Everyone knows there was no talking snake or magic garden... It was a motherfucking giant rainbow snake that created the world! Prove to me that it wasn't.

[font="Times New Roman"]Prove to me a big explosion in space made everything out of nothing; more importantly prove to me how if there was nothing there was an explosion form something,[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]To be fair you are right, I can’t show you that a snake did not do it, (in till when and if a god dose take everyone or we make a time machine and see for our selves)[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]How ever, I can use things to help our “theory” (that’s what scientist do right?)[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]This will in no way prove it but I can look for reasons to belive, and that what theroys do


They are a belief something will happen or something is
they are not fact it use "faith" as much as Any one belving in a God

[/font][font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]#1 science indicates that to be an explosion something has to cause it (see cause and effect)[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]If there was nothing to cause it then there is no explosion
[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]so by that there had to be something [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]#2 God dose answer that and last i checked we belive he is soemthing (and science can not disprove the exsaince of god)[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]If it cant disprove it it means the theory is valid and possible
[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]as shuch a scintist can not say "there is no god"
they are welcome to say there is no proof but there is no proof there is none either [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]#3 before you say it, science says life as we know it needs to come form some where, however if there is a god he is not life like us so it holds no ground
[/font]

complete gibberish

Go away. Learn a tiny bit about the big bang theory. Learn to spell words like "scientist", "does" and "existence". Learn about logical fallacies (hint: "if not known to science, then god" is not a valid construct).

While I disagree with MarkS, at least he is arguing coherently. You're just spouting uneducated nonsense.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300144805' post='4785812']
So, in other words, you've reduced the story to the point of where it is metaphor/allegory that only bears the vaguest resemblance to the source material.

It's akin to me saying "I built my house" when what I actually meant was "I found a site and then hired an architect and a building company to build the house, but it wouldn't have been built without me!"

I don't know how you can get that from what I've written.
[/quote]

You've used the old argument of redefining what a day is. Let's assume for a minute that creation story is true, and that god told someone about the origin of the universe. He's god, so he knows everything which means by definition, he knows what the human concept of a "day" is. So why mislead?

Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it. The actual creation story as written in the bible is, as I said, trivially disprovable until you start jumping through literary and linguistic hoops. Which is why most Christians I know accept it for what it is, a myth.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300157257' post='4785882']
Go away. Learn a tiny bit about the big bang theory. Learn to spell words like "scientist", "does" and "existence". Learn about logical fallacies (hint: "if not known to science, then god" is not a valid construct).

While I disagree with MarkS, at least he is arguing coherently. You're just spouting uneducated nonsense. [qoute]
[font="Times New Roman"]I’m going to say this once and only once okay, i'm not atacking you but giving you advice [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]Grow up. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font][font="Times New Roman"]You say I’m uneducated but how would you know just by my typing and spelling?[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]If you where educated you would know that most genius can’t spell or use grammar, [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]Stop being so immature and atack someone [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]Also another thing if it is so incoherent then how do you even know what I’m saying?[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]You also should know most of the USA Can’t use proper English Grammar, which by the way is the hardist

language to learn, and most of its rules have exceptions chnage on where you go

plus the fact that odds are your not doing it 100% either
[/font][font="Times New Roman"]

I’ve also got a medical condition

Where I mix up b’s and d’s

Also cant tell between dose and does, eles else, etc,ect

Or if I misplace a letter my brain will not see it

That however, dose not make me any less educated then you or anyone else

[/font]

You should be thanking me for even trying to type corectly, many pepole like me don't even try
[font="Times New Roman"]Now that the sad pathetic attack of my character is over, try to be mature and have a debate with out one insult?

I'm man enough to are you?


Anyways

I know what the bang theroy is, Put simply they believe that a explosion caused the creation of the cosmos
but no mater how you slice it, the big bang theroy has many flaws (as dose the bible)

both are flawed becuse neither one of them has all the awnsers

dose not make either one imposable



About the 6 day’s, if you think about it, your saying the bible has to be taken to be literal (which by the way is also an old augment)



But there are some clues to help our believe that it’s not six days our time



For example



1[sup]st[/sup] day he made light (hmm wonder what a big bang is?)

2[sup]nd[/sup] day he made skies Hmmm the forming of the atmospheres of the planets?

3[sup]rd[/sup] day water (last I checked water needs atmosphere and the planet was coverd in water mostly)

Day 4 he makes in the firmament and makes two great lights (stars take longer to form then planets so a few hundred thousand years later or so seems about right)

Now the moon is not a planet or a star

How ever the two great lights are not named we assume they are the moon and sun but no way of knowing

Also if the sun just formed he must not being used earths days since they have yet to be made in day 1-3)

5[sup]th[/sup] day the water gets life, last I checked life begin in water, wonder how they knew that?

6[sup]th[/sup] day he makes land and land animals, among them are humans (or monkeys who will become humans, notice they are never described)



So nothing in there goes against science

Care to tell me how it is disproved?




and please try awnsring with out atackin me it really makes you look like someone who absoutly needs to insult someone he will never know

and I feel sorry for you i f that is so

but i belive you can be mature and talk like a mature person

[/font]

You've used the old argument of redefining what a day is. Let's assume for a minute that creation story is true, and that god told someone about the origin of the universe. He's god, so he knows everything which means by definition, he knows what the human concept of a "day" is. So why mislead?

I would suggest that perhaps you're making the mistake of thinking the Bible was written in English - the Hebrew word translated 'day' can just as easily mean 'age'. Indeed, in the very next chapter, Genesis 2, the same word is used to described the entire 'week': "in the *day* that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (2:4) which shows that it's not a modern imposition to try and claim the day doesn't always mean a literal 24-hour period.

I know what the bang theroy is, Put simply they believe that a explosion caused the creation of the cosmos
but no mater how you slice it, the big bang theroy has many flaws (as dose the bible)

both are flawed becuse neither one of them has all the awnsers

dose not make either one imposable[/quote]The difference is that one is based on empirical observations, and a set of self-consistent rules that can be used to make accurate predictions about future evens, which can be used to measure the validity of these rules.
The other is an ancient myth, based on assumptions, provides no accurate predictions and cannot ever be tested. In other words, it's entirely not science.

The fact that it's *possible* that there's a god is of zero interest to science. There is no utility to science in believing a myth, so it's simply ignored.

In your personal life you may find some utility for it, but in scientific advancement there is none.

Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it. The actual creation story as written in the bible is, as I said, trivially disprovable until you start jumping through literary and linguistic hoops. Which is why most Christians I know accept it for what it is, a myth.

If I were to start spreading the belief that bananas are elephants, does that change what an elephant is? And I was unaware that reading it being conscious of the language it was originally written in is "jumping through literary and linguistic hoops."

[]The difference is that one is based on empirical observations, and a set of self-consistent rules that can be used to make accurate predictions about future evens, which can be used to measure the validity of these rules.
The other is an ancient myth, based on assumptions, provides no accurate predictions and cannot ever be tested. In other words, it's entirely not science.

The fact that it's *possible* that there's a god is of zero interest to science. There is no utility to science in believing a myth, so it's simply ignored.

In your personal life you may find some utility for it, but in scientific advancement there is none.

[font="Times New Roman"]Dose it help that thus myth can’t be disproved, [/font][font="Times New Roman"]and the creation story goes with what science says happened and what we know about the formation of the cosmos?[/font]


Sorry but Science is all about possable or not, all theroys all possable, some can't be tested yet dose not make them any less vaild theroys


[font="Times New Roman"]As someone said in this thread[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]The more times a theory can’t be disproved the more odds its right[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]Well the big bang theory dose not disprove god [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]Nor dose any laws we have so there is no way you can say [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]It has no place in science since there is no proof against it
[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]
unless you dont use

Science for your assumption and just use your believe



In which case its your theory not a fact



Your welcome not to believe in God but don’t say science says there cant be one, cause it dose not


[/font]
Many respectable [font="Times New Roman"]People in the field of Science believe in God, there is a place for God
[/font]

kentl, are you trying to come across as you do? Can you please post in a somewhat sane manor and use correct grammar? Do you really need a random number of blank lines between each sentence? I've seen posting like yours before and it is typically on sites spouting flat earth theory and aliens are here to invade and other such nonsense. You do not come across as credible.

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]

You've used the old argument of redefining what a day is. Let's assume for a minute that creation story is true, and that god told someone about the origin of the universe. He's god, so he knows everything which means by definition, he knows what the human concept of a "day" is. So why mislead?

AndyGeers answered this best. The Bible is full of translation errors such as this. There (as in English) were words that meant vastly different things, depending on various factors. The story of Noah (another topic in and of itself!) is one glaring example of this since the ancient Hebrew word for "country", "land", and "world" are one in the same.[/font]

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]

Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it.

[/font]Yes! That is redefining "creationist"! That is exactly what I am trying to do! As "Creationism" is currently defined, it is pure bunk. It doesn't have to be that way though and it is currently that way because of absurd teachings for [font="sans-serif"]millennia[/font].

You must understand that the teachings that sprouted up concerning this subject happened at a time when there was no understanding of the earth, solar system or universe. All they had to go on was a text that was full of holes. It persisted for so long because when we finally did start to have a more in depth understanding of the universe, this new understanding countered the teaching and those that dared to do so were branded heretics (often at great personal cost). As such, even today, most people argue the teaching at expense of the text. Many of them were raised in Christian (or at least creationist) homes and have their minds full of this. That is why I posted earlier that people should clear their minds of the teaching and read.

I wasn't even aware that Einstein thought of this, BTW.

kentl, are you trying to come across as you do? Can you please post in a somewhat sane manor and use correct grammar? Do you really need a random number of blank lines between each sentence? I've seen posting like yours before and it is typically on sites spouting flat earth theory and aliens are here to invade and other such nonsense. You do not come across as credible.

sorry I can't use grammar it would make it 10000 times hardar for you to understand me here is a litle show of it


[font="Times New Roman"]When I try to use grammar, it just ends up making everything harder to understand, and I can’t, nor even been able to master it or get close to understand grammar. [/font][font="Times New Roman"]It’s the bane of my existence, and usely ends with pepole worse off then, if I had not used grammar at all. so i'll stick to no using grammar to help you guys not me.
[/font]
[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font][font="Times New Roman"]So typing like this [/font][font="Times New Roman"]makes it easier for you guys (at least on the other forums I go to)[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]If you want I will try to type with out spaces but I don’t think that’s a good idea







I’ll try to make my last post my easy to read but trust me, I’m giving 1000% just even trying





1[sup]st[/sup] day = the big bang and the form of the cosmos (probably about a million years but I have no way of knowing)

2[sup]nd[/sup] day = the skies forming other wise know as atmosphere

3[sup]rd[/sup] day = water, which water and oxygen go hand and hand

4[sup]th[/sup] day = the great light in the skies (some believe the sun and moon how ever they are never named) suns take longer to form so on the 4 day the stars where formed

5[sup]th[/sup] day = the water gets life, obviously water formed first and water came

6[sup]th[/sup] day = land animals where made

Which also fits evolutions theory

Just becuse Someone sucks at typing, spelling, and grammar dose not mean that they are not credtiable
some of the best mninds ever where just like that






[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]
and please try awnsring with out atackin me it really makes you look like someone who absoutly needs to insult someone he will never know

and I feel sorry for you i f that is so

but i belive you can be mature and talk like a mature person
[/font]

I already explained that you have made fundamental errors of fact (the big bang theory is not "first there was nothing, which exploded) and logic (science does not need to disprove god, it is an astoundingly unlikely construct for which we have zero evidence).

And don't hide behind a "medical condition". My brother has dyslexia, and he works damn hard to overcome it. Besides, just because you spell words incorrectly (which is just laziness on a browser with a spell checker) doesn't excuse the lack of coherence in your arguments or the structure of your posts. They're a mess and even people on your own side agree.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300157257' post='4785882']
Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it. The actual creation story as written in the bible is, as I said, trivially disprovable until you start jumping through literary and linguistic hoops. Which is why most Christians I know accept it for what it is, a myth.

If I were to start spreading the belief that bananas are elephants, does that change what an elephant is? And I was unaware that reading it being conscious of the language it was originally written in is "jumping through literary and linguistic hoops."
[/quote]

So do you have an actual point?

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300157257' post='4785882']
You've used the old argument of redefining what a day is. Let's assume for a minute that creation story is true, and that god told someone about the origin of the universe. He's god, so he knows everything which means by definition, he knows what the human concept of a "day" is. So why mislead?

AndyGeers answered this best. The Bible is full of translation errors such as this. There (as in English) were words that meant vastly different things, depending on various factors. The story of Noah (another topic in and of itself!) is one glaring example of this since the ancient Hebrew word for "country", "land", and "world" are one in the same.
[/quote]

If that's the case, how can you trust anything in the bible? Do you believe in a virgin birth for instance? I've read before that the Aramaic word for "virgin" can also be translated as "young woman". Either way, wouldn't an omniscient god know this and take steps to either prevent or rectify it?

[/font]

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300157257' post='4785882']
Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it.

[/font]Yes! That is redefining "creationist"! That is exactly what I am trying to do! As "Creationism" is currently defined, it is pure bunk. It doesn't have to be that way though and it is currently that way because of absurd teachings for [font="sans-serif"]millennia[/font].
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][/quote]

Ok, you've kinda killed the discussion right there. It's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

[/font]

I wasn't even aware that Einstein thought of this, BTW.

There are a number of quotes from Einstein on religion. He definitely did believe in a higher power, just not the "personal god" most religions espouse.

I cannot conceive a personal God that has direct influence in the actions of the individuals or that judges the creatures of his own creation. My religiousness consists in the humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in what little we manage to understand about the world which can be known. This deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a rational superior power that reveals itself in this incomprehensible universe is my idea of God[/quote]