Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Col. Hstar]

I assure you it's not intentional. Except when it is, which is some of the time but not all. I should try to moderate my tone, though - let me know if anything continues to offend you personally.

We could both stand to moderate our tones, a lot, but not so much

If you knew beforehand that the officer would mistreat them? Yes, absolutely. You knowingly took an action that caused it to happen. In this case, since God took the action of doing nothing, infants were slaughtered. He knew this would happen, and could have prevented it without incurring a greater cost, but did not. I'm fairly certain this fits most people's definitions of "evil".

This is the point where you have to look at the Bible as a whole. Many people including infants have died in wars waged by mankind. As I asked before do you honestly believe that only military personnel were killed in bombings of Nazi Germany, and Japan? Humankind has always been very clumsy and indiscriminate in war, billions have been killed innocently, in a untold number of wars. This too was a warning given by God's son Jesus at Matt 24:7 He said that "Nation would rise against Nation." But the Bible shows that God is not as "evil" as you claim. The Bible shows that in time, there would be a resurrecting of the dead - John 5:28,29 also Revelation 20:13.
Why is this desirable? Because, the resurrection will not only include those who have come to live by and follow God's requirements, but also those who never had the opportunity. At Acts 24:15 the Bible shows that there will be a resurrecting of both the righteous and the unrighteous, the unrighteous being the innocent children and infants who have died in Mankind's wars.
You cannot pick and chose which scriptures you want to profile the personality of God with. If your going to reach a conclusion, such as the idea that God is evil, from just a handful of scriptures, you have to also give weight to the rest of the scriptures. Otherwise you are simply bending data to your predetermined conclusion

What caused everything to begin?

I have absolutely no clue. Nobody has any clue. We have no evidence about anything before the Big Bang, and no way to gather evidence. It could have been created by a deity. It could be colliding branes, some sort of cyclic universe, or there could have been absolutely nothing. There is probably exactly one answer, but we might never know what that is, and I certainly don't think I'll ever find out.

And that was my point. Since no one know how it all started, how can you then start talking about something like abiogenesis. You building a theory of which it's origins you cannot explain. You cannot give this theory "Every process in the formation of RNA (DNA is basically just a mutation that came later) is a natural chemical process that was possible in the conditions of the early Earth." when you can't explain the natural process of how the universe came to exist, with galaxies, with stars, with planets, and with chemicals that just naturally mutated over a long period of time.

Your theories must be built upon a foundation, and without an explanation of how everything started, your missing the very bottom of your foundation

Now, I don't see how this relates to anything after the Big Bang, which we do have very real evidence for. Pick whatever you like as an explanation for the universe's origin, but without evidence, don't use it to justify anything.

I just showed above, that you are doing just that. You picked an explanation that it just naturally occurred without evidence and justified everything after it.

I would love to see evidence about anything before then, but I don't think anyone has convincingly provided any. The Bible is at best circular, and is mutually contradictory with most other religious traditions (yes, I'm willing to discuss the Bible's credibility in detail if necessary). Evidence for a being manipulating things within the universe (which I've also seen none of) would not also be evidence that said being had the ability to create the universe, or that said being followed the pattern of the Christian god specifically.

Then let's discuss it, if you don't mind explaining what you mean by circular, and contradictory, I think we could start there.


EDIT: WE HIT PAGE 75!!!!

[The Master]

Our other topic was closed but I just wanted to make it clear I'm not a 10 year old. I'm 15. And I apologize if I offended you Col or anyone else who I bothered.

[THEWULFMAN]

If we are both rational, or relatively so (it's hard for humans, and I'm far from perfect), then we should come to the same conclusion given the same evidence.

If that was true, every scientist would agree with one another, but they don't. That's not how humans work. We're very different from eachother (which is good, otherwise we'd be boring), and this causes us to believe in different things because we have different ideas and opinions on how things (i.e. evidence) should be interpreted.

Darth Crater, what you are touching on is the problem of evil in the world. The basic question is this: if God is all powerful and all loving, why is there evil?

This is a messy question to answer, and a perfect one doesn't exist. The best answer is that God allows free choice in the world, and people often do chose to do bad things, which He permits for reasons unknown to us.

To me a nearly perfect answer does exist. No, God doesn't interfere with our lives, simple as that. Why, you ask? What's the point of creating humans (if he did, in any way shape or form distantly or otherwise), if you just force them to do everything you want them to? This still applies even if we were created outside of his influence as well, completely by random. Why force us to do everything or anything he wants? It's far better to give us free will; then have us, on our on volition, make the right choices.

The reason isn't imperfect or unknown to me, as I firmly believe this to be fact.

If you were to call the police on somebody who was doing wrong, and through the course of events that person is mistreated by the police officer, are you guilty because of the officers actions?

If you knew beforehand that the officer would mistreat them? Yes, absolutely. You knowingly took an action that caused it to happen. In this case, since God took the action of doing nothing, infants were slaughtered. He knew this would happen, and could have prevented it without incurring a greater cost, but did not. I'm fairly certain this fits most people's definitions of "evil".

Refer to above. There's no point in him affecting out lives on such a level. We need to make the right choices, we shouldn't be forced to do them by God. I don't blame God one bit for not saving countless humans when he could, because he shouldn't.

Our other topic was closed but I just wanted to make it clear I'm not a 10 year old. I'm 15. And I apologize if I offended you Col or anyone else who I bothered.

Apology accepted if you mean it and you try harder.

[Darth Crater]

Not a lot of time, will respond to the rest later. I think this is the most urgent point.

And that was my point. Since no one know how it all started, how can you then start talking about something like abiogenesis. You building a theory of which it's origins you cannot explain. You cannot give this theory "Every process in the formation of RNA (DNA is basically just a mutation that came later) is a natural chemical process that was possible in the conditions of the early Earth." when you can't explain the natural process of how the universe came to exist, with galaxies, with stars, with planets, and with chemicals that just naturally mutated over a long period of time.

Your theories must be built upon a foundation, and without an explanation of how everything started, your missing the very bottom of your foundation

See, this is why I'm having trouble keeping a civil tone. You are trying to debate science without understanding the science. At all. I imagine you're feeling much the same way when I quote scripture - thus I try to avoid doing so when I can, and limit myself to examples of a broader trend, since I know I don't have the full context.

Here is how this works. I do not have to know how the universe formed in order to develop a theory that explains a specific event billions of years later, in an entirely different field of study. I can't explain the formation of the universe with processes within the universe. But I don't have to - I'm just forming a theory about events within the universe, based on evidence and physical laws within that universe.

[theavengers85]

The concept of "wrong" comes first from oneself, and second from society. I feel that killing infants is bad, and most people are like me, so we agree that killing infants is wrong. It is merely a social construct, something we agree on - there's no "wrong particle", "sin", or any related measurable force. If you want to change what society considers wrong, argue that something is or is not bad.

So basically, you are stating that "wrong" is a societal consensus on how people feel (am I correct?). You have traced it from society, but permit me to dig a little deeper and ask you how you personally define "wrong." Is it something that makes you feel bad? Or is it something deeper.

It is wrong for infants to be killed because they are human. I do not want any humans to unnecessarily die.

What is inherently different about being human in an evolutionary scheme? Isn't man just an ascended ape? Just recently, a male chimpanzee killed a baby chimpanzee in front of zoo-goers, why was everyone horrified (this is normal in the wild)?

Once again, I am not trying to define your views or be insulting. I just want to show you what I believe is the logical conclusion of your beliefs. I certainly respect your ideas, and I always defend people's rights to hold a view regardless of whether it differs from mine.

And that was my point. Since no one know how it all started, how can you then start talking about something like abiogenesis. You building a theory of which it's origins you cannot explain. You cannot give this theory "Every process in the formation of RNA (DNA is basically just a mutation that came later) is a natural chemical process that was possible in the conditions of the early Earth." when you can't explain the natural process of how the universe came to exist, with galaxies, with stars, with planets, and with chemicals that just naturally mutated over a long period of time.

Your theories must be built upon a foundation, and without an explanation of how everything started, your missing the very bottom of your foundation

Ok, problem...
Col, he is holding a perfectly logical theory within his atheistic beliefs just like creationists hold a perfectly logical view with their theistic beliefs. A theory does not have to explain everything (creationism certainly doesn't, and evolution/big bang doesn't either).

The question of the very beginning is one that both big bang theorists and creationists take on "faith", since no one was there to see it and there is no way to directly test it. You just take your respective theory and assume that what it says about the beginning is true, because the rest of it matches up to what you believe.

Both the Big Bang theory/evolution and creationist are lenses through which the natural evidence is viewed. Any changes in the evidence will cause corresponding changes in the theory. It is impossible to "kill" either theory on technical points because they will simply alter themselves to fit the new evidence. You also cannot really attack the core views, since they are mostly philosophical (i.e. I believe the universe arose naturally vs. I believe God created it). There is intense competition between the theories as to which better explains the evidence, but both sides will claim this.

Also, one thing is not pointed out very often (if ever): competition is GOOD. It makes both sides work on their theories and strengthen them, adjusting them to the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists keep each other accountable and on point, rebutting various pieces of their theories and forcing improvement. So, it's not: "Oh no, my side is being attacked!", it's: "hmm, they refuting bla bla bla point, we need to make a better one."

(As I said earlier, I will defend Darth Crater's view of the universe as logical within his atheistic philosophy/faith, even though I do not personally agree with it.)

[Col. Hstar]

I thought we were debating the existence of God and whether or not he created us and everything around us? Not whether evolution is possible.

Only stated that current evidence indicates that a God does not exist. If evidence indicate otherwise, then it is safe to say it exists, which is lacking at the moment.

This is a very broad subject, not just one scientific theory. Crater, Cypher, you both mistakenly assume I am arguing to disprove the theory of evolution, I am not. My argument is that in this broad subject your "current evidence" is incomplete, and unable to "indicate that God does not exist."

Since you do not have an explanation for how everything started, how can you then turn around and invalidate the explanation that God gives through the Bible.

No this does not add proof to the creation explanation, but you cannot dismiss it due to lack of proof.

I know this was 20 pages back, but it's what I was still focusing on. And I agree my earlier post did not explain this thoroughly. That was my mistake. I should have gone to bed and posted in the morning when I was awake

[Yanoda]

Just a short mention that Scientists/Physicists at CERN have come closer to finding the Higgs Boson, which in theory/calculations give particles their mass and explain the process of the initial formation of Stars, Local Clusters, Galaxies and Galaxy Clusters.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04 ... oson-cern/

Again... stating that lack of evidence on disproving God? There is also lack of evidence disproving leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures. By your logic and argument, they must therefore also exist. Though I doubt you do.

Again... Current Scientific Theories/Explanations/Consensus are based on the current evidences (many from different fields) we have. We have considerable evidences on the process and parts (mutation/adaption/selection etc.) of Evolution. We have considerable evidence how the solar system, stars (even our sun) formed, we know the processes that drives the sun, we can predict projectiles quite accurately and have some knowledge on the early Universe. The research conducted in CERN would further expand our understanding.

Abiogenesis, Evolution and Origin of the Universe are all different subjects and encompass different scientific fields.

I have previously listed two experiments that simulated early Earth conditions and those experiments showed that Organic compounds can be created from primary elements (non-organic) showing the process of Abiogenesis. You seemed to have missed this.

Those scientific fields/theories are based on the current foundation of evidences provided thus far.
Faith/Religion uses the Bible/Qur'an/Theravada/Four Books and Five Classics/Pyramid Texts/Vedas etc. as their foundation. All of which have different God(s), philosophies, rules, how the world/universe works and how it arose.

So far, most Creationist research/studies use current 'Scientific' Research, twist the evidence in their favor and just question scientific evidences they find that contradicts their religious view. I have made a detailed analysis, a few pages back, of how scientific journals have been manipulated from their initial intention by the Institute for Creation Research. The use of quote mining is also apparent.
If you wish, I can make another analysis on the Mercury article claiming it is proof of creation http://www.icr.org/article/6896/ to validate my point.

If you can provide a valid scientific research study on the study of creationism (that show valid evidence), I'll be happy to read it. I have unfortunately not found a proper one yet, so I appreciate if you could help.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

Again... stating that lack of evidence on disproving God? There is also lack of evidence disproving leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures. By your logic and argument, they must therefore also exist. Though I doubt you do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was there a book like the bible that tells us about the existence, personality, and history of leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures. You claim there is no evidence that God exists, because you dismiss the Bible as a source.I've said before I am more then willing to debate the relevance of the Bible, because it contains solid evidence of God's existence.

[Yanoda]

I was referencing the point you were saying

My argument is that in this broad subject your "current evidence" is incomplete, and unable to "indicate that God does not exist.

It would be same thing as claiming as someone as guilty without providing proof, yet the one being claimed as guilty must provide proof to disprove the claim. It doesn't work like that. If you make a claim (God exists), you have to provide proof of that. I merely state that no evidence is currently there that indicate that a God exists. (There is no current evidence that indicate the accused individual is guilty of the crime).

Correct me if I'm wrong but was there a book like the bible that tells us about the existence, personality, and history of leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures.

Satyrs
Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

Cockatrices
Jeremiah 8:17 - For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 11:8 - And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
Isaiah 59:5 - They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.

Unicorns
Numbers 24:8 - God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17 - His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Just a few.

You claim there is no evidence that God exists, because you dismiss the Bible as a source.I've said before I am more then willing to debate the relevance of the Bible, because it contains solid evidence of God's existence.

Quintessential Circular argument:
- God exists.
+ Why?
- The bible says so
+ Why should I believe the Bible?
- God directed the writing of the Bible. (Or The Bible is the Word of God)

Further noting that the bible has been modified and altered throughout the course of history, the language barrier of translations should not be excluded either.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

I was referencing the point you were saying

My argument is that in this broad subject your "current evidence" is incomplete, and unable to "indicate that God does not exist.

It would be same thing as claiming as someone as guilty without providing proof, yet the one being claimed as guilty must provide proof to disprove the claim. It doesn't work like that.
Uhhh yes it does, if someone says your guilty, the typical response is to provide proof your not
If you make a claim (God exists), you have to provide proof of that. The Bible I merely state that no evidence is currently there that indicate that a God exists. That you want to acknowledge (There is no current evidence that indicate the accused individual is guilty of the crime).

Correct me if I'm wrong but was there a book like the bible that tells us about the existence, personality, and history of leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures.

Satyrs
Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

The Ancient Hebrew word sa·ʽir′ which literally means hairy, combined with the Hebrew term seʽi·rim′ which means senseless or wild goat means that this is referring to a hairy goat dancing. The context of these scriptures is talking about wild animals.....

Cockatrices
Jeremiah 8:17 - For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 11:8 - And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
Isaiah 59:5 - They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.

The Hebrew words tse′phaʽ and tsiph·ʽoh·ni′ refer to poisonous snakes or vipers. The King James Version incorrectly translated these words as referring to the mythical “cockatrice." Again even with the King James version look ate the context of your scrpture. I even says vipers and snakes...

Unicorns
Numbers 24:8 - God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17 - His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Oh boy... aside from the fact that the Hebrew term reʼem′ refers to wild oxen, or bulls, Shouldn't the fact that it says "his horns are like the horns"... Horns with an "s" indicates more then one....

Just a few.
Yes well done, ....NEXT!!!

You claim there is no evidence that God exists, because you dismiss the Bible as a source.I've said before I am more then willing to debate the relevance of the Bible, because it contains solid evidence of God's existence.

Quintessential Circular argument:
- God exists.
+ Why?
- The bible says so
+ Why should I believe the Bible?
- God directed the writing of the Bible. (Or The Bible is the Word of God)

So if a friend, wrote you a letter, saying where he was, and that was your only proof would that be circular too? And there is more to believing that God authored the Bible. The proof is in the historical accuracy, the harmony after being written by 40 different men over the course 1000+ years, and the accurate prophecies that have come true. Your circular argument is incomplete and simplistic.

Further noting that the bible has been modified and altered throughout the course of history, the language barrier of translations should not be excluded either.


That's why you must do research. You think it's been rewritten, but a good Bible translation, uses the real meanings of the original Hebrew words. The King James version, was translated with a slightly poetic tone.

Cheers

Yanoda