Austin Austin and Evolution

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

An evolutoinary creatoin? Either abiogenesis is true, or else God created all and set evolutoin in motion. Abiognesis cannot be true.

 

I won't argue for or against abiogenesis. As I'm non-theist so I haven't ruled out a God. Just your God. I don't believe any theology has figured out who or what "God" is. But for millenia humans have tried to explain the unexplainable and given God's personalities fashioned after their own understanding. Humans invented the God's of the world. 

 

But I know the odds are heavily in favor that there is no God. And the abiogenesis theory hasn't been proven. I am actually open to the possibility that something. Whether it be a god, a conscious universe possibly, or even alien lifeforms started life on earth. 

 

You keep flip flopping on this Austin. You've said that you're leaning toward evolution isn't real. Your right to do so because the Bible doesn't give room for Evolution. But then you say if evolution is true then God started it and set it in motion. 

 

Your going to run into a lot of complications biblically if you want to run with an evolution Jumpstarted by God. Because then we are going to pick apart Genesis 1 and 2 piece by piece and see if biblically it sounds like an evolution started by God. 

 

So which is it. 

 

Creation or evolution?

 

I need to know where you stand so I can continue on that part of your reply. For now I'll skip to something else. 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

The bible does not reflect a flat Earth.

 

Ok. I was going to talk about other planets next but decided that the most logical thing to do would be to discuss the bibles flat earth creation. Then move on to other planets. 

 

So I guess we are gonna have to pick apart Genesis anyway. 

 

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Ok so here we have God creating The heaven.  And the earth. You say that God did not create a Flat earth in the Bible. I guess its my Job to show that he did. The only way the rest of the story works is if the earth is flat. So picture two planes here. The heaven. Which is probably the heaven of heavens later. God's dwelling place. And Earth with nothing but deep deep water. On two flat planes. As far as the eye can see. 

 

I think about some ancient person telling this story around a fire now that I know the truth about it. It must have been an awe I spiring story back then. 

 

Let's continue. 

 

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

Ok so God decides there needs to be a firmament. 

 

Definition:

firmament noun

The vault of the heavens; the sky.

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

 

Edited. Found a better definition. I was in a hurry last night. Had to type between calls. Etc.

 

In English, the word "firmament" is first recorded in the Middle English Story of Genesis and Exodus, dated 1250.^[a] It later appeared in the King James Bible. The same word is found in French and German Bible translations, all from Latin firmamentum (a firm object), used in the Vulgate (4th century).^[5] This in turn is a calque of the Greek στερέωμᾰ (steréōma), also meaning a solid or firm structure (Greek στερεός = rigid), which appears in the Septuagint, the Greek translation made by Jewish scholars around 200 BCE.

These words all translate the Biblical Hebrew word rāqīaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ‎), used for example in Genesis 1.6, which can be contrasted with shamayim (שָׁמַיִם‎), translated as "heaven" in Genesis 1.8. Rāqīaʿ derives from the root rqʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly".^[6][7] Gerhard von Rad explains:

Rāqīaʿ means that which is firmly hammered, stamped (a word of the same root in Phoenecian means "tin dish"!). The meaning of the verb rqʿ concerns the hammering of the vault of heaven into firmness (Isa. 42.5; Ps.136.6). The Vulgate translates rāqīaʿ with firmamentum, and that remains the best rendering.

— Gerhard von Rad ^[8]

Basically God made the first super dome to separate the waters. It literally says. In the words of God. Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. And let it separate waters from waters. 

 

Therefore there was water below this firmament or dome. And there were waters above this firmament or dome. 

 

And God called the firmament Heaven. So now we have 

 

1. The heaven

Below that

2. The waters above the firmament God called Heaven.

Below that

3. The firmament called Heaven

And below that

4. More water. 

 

And this completes the second day. 

 

On to the third day

 

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

Now keep in mind there is a clear designation between the waters under heaven and the waters above heaven. 

 

So God pools the water together so that dry land appears. The water below the heaven he then called Seas. 

 

So God's happy and now he makes all the plant life. Very straight forward. I'm really not seeing any room for evolutionary plant life on these next verses. 

 

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

This all looks and sounds like our earth. Our earth in the past 10,000 years. Not the chaotic tropical earth that we've seen evidence of in excavations. 

 

Remember. Keep picturing that ancient man or woman around the campfire telling this amazing story of creation. Entertaining the children as he goes. 

 

The fourth day is coming up. This is where it gets very interesting. 

 

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

So God hatches a plan. The funny thing is he has already said let their be light. And there was light. But its not till the fourth day that he makes the sun, moon, and stars. @AustinAustin can you come up to the blackboard and show Mr. Darkbishop where God places the lights? The sun, moon, and stars? That's right good boy. The scripture says he placed them in the firmament. In the heaven. Can you tell me what's above the firmament? Yep that's right. The waters, above the firmament of heaven. 

 

Note: nowhere does it say he hung other planets anywhere in the first 4 days of creation. Maybe just maybe he included the planets in the lights. The little lights with the stars right? I mean from earth with the naked eye, they just look like stars unless you notice them moving right? But remember where god placed those lights? You showed me on the black board. In the firmament underneath the waters above the firmament and the heaven of heavens. So if we are to believe the Bible. This is what creation looks like. Basically.

 

 

 In the next few days in Genesis God creates all animal life and humans. That will be in the next segment whenever Austin let's me know if he is a creationist or an evolutionist with a Godly start. 

 

I guess I need to also point out that the waters above the firmament probably explained to these ancient people by the campfire why the sky was blue and why water came down from the sky. They had no concept of the evaporation and condensing cycle of water. This was the best they could do at the time for these ancient canaanite people. 

 

There is a very loose defense that Christians use from isiah 40:22 about God sitting on the circle of the earth. But there is nothing to suggest thatmeans anything other than they thought the earth was a flat circle with a dome over it holding the water above the firmament back. It never describes earth as a sphere. If it does please make a worthwhile argument using Bible verses and your own words. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

We have birth defects because when Adam and Eve sinned, their rebelloin against God allowed sin into our world. Sickness death, and everythign else you see now began with that... We did that to ourselves. I'm truly sorry... Suffering is part of life,

 

Really? In 2021 this actually sounds logical to you. Well it did me to when I was brain washed so I can't blame you.

 

Well. Unlike you I like to look at the verse where its written to see for myself. 

 

Let's go to Genesis 3 I Bible it is. Give me a sec while I look it up. 

 

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

Gen 3:16

 

Well your reading a lot into that 16th verse. I can agree that it says because of the transgression the woman will have pain and sorrow in conception and child birth. We can extend that as well to the menstrual cycle I guess since that is part of the reproduction process. But I dont see where it says and thy children will be born sick and lame. But death did pass upon man. I suppose that could be part of that aspect of it.  So I'll agree with you that because of the transgression. According to the Bible. Your right. 

 

But then I wonder...... well.... cats have pain in childbirth, I've heard a cat giving birth. Didn't sound like fun. I'm pretty sure every mammal has pain in child birth. Bet elephants are a bitch to squeeze out. I once saw a cow lying dead in the pastor across the road when I was a kid. She had a calf hanging halfway out of her. The cow and calf were both dead. I've also seen animals with birth defects. Other female mammals even bleed during their menstrual cycle. Imagine that. What did all the animals do to deserve this? 

 

Did the human sin pass upon all animals? Not just mankind? Damn. God was throwing a tantrum wasn't he? 

 

Or is it more likely that birth defects are just a natural occurrence in nature? Pain in childbirth is just the natural effect of pushing a baby out of the vagina? And that bleeding is just the way mammals evolved to expel eggs that weren't fertilized? I mean I may be a complete idiot. But that makes more sense than the Almighty invisible sky God afflicted us because we ate off the wrong tree...... especially since all mammals have the same basic characteristics when it comes to childbirth. 

 

As far as my son. He was the first to proclaim his disbelief in the Bible. Can't say I blame him. Why should he believe in an all loving, all powerful, miracle working God when he is stuck living life with a feeding tube? And has had to endure a lifetime of surgeries just to allow him to live a somewhat normal life. 

 

So don't worry about my kids. They are my kids. One is athiest, the other is agnostic,  and I very much doubt the third will be religious either. Thankfully they will hopefully never have to know what it's like to waste years serving a figment of someone's imagination that lived thousand of years ago.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

14 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

You are having faith in carbon dating. The bible doesn't state the age of the Earth... you are extrapolating. God is not wrong, respectfully, your method is.

 

Well..... its not just carbon dating. It's studying the layers of soil. How long it takes to create a layer. And a couple hundred years of scientific discoveries. I really hope we can atleast agree the earth is older than 7,500 years. But anyway. There are very smart people that dedicate their lives to this research. We were taught a lot about it in high-school. Atleast they did mine. But I'm not a geologist. I'm a tradesman. I've done well in my trade. 

 

So when I need someone to fix my air-conditioning. Which I'm not trained or certified to do. I call someone that is. 

 

Likewise. When I want to know how old the earth is I read a study about the subject or look up a documentary. Maybe just Google it and read an article or two. And I listen to them explain how they come to their conclusions and what criteria they used to reach that conclusion. 

 

And if that sounds better than, 

 

"25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died."

 

Then I'm going to listen to them. And THEY say the earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

 

But hey. If you wanna believe your pastor Fred that works at the chicken house and has done well for himself even though he dropped out of school in 10th grade. By God's Grace.  Hey. That's cool. Go for it. We all have our standards.

 

I'm sure he knows all he needs to know from the writings of the ancient caananite nomads. 

 

If I give you a link to a YouTube video would you watch it?  I'll tell you what.

 

If you watch a video for me of my chosing. Of a secular scholar debating a Christian scholar. I will watch a video of your choosing from what ever faith, preacher, scholar, or evangelist that you hold in high regard. I will give them a chance to teach me their truth. And then we can discuss both videos afterward. 

 

What do ya say?

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

But hey. If you wanna believe your pastor Fred that works at the chicken house and has done well for himself even though he dropped out of school in 10th grade. By God's Grace.  Hey. That's cool. Go for it. We all have our standards.

[alreadyGone]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

....

I'm sure he knows all he needs to know from the writings of the ancient caananite nomads. 

...

 

 

 

 

 

Cannot be over-emphasized.

[AustinAustin]

10 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I'm at work so I'm going to have to take your response in pieces. You contest that the Bible does not state the age of the Earth. This tells me you have never read the Bible all the way through. It does in fact date the earth. By the genealogies offered in Genesis 5 and 11. You attest that the Bible is the word of God and that the word of God is true. Therfore you are held to the weaknesses of this word. I'm going to need you to click a link for me. Please. It is to a young earth Christian website. You need to learn a thing or two about the Bible. 

 

Young earth, is actually a very old concept. Christians are trying to get away from it now that we know the earth is far older than the Bible states. 

 

This is an excerpt from the website: And this was one of the first things I went to a pastor about when I began to question the biblical account. I will give my testimony as to why I began to question the age of the Earth after this excerpt even tho I already mentioned it. I'll give more detail.

 

"Abstract:

 

Claims are made that the Biblical genealogies cannot be used to determine the age of the Earth with any degree of certainty, since those genealogies contain gaps. Such claims are groundless. The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 do not and cannot contain any gaps. The information contained in those genealogies allows one to calculate the approximate age of the Earth to be from 6,000 to 7,500 years (depending on the type of the Holy Text used: Masoretic or LXX)."

 

https://www.creationworldview.org/biblical-genealogies-and-the-age-of-the-earth-universe

 

This link will give you the full article which you can read. It is a Christian website. This is your people and their teachings. But it is a literal interpretation of the biblical geneolgies. It was meant to be literally taken. 

 

When my boys were about 10 and 11 I bought them a telescope. It was a cheap telescope so the only thing we could really see was the surface of the moon. I had never seen it. I had seen pictures sure. But never through a lense with my own eyes. It took me forever it seemed like. But finally I was able to focus in on the moon surface. All the craters from billions of years of asteroid impacts came into view. It was way more ragged than all the pictures I'd seen. It looked like a war zone. You could see that at some point the earth and moon were bombarded by these impacts. 

 

I knew then that the Biblical timeline of creation was either wrong. Or I had not Interpretted it right. This gave me trouble spiritually. I even talked to my fellow pastor about it. But he couldn't tell me much but to have faith. Eventually a verse was brought to the forefront of my mind. 

 

2 Pet 3:8  "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

 

This kept me going in the faith for a few more years. I was already a Bishop by this point. I actually liked the thought of God taking his time and like a painter with a brush molding earth for us over billions of years. The problem with this was that the genealogies that the creation date is based on was based on people's lives. So I would have then had to believe that there were people on earth 4.5 billion years ago. And that they lived for billions of years. I imagine you can see how that begins to get very unbelievable. So it was either blindly believe by faith that the earth was between 6 and 7.5 thousand years. Or concede that there was an error in the Bible. I guess you can guess that I didn't go with believing the Bible was Inerrant from then on.

 

So it took me a long time before I started questioning the inerrancy of the Bible. I believed that the Bible was completely Inerrant and that other churches had interpretted wrong. I was basically you Austin. 

 

 

The bible doesn't give a verse with a specific age of Existence. You use your own calculations and then claim that God is wrong...

[AustinAustin]

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I won't argue for or against abiogenesis. As I'm non-theist so I haven't ruled out a God. Just your God. I don't believe any theology has figured out who or what "God" is. But for millenia humans have tried to explain the unexplainable and given God's personalities fashioned after their own understanding. Humans invented the God's of the world. 

 

But I know the odds are heavily in favor that there is no God. And the abiogenesis theory hasn't been proven. I am actually open to the possibility that something. Whether it be a god, a conscious universe possibly, or even alien lifeforms started life on earth. 

 

You keep flip flopping on this Austin. You've said that you're leaning toward evolution isn't real. Your right to do so because the Bible doesn't give room for Evolution. But then you say if evolution is true then God started it and set it in motion. 

 

Your going to run into a lot of complications biblically if you want to run with an evolution Jumpstarted by God. Because then we are going to pick apart Genesis 1 and 2 piece by piece and see if biblically it sounds like an evolution started by God. 

 

So which is it. 

 

Creation or evolution?

 

I need to know where you stand so I can continue on that part of your reply. For now I'll skip to something else. 

 

A painting is existence of a painter. The creation is the existence of the Creator.

 

We are proof of God.

 

All within existence must undergo a "creation" process to exist, whether birth, etc.

[AustinAustin]

6 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Ok. I was going to talk about other planets next but decided that the most logical thing to do would be to discuss the bibles flat earth creation. Then move on to other planets. 

 

So I guess we are gonna have to pick apart Genesis anyway. 

 

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Ok so here we have God creating The heaven.  And the earth. You say that God did not create a Flat earth in the Bible. I guess its my Job to show that he did. The only way the rest of the story works is if the earth is flat. So picture two planes here. The heaven. Which is probably the heaven of heavens later. God's dwelling place. And Earth with nothing but deep deep water. On two flat planes. As far as the eye can see. 

 

I think about some ancient person telling this story around a fire now that I know the truth about it. It must have been an awe I spiring story back then. 

 

Let's continue. 

 

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

Ok so God decides there needs to be a firmament. 

 

Definition:

firmament noun

The vault of the heavens; the sky.

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

 

Edited. Found a better definition. I was in a hurry last night. Had to type between calls. Etc.

 

In English, the word "firmament" is first recorded in the Middle English Story of Genesis and Exodus, dated 1250.^[a] It later appeared in the King James Bible. The same word is found in French and German Bible translations, all from Latin firmamentum (a firm object), used in the Vulgate (4th century).^[5] This in turn is a calque of the Greek στερέωμᾰ (steréōma), also meaning a solid or firm structure (Greek στερεός = rigid), which appears in the Septuagint, the Greek translation made by Jewish scholars around 200 BCE.

These words all translate the Biblical Hebrew word rāqīaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ‎), used for example in Genesis 1.6, which can be contrasted with shamayim (שָׁמַיִם‎), translated as "heaven" in Genesis 1.8. Rāqīaʿ derives from the root rqʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly".^[6][7] Gerhard von Rad explains:

Rāqīaʿ means that which is firmly hammered, stamped (a word of the same root in Phoenecian means "tin dish"!). The meaning of the verb rqʿ concerns the hammering of the vault of heaven into firmness (Isa. 42.5; Ps.136.6). The Vulgate translates rāqīaʿ with firmamentum, and that remains the best rendering.

— Gerhard von Rad ^[8]

Basically God made the first super dome to separate the waters. It literally says. In the words of God. Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. And let it separate waters from waters. 

 

Therefore there was water below this firmament or dome. And there were waters above this firmament or dome. 

 

And God called the firmament Heaven. So now we have 

 

1. The heaven

Below that

2. The waters above the firmament God called Heaven.

Below that

3. The firmament called Heaven

And below that

4. More water. 

 

And this completes the second day. 

 

On to the third day

 

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

Now keep in mind there is a clear designation between the waters under heaven and the waters above heaven. 

 

So God pools the water together so that dry land appears. The water below the heaven he then called Seas. 

 

So God's happy and now he makes all the plant life. Very straight forward. I'm really not seeing any room for evolutionary plant life on these next verses. 

 

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

This all looks and sounds like our earth. Our earth in the past 10,000 years. Not the chaotic tropical earth that we've seen evidence of in excavations. 

 

Remember. Keep picturing that ancient man or woman around the campfire telling this amazing story of creation. Entertaining the children as he goes. 

 

The fourth day is coming up. This is where it gets very interesting. 

 

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

So God hatches a plan. The funny thing is he has already said let their be light. And there was light. But its not till the fourth day that he makes the sun, moon, and stars. @AustinAustin can you come up to the blackboard and show Mr. Darkbishop where God places the lights? The sun, moon, and stars? That's right good boy. The scripture says he placed them in the firmament. In the heaven. Can you tell me what's above the firmament? Yep that's right. The waters, above the firmament of heaven. 

 

Note: nowhere does it say he hung other planets anywhere in the first 4 days of creation. Maybe just maybe he included the planets in the lights. The little lights with the stars right? I mean from earth with the naked eye, they just look like stars unless you notice them moving right? But remember where god placed those lights? You showed me on the black board. In the firmament underneath the waters above the firmament and the heaven of heavens. So if we are to believe the Bible. This is what creation looks like. Basically.

 

 

 In the next few days in Genesis God creates all animal life and humans. That will be in the next segment whenever Austin let's me know if he is a creationist or an evolutionist with a Godly start. 

 

I guess I need to also point out that the waters above the firmament probably explained to these ancient people by the campfire why the sky was blue and why water came down from the sky. They had no concept of the evaporation and condensing cycle of water. This was the best they could do at the time for these ancient canaanite people. 

 

There is a very loose defense that Christians use from isiah 40:22 about God sitting on the circle of the earth. But there is nothing to suggest thatmeans anything other than they thought the earth was a flat circle with a dome over it holding the water above the firmament back. It never describes earth as a sphere. If it does please make a worthwhile argument using Bible verses and your own words. 

Check out the Amplified Bible version.

 

Have you googled these questions to find answers? Please don't adopt a one-sided view.

[AustinAustin]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Well..... its not just carbon dating. It's studying the layers of soil. How long it takes to create a layer. And a couple hundred years of scientific discoveries. I really hope we can atleast agree the earth is older than 7,500 years. But anyway. There are very smart people that dedicate their lives to this research. We were taught a lot about it in high-school. Atleast they did mine. But I'm not a geologist. I'm a tradesman. I've done well in my trade. 

 

So when I need someone to fix my air-conditioning. Which I'm not trained or certified to do. I call someone that is. 

 

Likewise. When I want to know how old the earth is I read a study about the subject or look up a documentary. Maybe just Google it and read an article or two. And I listen to them explain how they come to their conclusions and what criteria they used to reach that conclusion. 

 

And if that sounds better than, 

 

"25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died."

 

Then I'm going to listen to them. And THEY say the earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

 

But hey. If you wanna believe your pastor Fred that works at the chicken house and has done well for himself even though he dropped out of school in 10th grade. By God's Grace.  Hey. That's cool. Go for it. We all have our standards.

 

I'm sure he knows all he needs to know from the writings of the ancient caananite nomads. 

 

If I give you a link to a YouTube video would you watch it?  I'll tell you what.

 

If you watch a video for me of my chosing. Of a secular scholar debating a Christian scholar. I will watch a video of your choosing from what ever faith, preacher, scholar, or evangelist that you hold in high regard. I will give them a chance to teach me their truth. And then we can discuss both videos afterward. 

 

What do ya say?

 

 

 

"They" also said DDT was safe, that the periodic table was correct, etc...

[alreadyGone]

6 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

A painting is existence of a painter. The creation is the existence of the Creator.

 

We are proof of God.

 

All within existence must undergo a "creation" process to exist, whether birth, etc.

 

Specious at best.

 

A painting is a human artifact.

"The creation" is a verbal construct to imply knowledge you do not have.

 

In your Christian apologetic zeal you are being deliberately deceptive.

 

 

[AustinAustin]

8 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Specious at best.

 

A painting is a human artifact.

"The creation" is a verbal construct to imply knowledge you do not have.

 

In your Christian apologetic zeal you are being deliberately deceptive.

 

 

If it were going to lie, couldn't I come up with a much better one?

 

A painting can't pop into existence, it must be painted, just as all i our universe must undergo a creation event to exist.

 

Nothing can exist without being created. This is a law of our Universe. Our Universe and all within are subject to laws of the Universe.

 

God is real.

[alreadyGone]

I think you know that the matter of the origin of "the universe" and the beginning of time is a topic which cannot be answered only because you feel a certain way about it.

 

This is another unfounded assertion for which you have no basis in fact.

You believe it because you feel good about holding that belief.

 

What if the universe and "existence" was without beginning?

 

You cannot in honesty claim that "all things" have a beginning.

It may be that what we call "the universe" isn't a thing at all.

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

If it were going to lie, couldn't I come up with a much better one?

 

A painting can't pop into existence, it must be painted, just as all i our universe must undergo a creation event to exist.

 

Nothing can exist without being created. This is a law of our Universe. Our Universe and all within are subject to laws of the Universe.

 

God is real.

 

Austin,

 

For you to make the claim that the universe was created you first need to establish that it had a beginning.

 

Sure, you can believe that it did, by faith.

 

But there is currently no scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.

 

So what is the basis of your claim, faith or evidence?

[alreadyGone]

13 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

...Nothing can exist without being created. This is a law of our Universe. Our Universe and all within are subject to laws of the Universe.

 

 

Austin,

Can you truly not see that you are posting emotional diatribe?

 

You use terms like "the laws of the universe" almost as if to convey that God sat down last night with you and explained it all to you, wrote those laws in a notebook he left you for your personal reference.

 

 

[AustinAustin]

52 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

I think you know that the matter of the origin of "the universe" and the beginning of time is a topic which cannot be answered only because you feel a certain way about it.

 

This is another unfounded assertion for which you have no basis in fact.

You believe it because you feel good about holding that belief.

 

What if the universe and "existence" was without beginning?

 

You cannot in honesty claim that "all things" have a beginning.

It may be that what we call "the universe" isn't a thing at all.

That would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, impossible.

 

I want to continue in the same spirit as last night, in friendship with a goal.

[AustinAustin]

51 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Austin,

 

For you to make the claim that the universe was created you first need to establish that it had a beginning.

 

Sure, you can believe that it did, by faith.

 

But there is currently no scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.

 

So what is the basis of your claim, faith or evidence?

All has a beginning, afterall, what painting wasn't painted? Even evolution would've had a beginning.

 

For the Universe to not have a beginning would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, AustinAustin said:

"They" also said DDT was safe, that the periodic table was correct, etc...

 

Yes, science also has made many mistakes but your examples are not good ones IMO. There is a limit to how much testing drugs and chemicals must have. DDT is a good example. First discovered in Germany it became prominent it the US about 50 years later after its rediscovery. It was tested for 6 years before its release. The insecticide has saved tens of millions of people world wide-via both bacterial infections via flies, and viral and bacterial infections via mosquitos. Many decades later it was determined that its long term health effects for some people could be harmful as they age.

 

https://edu.rsc.org/feature/trouble-in-the-periodic-table/2020266.article

 

The periodic table was invented about 1880, about 140 years ago. It has changed little since then. There are better ways to group the table today as there were 140 years ago. Does that mean the science of it was all wrong? Of course not.

 

https://edu.rsc.org/feature/trouble-in-the-periodic-table/2020266.article

 

Much better and more modern examples of science screwing up IMO is the Big Bang model and Quantum Theory. These theories really show the problems with science that does not follow the scientific method IMO. The sciences that have the mast problems don't strictly follow the Scientific Method IMO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Of course, belief in religion rather than the scientific method has its own logical and psychological problems. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion

 

 

 

 

[AustinAustin]

15 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, science also has made many mistakes but your examples are not good ones IMO. There is a limit to how much testing drugs and chemicals must have. DDT is a good example. First discovered in Germany it became prominent it the US about 50 years later after its rediscovery. It was tested for 6 years before its release. The insecticide has saved tens of millions of people world wide-via both bacterial infections via flies, and viral and bacterial infections via mosquitos. Many decades later it was determined that its long term health effects for some people could be harmful as they age.

 

https://edu.rsc.org/feature/trouble-in-the-periodic-table/2020266.article

 

The periodic table was invented about 1880, about 140 years ago. It has changed little since then. There are better ways to group the table today as there were 140 years ago. Does that mean the science of it was all wrong? Of course not.

 

https://edu.rsc.org/feature/trouble-in-the-periodic-table/2020266.article

 

Much better and more modern examples of science screwing up IMO is the Big Bang model and Quantum Theory. These theories really show the problems with science that does not follow the scientific method IMO. The sciences that have the mast problems don't strictly follow the Scientific Method IMO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Of course, belief in religion rather than the scientific method has its own logical and psychological problems. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion

 

 

 

 

I appreciate your reading what I've shared. The periodic table was corrected a few years ago, meaning it was wrong all along. science replaces one wrong answer with another one which will then be replaced -meaning the correct answer was never known.

 

We can't exist without God. Evolution couldn't exist without God. Evolution is a perfecting process. Systems tend toward disorder on their own...

 

Accepting Jesus Christ as God and Savior is the only way to Heaven.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

That would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, impossible.

A long and exhaustive groan just left the collective lips of the entire scientific community worldwide. 

[AustinAustin]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A long and exhaustive groan just left the collective lips of the entire scientific community worldwide. 

Okay, refute, if you can. No one ever has...

[AustinAustin]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A long and exhaustive groan just left the collective lips of the entire scientific community worldwide. 

I appreciate you reading what I share...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, AustinAustin said:

I appreciate you reading what I share...

I appreciate how you answered the question I asked in my thread... oh...wait...never mind.

[AustinAustin]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I appreciate how you answered the question I asked in my thread... oh...wait...never mind.

I'm sorry, please, ask again.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

Okay, refute, if you can. No one ever has...

No.  It is not my responsibility to ensure you have better than a 5th grade grasp of science. Neither is it my responsibility to refute a false claim you have made.  It is your responsibility to support the claim you have made, and to shore up your own educational deficiencies.