withouthatred's forum posts
I have not been reading the tread but I want to put my 2 cents in about the Big Bang.mindstormThen I suggest you do some research
I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory, nor Evolution. God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. When the Bible says 7 days, it is a literal 7 days. mindstormIn the original launguage the bible was in day ment "lenth of time"
When God created the animals, he created the dinosaurs as well (keep in mind that all animals were vegitarians until after the Great Flood). mindstormThen how come we have records showing that the majority of dinosaurs died of 65 million years ago?
Man was created on the 6th day mindstormMan was created 2 million years ago.
Note: It was kinds of animals, not breeds, so that means that there were only 2 dogs, not 2 german shepards, 2 poodles, etc. mindstormSo the different breeds of dogs feel out of the sky then right?
Even the dinosaurs got onto the ark, keep in mind that at one time, even the largest of dinosaurs are small at one point in time (when they are young). The dinosaurs mostly died sometime after mindstormThen how come we have no fossils of dinosaurs only a few thousand years old?
(there are dragon slaying legends all over the world). After the flood people were 'fruitful' and had many offspring and soon separated after the tower of Babel and created their own cultures.mindstormNo, humans created the stories, there have never been any records or proof of dinosaurs during the same times as human.
I'm a realist.
By the way, I am a Young-Earth Creationist
mindstorm
I support isreal...
I support isreal...
[QUOTE="withouthatred"][QUOTE="drj077"]the big bang thoery says that at the begging the singuality was infintely dense that means that nothing expanded or exploded, you can only do fusion up to iron and the guess that the universe is expanding is the thoery of red/blue shift due to space contrating or expanding but not loseing its speed and the theory of revality these are not laws in science which have been observed like the laws of thremodynamics says what happens under certain circumstances but does not try to explain it like a few theorys which have not been obseverd to be true. Also there is a whole bunch of werid light observations which may change theorys. The laws of gravitation have been observed the theory of revatiity just trys to explian why it happens.[QUOTE="Chessy_Nachos"][QUOTE="whatsit2ya"]The universe did not happen in an explosion it is just a figure os speech, it started as an infintessimal speck and there was no time up down left right in or out but then somthing happened, somthing that caused the infintessimal speck to expand GREATLY into the universe but it only had hyrdrogen in it at the time, but due to chemial reactions and heat the hydrogen turned into helium and then into all the other elements. NOT created by some sort of old man who sits in the sky. drj077
There is a theory of gravity, but there is no law of gravity. You can not observe gravity. You can only observe the effects of gravity. I don't believe we have instruments small enough to see a graviton as that would be smaller than an atom.
Just to be fair, so are the particles that carry the other forces :P Did you know that they are currentally questioning the existance of the gluon?No, but it has a silly name. It deserves to have its existence questioned.
As for the little particles remark (which is a good point, by the way), we can see atoms and we can see how cold, heat, pressure, and the like influence atoms at the atomic level.
I like the name gluon, it's like the protons and neutrons are "glued" together :o what else would they call it though? The strongtron?the big bang thoery says that at the begging the singuality was infintely dense that means that nothing expanded or exploded, you can only do fusion up to iron and the guess that the universe is expanding is the thoery of red/blue shift due to space contrating or expanding but not loseing its speed and the theory of revality these are not laws in science which have been observed like the laws of thremodynamics says what happens under certain circumstances but does not try to explain it like a few theorys which have not been obseverd to be true. Also there is a whole bunch of werid light observations which may change theorys. The laws of gravitation have been observed the theory of revatiity just trys to explian why it happens.[QUOTE="Chessy_Nachos"][QUOTE="whatsit2ya"]The universe did not happen in an explosion it is just a figure os speech, it started as an infintessimal speck and there was no time up down left right in or out but then somthing happened, somthing that caused the infintessimal speck to expand GREATLY into the universe but it only had hyrdrogen in it at the time, but due to chemial reactions and heat the hydrogen turned into helium and then into all the other elements. NOT created by some sort of old man who sits in the sky. drj077
There is a theory of gravity, but there is no law of gravity. You can not observe gravity. You can only observe the effects of gravity. I don't believe we have instruments small enough to see a graviton as that would be smaller than an atom.
Just to be fair, so are the particles that carry the other forces :P Did you know that they are currentally questioning the existance of the gluon?[QUOTE="TSCombo"] That's the point I'm trying to make to you. An Invisible Pink Unicorn is different than a belief in God because it's not dealing with the origin or purpose of Human Life. If you believe that God is a Pink Unicorn that's one thing but not believing in a Pink Unicorn by itself doesn't present a counter-view point in place of it. The question of a God does present a counter-view automaticaly in it's place by not believing in a God, you believe that there is not a God and therefore human life doesn't have purpose because it wasn't created with purpose. I believe your life has purpose, but you believe humans beings don't.Decessus
The belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is exactly like the belief in God. Both beliefs are entirely unprovable. You cannot prove the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn anymore than you can prove that God exists.
It does not follow from God not existing that human beings have no purpose. God isn't required to have meaning in your life. I don't believe in God, but I still find purpose in my life.
But if you have faith, you will be able to see the pink invisible unicorn.....
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
And again, if truth is objective, then what drives us to discover this fact? Our subjective beliefs cause us to search for an objective fact to prove that our beliefs are true, thus it is subjectivity that drives human progress, not objectivity. For example, I don't bother to look for proof that God exists because I have already found proof, the Bible. I don't care whether or not it is full of holes, if it is 2000 years old, or not, the word of God remains constant.
Decessus
Do you believe that snakes can talk? Do you believe that man was created from dust? Do you believe that at one point man all spoke the same language and God confused the language? Do you believe that Noah created an ark that is measured at 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high and put two of every kind of animal on this ark and then God flooded the entire earth?
I think bigger questions are how did he get 1117 animals onto the arc a second, and how did he create enviroments approperiate for each species, how did he feed all the animals, what did the cornivors eat, what about the plants, and how did they survive for over a month without light, what about protozoins, bacteria, arciobacteria and funguses, how were the animals redistributed after the arc landed?.....on and on....
[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="Gamezilla57"][QUOTE="withouthatred"]They were still ignorant if the rejected evolution, that's not saying they weren't intelligent in other areas though.....anyways, Einstein was atheist :o[QUOTE="Gamezilla57"]Look at all of the greatest scientists ever. Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Jonhannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, even Albert Einstein! There are many more also. Here's the link: Link.
You can't possibley sit there and tell me that these scientists didn't know anything and thta they were all ignorant. That would just show ignorance in yourself.
Albert Eintein-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Gamezilla57
Also, notice how all these people lived before darwins time.
Einstein was not Athiest and this link proves that he wasn't. I have found qoutes by him that point to a higher being on secular websites. Read this link: Link.
It's a little long, though.
Einstein was not an athiest, I watched a thing on the history channel about him and he was a big time believer in God.
Exactly! Einstein believed in God. I've got to go though so if this argument keeps on, just take a look at the links I posted. Good luck! :)
Like I said, this is only secondary in this conversation, the whole point has been in regards to evolution.
[QUOTE="withouthatred"]They were still ignorant if the rejected evolution, that's not saying they weren't intelligent in other areas though.....anyways, Einstein was atheist :o[QUOTE="Gamezilla57"]Look at all of the greatest scientists ever. Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Jonhannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, even Albert Einstein! There are many more also. Here's the link: Link.
You can't possibley sit there and tell me that these scientists didn't know anything and thta they were all ignorant. That would just show ignorance in yourself.
Albert Eintein-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Gamezilla57
Also, notice how all these people lived before darwins time.
Einstein was not Athiest and this link proves that he wasn't. I have found qoutes by him that point to a higher being on secular websites. Read this link: Link.
It's a little long, though.
No, most of the things he was quoted on about religion were just philosophical thougths, and I really doubt that the man who said this;
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.
This is of course secondary in my point which is that the disbelieve of evolution is an item of ignorance.
Log in to comment