steve, and he really likes Cheese. To assert personal attributes to something undefined is beyond the realm of what is logically fallacious. You cannot define "god" into existence, no matter how badly you try. As I have repeatedly demonstrated, it is not logical or reasonable to assert a creator, let alone the biblical one as you have claimed in your quote mining of the bible. No, again, the universe being eternal has not been scientifically proven, and such attempts to smear what science says by simply distorting definitions is hardly a valid method of proving your god. If your god can only exist within the confines of a logical fallacy, then it means your god is logically fallacious. Whether or not the universe is eternal or otherwise, cannot prove an unrelated point. If the universe had a beginning, all that can prove is that it had a beginning. Until we can demonstrate that such a beginning necessarily requires an intelligent creator, then it is equally as logically valid to conclude that a brick of timeless swiss cheese created it. It is equally as logically valid to say that the universe created itself, and thus, the universe is god (pantheism)...which raises another argument altogether of why not simply call it by its name, the universe, instead of attach another label which is taken out of context? In the realm of the unknown, all sorts of things are equally as logically valid: not valid at all.



7. "With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven."


a: There is no evidence for the existence of "god", and as I have demonstrated, all attempts of hashing together a logically fallacious argument in order to make it appear as such, are hardly worth calling a reason to accept them. The grounds for atheism therefore become quite concrete. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It is not a positive claim that no deity exists. It is merely a lack of acceptance of the currently proposed ideas. It is a negative claim. A non-term if you will. It is the same as labelling all who do not believe in dragons as a-dragonists, or a-fairyists, or a-gnomists, etc.. We call those people realistic...and there is no difference between this and atheism. The difference obviously being that people do not invest such great efforts to distort the truth about dragons (except for the cultic following of Kent Ham who seem to think dragons are dinosaurs whose nostrils caught fire from breathing to fast), etc.. For that reason, we adhere by a term to define our non-belief. Atheism is not some negative or evil, or devil worshipping ploy. Atheism simply means without belief. To not hold a position on the subject of religion is, by definition, atheistic. Science therefore, which holds no position on religion, is, by definition, atheistic. It does not mean it is against religion, or believes it is false...it merely doesn't accept it as fact.

b: No, atheism is NOT the claim "there is no god". Atheism is the notion that one doesn't accept what has been claimed. I do not accept X, is not the same as saying X is false. This is a straw-man fallacy.

c: "The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time."

Dr. Bertrand Russell put to bed this fundamentally flawed logic perfectly with his notion of the celestial teapot. I use my own analogy of a wood-gnome. I shall present them both to you to show how illogical this statement is:

Suppose there is a teapot in orbit, somewhere between Earth and Mars. It is therefore too small to be observed, and since no one can be in all places between Earth and Mars at one time, no one can say for certain there isn't one. It is therefore, by your own form of logic, an invalid philosophical statement to say no teapot exists. Should we then jump to the conclusion that one does?


My analogy goes as follows: I have a wood-gnome sitting on my forehead. He is invisible, has no mass, and requires only faith to see him. Do you believe me? It would be philosophically invalid to claim he doesn't exist, as you cannot prove it. So do you believe me?


If your answer to these questions is there is no reason to accept the teapot, or the wood-gnome: congratulations, you have accepted the logic of atheism.

If your answer is that there is no evidence to support these claims, congratulations, you have accepted the logic of atheism.

...if your answer is anything apart from blind acceptance of these statements because it was written, and because you can just 'sense' the teapot or gnome, well my friend, then you have accepted the logic of atheism. In fact, it's not the logic of atheism - it's simply logic, and atheists use logic to conclude the illogical absurdity of beliefs such as you have presented.

xxxWesxxx: Blackshoes, I understan what Genesis says quite well. Do you?



GENESIS 1:26-31


26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


GENESIS 2: 1-5

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Adam and Eve

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.



According to Genesis 1, "god" made man on the 6th day. According to Genesis 2, man was not yet upon the Earth until after "god" rested.

These are two glaringly different accounts of the same story. I don't care what sort of ad hoc fallacy you can conjure up to justify why it should be taken literally. To take these two stories as literal is absolutely impossible. Thus, they cannot be used as literal interpretations of the "truth" of god. Thus, they can only be, at best, the words of men writing down their experience of what they "heard" from "god".

xxxWesxxx: Blackshoes: "bahcatha returns: You'll see soon enough .Either in this life or the next ,It's just a matter of time."


Isn't having a Christian threaten an atheist with hell sort of like having a hippy threaten to punch you in your aura?

What is your god, a playground bully? So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is deserving of eternal torture?

xxxWesxxx: Blackshoes....you're gonna make me do this again aren't you? Alright. I do apologize to everyone for the longwinded replies...but there's only so much condensing of education one can do for such deluded minds:

1. "Two Vastly Different Views with Vastly Different Conclusions:
Let's not kid ourselves. What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood and about 6000 years ago with regard to Creation itself."

No, it's not. Archaeological evidence, coupled with modern physics and biology irrefutably confirm that it is not an accurate portrayal. For "god's sake" (intended), they couldn't even get the birth place of their lord and saviour right.





2. "Was virtually all of the sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of TIME, and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history?"

Since floods simply do NOT lay down strata as is observed in the geological record, it's quite simple to see which is the inaccurate fairy tale. No amount of internet searching through creationist sites can overthrow the laws of physics. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. It doesn't go away just because you don't like it. Evolution and geology are two separate fields. That they both fit the same conclusion is merely because they are both right, not because they are in cahoots.



3. "It's also about God's future judgment of mankind and the return of Jesus Christ to rule over the Earth that God and He created: simply because He related His return to the days of Noah and the Flood. See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12."

So now "god" is going to judge the souls of those who accepted reality, and favour those who blindly followed batshit crazy ideas they read on the internet? Yah....that's logical.


4. "Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood. Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm"

Oh good, you want evidence (and also provided the url to the very source of your plagiarism, well done). Sure, let's look at the "evidence" and what it really says (Who wants to bet that every single point has been covered in the talk origins archive already?):

a: Polystrate Fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html (1 for 1)

Hardly evidence for a global flood. Polystrate fossils have not been evidence for a flood since long before the creationist movement learned how to work a computer.

Even Wikipedia can explain them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

To have trees that live for hundreds to thousands of years, buried within layers of hundreds to thousands of years of sediment would only be unexpected to a mind that thinks the Earth is younger than this. Thus, polystrate fossils demonstrate nothing even close to a biblical flood, unless we are to already conclude that such events have happened on an Earth that is younger than half these trees are old.



b: "The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. 15 Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. 16 Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past."

Unless you consider of course that the fossil record accounts for somewhere around 2% of the life that has occupied Earth. Then you get a clear example of how and why such records don't show a biblical flood, but a rather minute portion of life being caught in the conditions to preserve due to fossilization. FYI, there are other methods of fossilization than just petrification.

Oh, and by the way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2011_03.html (2 for 2)



c: Clastic dikes:

The filling of cracks in strata with sedimentary rock. How and why would this only occur from a biblical flood? This one seems such a pathetic grasp at any "evidence" it didn't even show up on Talk Origins (not that I looked that hard)

5. Of course, I could go on and on and on to dismiss the laughably pathetic evidence you have presented from an amateur opinion based website, but it really doesn't matter. Why? Because no amount of evidence can overturn the fact that we know the biblical flood is a physical impossibility. The evidence not only doesn't support a global flood, it proves it wrong.


a: Dendrochronology:

Tree growth is easily evident, as everyone knows, by the rings in the trunk. But why do these form? Simple. It has to do with the environment. When the tree experiences different seasons, it experiences different growth rates. The faster it grows, the less dense the wood, hence the lighter in colour. As the growth seasons change, so too does the rate of growth in the tree. The more dramatic the climate change, the more visible the rings. Cold winters with little sun mean little to no growth. The ring results in being light in the summer during growth, and very dark around the edge from the winter. This process repeats yearly with the seasons, giving a remarkably accurate ability to date the trees. How can we test the accuracy? Cross-dating trees.

Taking two trees that began their life on different years, and comparing the rings, we will see a nearly perfect overlap of the years growth. By aligning the rings, we can determine the ages of both trees, even if only one was known. As an example, we take a core sample of a tree known to have been planted in 1950. We cross date another tree from the area that is older, and align the rings so they match. Then we can reference the first ring of the known tree from 1950, and count back to determine when the other tree was born. If there are exactly 10 more rings, then the other tree was born in 1940. This works exceptionally well for dating fossils of wood, and old remains of trees. By simply counting back these rings, with nothing more than trees, we can date the Earth back to at least 11,000 years ago...far older than the timescale given by your claims (and older than the universe according to the creationist rhetoric you base your "logic" from).

Even without this, we have examples of trees that date back to before this alleged flood. In California for example, there are trees that are 6,000 years old. By using the very existence of trees alone, we can call out your biblical flood story as utter nonsense. But that's not all:


b: Ice cores:

Ice core samples have been taken from the polar ice caps. Like trees, the ice cores can tell us the different seasons. The variation of temperature and atmosphere alone can be seen within the years...and counting the rings of ice cores, we can date the Earth back to 800,000 years. This means the ice cores have gone through some 800,000 summer, fall, winter, spring cycles. So unless the seasons were insanely shorter in the past, there is no possible way to account for this in the time frame you give. What's worse still, is that these ice cores contain samples of the water as they were in those years. Low and behold, not once has any ring shown variations in the salinity levels. If the oceans rose above all land, then all freshwater on Earth would have been engulfed in it, and the salinity levels would have become one (another problem for the flood hypothesis).

c: radiometric dating:

Despite apologists best efforts to discredit radiometric dating (except when it confirms a date stated in the bible or course), all they can ever seem to muster is a falsely stated report using carbon dating. The sad fact is that carbon dating is seldom used to date fossils described in these geological records, and for good reason: the half life of carbon-14, used for radiocarbon dating, is only about 5730 years. This means carbon-14 dating can only be accurately used to date back as far as about 45,000 years. The dating methods used to date older fossils than this (which is often the case when creationists argue against carbon dating anyways), are far more reliable. When properly used, we can accurately date things, be it through carbon dating, or argon-argon dating, et al., and we know this to be accurate, by means of cross referencing our dating methods with other methods (such as ice core samples, dendrochonology, or multiple methods of radiometric dating, etc.). The examples of error in radiometric dating (e.i. the carbon dating cases creationists often cite), was demonstrated in papers that often get abused by the creationists. Examples of dating small samples within a rock structure for example, can be misleading in certain areas (such as volcanoes), as the source to be dated could have been contaminated by a younger source of rock. In the case of fossils, this is not the case virtually ever, since these contaminations are kept out by the process of petrification. While such errors are possible (as these papers were done to show), they do have methods of avoiding this (again, as these papers were done to show). Quite simply, it can be done by dating several samples of the same specimen.

d: Lack of water:

There simply isn't enough water on Earth to flood the planet. The USGS made a simulation of what all the water on Earth would look like if it where removed and made into a ball like the Earth. The results are shown here:
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

There simply is not enough water on Earth to flood the whole planet. It is just that simple.



....and of course I could go on and on and on and on, including physics equations to show how no life on Earth would survive such a flood (through sterilization of the planet from massive heat and steam), to dispersion of animals on Earth, etc., To lack of atmosphere to breathe due to that much water...and the list continues to go on...but really there is no need. You have to reject ALL of reality in order to be foolish enough to believe in the global flood spoof.

Blackshoes: xxxWesxxx: It isn't a threat to state the obovious !! We will all die ! However :you as so many assume evil so/ as to further your own ignorances .So typical", I didn't mention either Heaven or Hell..You will see soo enough !!
The fact is you need only choose between truth and lies ..
God created all things and without God nothing can be created
If you understand Science !!You"ll believe in God .
For all things are made from things unseen ..

If you have any clue whatsoever ",as what the Bible stated ',you'd already know the following ..

ROMANS

1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.



10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.



1 CORINTHIANS

1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?



1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

xxxWesxxx: Yes, we will all die. What will happen after this however, is subject to a phase of life beyond ours. Thus, we cannot, as living beings, be in a position to say for certain what happens, apart from what we can observe in others, decomposition.

How exactly do I "assume evil"? Are YOU assuming anyone who doesn't believe in the same thing as you is evil?

You don't have to mention "heaven" or "hell", as your statement implies threat enough. No, we won't find out, as there is no reason to assume that: a: either exist, and b: our memories and mentality can exist absent a living brain.

On that note however, such statements as this, are precisely the OPPOSITE of what Christianity is supposed to be based on. According to the very bible you claim as absolute truth, such statements as you are making are assuming self-righteousness, and casting judgement upon others. Both of these are deserving of hell. Thus, I guess if you are right, and "god" is such a dick that he will send someone to eternal torment for using the very brain he gave them, I'll be seeing you in hell also. Don't you love the power of logic?

The fact is that you need only choose between the truth and lies. Indeed this statement is true. However, the difference is in what you define as truth. I for one, choose to define truth as that which is actually true, not that which I would really like to be true because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Prove that "god" created all things, and prove that without "god" nothing could be created. So far, all evidence contradicts you on this one.

If you understand science, you'll believe in "god"? So then 93% of the National Academy of Sciences doesn't understand science? Are you aware that there are some 7% of these scientists that accept a belief in a god? A mere 7%. That rather defies your blatant lie.

Things are made from things unseen…but that's because our eyes can only see things that they evolved a need to see. Nearly 96% of the universe exists as non-material, unseen…yet we know it exists…and in it, no god exists either.

Yes, I do have a "clue" as to what the bible says…and yes I do know what those random verses you quote say (along with tons more that you are probably unaware of)…so what does this prove? Why quote the bible to someone who doesn't accept it as anything more than a collection of stories? The bible is not proof of "god". This is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning…which we've already been over.

Blackshoes: There is NO threat within any of my statement~~ No matter how greatly you twist Semantic ..If I ' have caused any harm ? I will answer for it', on the last day as all will !!
You state that No one can know of life after death !
The dead Know !!
Jesus rose from the Dead !

xxxWesxxx: No, the bible says Jesus rose from the dead...and it didn't even say that initially. That had to get added in to later texts. Funny that you didn't know that...since you know the bible so well.

Blackshoes: I don't know everything ..I do know this!! Jesus is alive!! You can say whatever you want or have faith in them that were not there ..As for me and IMO wiser men than you .. I 'll believe the eye witness too the events', not them that haven't seen nor understand what had happen ..
WOW This is really a hard choice

xxxWesxxx: If Jesus is alive, can you tell me his address? I would love to meet him. I have a few questions pertaining to biology.

As far as believing "wiser men than me", such a statement demonstrates little wisdom. There is an ethos in science, and it says: "In science, there are NO authorities". Why would you take the word of anyone on face value? Question everything should be the motto of all. Science needs no authorities, because the truth of it stands and falls on its own merit.

Blackshoes: You will soon enough !as will all that were ever Born of Adam ..I've Stated all this before Bye..

xxxWesxxx: So rather than think for yourself, you run away? Alright then. If you choose, so be it. Born of Adam? Hardly. What makes you think Adam even existed?

calybonos: Adam was Batman on tv.....I think.

calybonos: According to the book of TV Guide.

He was also mayor of Quahog on Family Guy.

Blessed be

xxxWesxxx: And the TV guide is true. It makes predictions that are nearly always true.

chayim: xxx, you didn't understand the bible, the bible after it wrote everything about the creation in the 6 days, and than he rested, it goes back to write the details about Adam and Eve's creation

chayim: When i said that everything is connected i meant to it's completely perfection, but the spirit is not bounded to exist with the body