[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[AHIMSA]

Heidi,

No one is saying that two apes had sex and gave birth to a human child. You regularly ignore the point.

I know very little about biology, however, it is my understanding that humans evolved over a considerable period of time, and we continue to do so. I believe many people are taller today that ages past, and that for example, our dental structure is starting to change.

If you want to adhere to creationism, how do you explain "cave men", neanderthals, and forms of human existence that were no where near the capabilities of Cain and Abel.

For example, evidence shows us humans existed as hunters and gatherers for a significant time before animals were domesticated. Yet Cain and Abel had sheep....

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,

No one is saying that two apes had sex and gave birth to a human child. You regularly ignore the point.

I know very little about biology, however, it is my understanding that humans evolved over a considerable period of time, and we continue to do so. I believe many people are taller today that ages past, and that for example, our dental structure is starting to change.

If you want to adhere to creationism, how do you explain "cave men", neanderthals, and forms of human existence that were no where near the capabilities of Cain and Abel.

For example, evidence shows us humans existed as hunters and gatherers for a significant time before animals were domesticated. Yet Cain and Abel had sheep....

And where did cavemen come from? :o The minds of scientists since Darwin! I saw a documentary on where they came from on the History channel. One of the 1st men to "discover" a caveman was a guy who found a fragment of what he dcided was bone material and he was so excited that he ran inside his tent and drew a whole person with hair all over the body! Now where did he get evidence for any of that except deciding what this piece of material in his hand was.? And that's what they call "scientific". He hadn't even run it through tests yet!

In addition, how can anyone know if humans were as covered in hair as apes were without the hair fibers to prove it? Yet that's how scientists depict what man looked like...through their imaginations! And that's how they can control our thinking. The simply tell us that their theories are facts and we allow them to brainwash our children.

You and I grew up simply accepting the caveman theory as fact. But it isn't until we begin to think for ourselves that we can look at these theories and see if they are even possible. But what scientists count on is telling us they know more than we do so we couldn't possibly prove them wrong. Sorry, but an arrogant lawyer will surely be outwitted if he underestimates his opponent. And so will evolutionists because their opponent is God. They just don't know it yet. But they will. :wink:

 

[Guest]

Okay, I have a question to those of you who object to humans being classified as "animalia:"

Is the Dewey Decimal System objectively true?

Because, seriously, that's all the scientific classification method is: it's a Dewey Decimal System of lifeforms. Is German Etymology 432? Well, is it? Objectively, no. But Dewey wrote down this system, and said "German Etymology is 432." And that's the system everyone agrees we're using when we use the Dewey Decimal System. So, that makes it so.

Language is like that. Words have the definitions we choose to give them. For the purposes of the scientific community, organizing life into classifications makes their work much, much easier. Are you denying that there are more similarities between humans and an ape than there are between humans and a fish? Or between humans and a fish than there are between humans and a mushroom? Because that's what you're arguing when you argue against the classification system.

 

[dad]

absolute knowledge is not vital to the theory as a whole. the "science" is merely the evidence that leads people to the conclusion of the big bang.

I essence, there are two big reasons they think this, and some other lesser reasons, as I understand it. That is the present rate of (what we think is) expansion of the universe, and present speed of light. To extrapolate backwards past the creation date itself, imagining how long the universe would take to come from a speck, is not sound reason, but belief only. It never had the time to come from some speck, and the fact it may be sytretching out, as the bible phrases it, does not mean it stretched before it was made! As for light, I believe that there was another form of light in the past, as there will be in the future, a sort od spiritual light, not bound by physical universe light limitations, as the bible seems to indicate. After all, if God can have a circuit that spans the whole universe, it could not take Him that long to do it. To assume present only light, and it's speed and properties in the future or far past, is to do so with no evidence or proof possible. In other words, a belief only. For the present, we can observe, and realize it is science, but not so for the future or past.

as with all science, there are always going to be unanswered questions. some larger and more looming than others. this also applies to the previous citation about the "whole gem" of biology.

Yet, creation is not allowed in most public schools, as if there were some proof to the contrary.

this issue can somewhat relate to my comment above. in addition, let me repeat that it is only what the evidence has led us to believe.

No, there is no evidence the sun will burn out, it never will the bible says, only assuming present universe conditions will always be here leads to that belief, but it is baseless, and only a belief, it cannot be observed, or evidenced! So stop pretending, old agers, that such beliefs are science, That is science falsely so called. Real science deals with the present, and evidence, not just belief, and baseless speculations.

it is science, it is secular (as required under law for government schools). what matters in science isn't what is unknown to science- it is about what is known,

Only the present is known, and I agree, that is what should matter to science, it it goes beyonf these limoits, it goes only as a belief, and must receive no preferential treatment! Leave the kids have some faith in God, rather than trying to destroy it!

and what we can learn from it. so, not knowing some things and accepting that we will never have all the answers, we make do with all that we have, in science.

But they don't do this, they teach it was created millions and billions of imaginary years ago, and came from an imaginary speck, and imaginary lifeform, that is not observable, testable, or evidencable in the least! All of it is based on present only observations, which they only assume without reason, and believe must apply to the future, and the past ad infinitum!

ah, i think i see what you mean. are you talking about light from stars that are, for example, far enough away so that the light from creation would just now be reaching us? if so, i am as yet unaware of any abberations in light hitting earth.

No I am talking about all light in the universe formerly possibly being different entirely. If we look at the future, in the bible, we see a new heavens coming! In that eternal universe coming, also we see light is totally different, for example, we have no need of the light of the sun any more. There is no death and decay (radioactive decay, for example!) there, in our new, coming universe! Impossible in this physical only temporal, soon to pass forever away, present universe! So we know something here, we cannot deny. The universe will be totally different, in many respects, and not like the present one. The sun will still be there, and the earth, they are forever (except the surface of the earth that will be burned, but the foundation will be fine, and just made new, with the cleansing). The present universe being in decay, and not also including the spiritual, would have the sun burning out, so it is not the temporal physical only universe here for sure in the future!

in the physical world, evidence has led us to the understanding of a much older earth.

No, in no way! All that has occured is an old age baseless belief has become popular. It is strictly present only, physical only based. Upon this belief and assumption firmly and totally rest all old age beliefs!!!!!! Nothing else, no evidence is possible to support these claims of the unknown past or future, so they are not in any way science, these beliefs with no evidence. Only science falsely so called. They could claim the tooth fairy spat out the universe, and granny bacteria was dropped by a stork, and they would have the same evidence-none-zero. Just a belief and assumption the future and past were physical only like the present temorary universe!

if the earth was created with the appearance of being in existence for eons, it certainly hs fooled the people that investigate that sort of thing.

I believe that in our past, the spiritual was seperated from the physical, leaving us only in a physical only unioverse for awahile, till the new one comes! I call this event, the 'split'. After this event, decay began, and of course continues to this say, and that is why they are fooled, largely, because they ASSUME the present physical only universe was always, and always will be just the way it is. So, it appears to them of that baseless belief that the universe is old! Add to this the misreading of evidence, like the fossil record, which they did not understand to be a record of migration from eden, and thought involved life coming from granny!!!! The biggest hoax in the history of mankind!!! Not that the scientists realized it, but the source of the hoax was spiritual.

until some form of prominant evidence that invalidates a great deal of previous evidence comes along, science must stick where it is. again, science is evidence, observation, testing, repeating.

One problem there, they cannot detect even any present spiritual, let alone some future or past universe that was merged with the spiritual, and not physical only. They cannot evidence the merged world. But the good new is, that thet cannot evidence the physical only, universe future and past they have assumed, and believed in either! So science cannot speak to the issue of this past or future, and if it tries to is if science. falsely so called, because there is no evidence possible!!!!!

i refer to my above statement on the unknowns in science. in addition, though science may not know how said origins came about, it does not affect the knowledge that we already have on those subjects. not knowing how life began does not negate the theory that it began, does not negate that however it began, it started a long process of evolution. also, though it may fly in the face of bible timeframes, it's still only what the evidence has led us to believe.

No, present only assumptions are not evidence. Think about it, then try tp present your best single evidence for evolution, or old ages, that is evidenced by something other than this baseless belief! You can't! We have been handed a phoney bill of goods for quite a while now.

also, there's really no religion (or "religiosity") involved in the subject because teaching science is only describing things that have been observed or inferred.

granyy was not observed, or inferred with anything but belief, in the raw! Neither was the creator speck, or the fantasy future filled with death and decay that has been taught as part of real science!

with respect to teaching about the big bang and the origins of life, those are always very foggy subjects, and any science teacher worth their salt will say as much.

Foggy is too nice a word. Unprovable, pure assumptions, and based solely on the unevidencable premise that the past was always the same as the physical only present!

my fellow students and i were always drilling our astronomy teacher about the big bang and such, and he was always very coy about the whole thing. he laid out a lot of admitted speculation (his admission. he was a very good teacher).

Admitting he didn't know was good, better than being a liar.

evidence does leave us under the impression that we live on an earth that is eons old, in a universe that is even more ancient, yes.

Wrong in the exreme! No evidence exists for old ages, only a belief based interpretaion of the evidence. Big difference.

the premises are large amounts of physical evidence, though.

You are very wrong, not an iota of physical evidence exists, or ever will exist. just their preset, physical only universe in the future and past beliefs, that is all, not a thing more. Absolutely.

what we know of our universe and the laws that guide it are only what we have observed. no belief required, other than to test things multiple times by various people in different ways.

Thats right, what we know of it, and that consists in how it now works. Real science, physical only science is fine, and dandy, but only applied to the present (near past or future as well). trying to assume it applies in the futire is against the bible, and pure belief, and cannot be supported, and I challenge anyone in the world to do so, if they think they can! Ha.

 

[Loren Michael]

I essence, there are two big reasons they think this, and some other lesser reasons, as I understand it. That is the present rate of (what we think is) expansion of the universe, and present speed of light. To extrapolate backwards past the creation date itself, imagining how long the universe would take to come from a speck, is not sound reason, but belief only.

until evidence arises that the speed of light is not constant, it is indeed sound reason to assume that the universe is extremely old. combining that with the knowledge that objects in the universe are flying away from a sngle point, and you get to the big bang. no belief required. you could feed the two items of data to a computer and it would reach the same conclusion.

considering that light has not changed in the years since we have known how to observe it, and also that any large variances in light would likely be obvious to even observers from long ago, one can reach the conclusion that the speed of light is constant. this is then extrapolated backwards in time.

[quote:f4f2d]as with all science, there are always going to be unanswered questions. some larger and more looming than others. this also applies to the previous citation about the "whole gem" of biology.

Yet, creation is not allowed in most public schools, as if there were some proof to the contrary.[/quote:f4f2d]

it's not proof to the contrary that matters.

No, there is no evidence the sun will burn out, it never will the bible says, only assuming present universe conditions will always be here leads to that belief, but it is baseless, and only a belief, it cannot be observed, or evidenced! So stop pretending, old agers, that such beliefs are science, That is science falsely so called. Real science deals with the present, and evidence, not just belief, and baseless speculations.

we have observed the deaths of other stars. similarly, many aspects of the nature of our own sun are known. there is no "ticking clock" on the sun, but as nature does not provide those, that is not what science looks for. there is nothing particularly unusual about our sun, but for teh fact taht we are in orbit around it. there is no evidence that our presence affects the sun in any manner but the most neglegable. you are correct that science deals with evidence, not belief or basless speculations. science does deal with more than just the present, though. predictions are always made, and the validity of many theories rests on those predictions. everything that we observe is from the past, therefore science deals heavily in the past. the present though, is fleeting.

Only the present is known, and I agree, that is what should matter to science, it it goes beyonf these limoits, it goes only as a belief, and must receive no preferential treatment! Leave the kids have some faith in God, rather than trying to destroy it!

science does not try to destroy faith in god. it only presents what is observed and inferred.

But they don't do this, they teach it was created millions and billions of imaginary years ago, and came from an imaginary speck, and imaginary lifeform, that is not observable, testable, or evidencable in the least! All of it is based on present only observations, which they only assume without reason, and believe must apply to the future, and the past ad infinitum!

for matters of which there is a largely incomplete picture, science only dwells on what is in evidence, and what is inferred from that evidence.

No, in no way! All that has occured is an old age baseless belief has become popular. It is strictly present only, physical only based. Upon this belief and assumption firmly and totally rest all old age beliefs!!!!!! Nothing else, no evidence is possible to support these claims of the unknown past or future, so they are not in any way science, these beliefs with no evidence. Only science falsely so called. They could claim the tooth fairy spat out the universe, and granny bacteria was dropped by a stork, and they would have the same evidence-none-zero. Just a belief and assumption the future and past were physical only like the present temorary universe!

again, there is no belief. there is only evidence. there are predictions and inferrances based on that evidence, though. the concept of an ancient universe came from within science, was inferred from the existing evidence for such.

I believe that in our past, the spiritual was seperated from the physical, leaving us only in a physical only unioverse for awahile, till the new one comes! I call this event, the 'split'. After this event, decay began, and of course continues to this say, and that is why they are fooled, largely, because they ASSUME the present physical only universe was always, and always will be just the way it is. So, it appears to them of that baseless belief that the universe is old! Add to this the misreading of evidence, like the fossil record, which they did not understand to be a record of migration from eden, and thought involved life coming from granny!!!! The biggest hoax in the history of mankind!!! Not that the scientists realized it, but the source of the hoax was spiritual.

the only benchmark of how things are and have been in the past is what is in the world today. that consists of observed phenomena, artifacts from the past, etcetera. science does not oppose the notion that things could be very different however many years ago or however many years in the future. until then though, unless evidence is uncovered to support claims that that happened/will happen, science sticks with what it has.

[quote:f4f2d]until some form of prominant evidence that invalidates a great deal of previous evidence comes along, science must stick where it is. again, science is evidence, observation, testing, repeating.

One problem there, they cannot detect even any present spiritual, let alone some future or past universe that was merged with the spiritual, and not physical only. They cannot evidence the merged world. But the good new is, that thet cannot evidence the physical only, universe future and past they have assumed, and believed in either! So science cannot speak to the issue of this past or future, and if it tries to is if science. falsely so called, because there is no evidence possible!!!!![/quote:f4f2d]

science makes no claims to a spiritual world. that is outside its scope. it only deals with natural phenomena. in science, all evidence invariably confirms the natural nature of the universe.

No, present only assumptions are not evidence. Think about it, then try tp present your best single evidence for evolution, or old ages, that is evidenced by something other than this baseless belief! You can't! We have been handed a phoney bill of goods for quite a while now.

it's not a matter of single bits of evidence. it's very similar to a court of law- a single bit of evidence, a single witness only goes so far. the more evidence there is for someting, the more someting is tested to be true, the more artifacts from the past that lead to specific conclusions, the more certain the idea becomes.

granyy was not observed, or inferred with anything but belief, in the raw! Neither was the creator speck, or the fantasy future filled with death and decay that has been taught as part of real science!

the ideas that you speak of were inferred by extant evidence. there is no belief. those ideas are only still there because that is where the evidence has taken us. until more evidence comes to light, that is where we will stay.

[quote:f4f2d]evidence does leave us under the impression that we live on an earth that is eons old, in a universe that is even more ancient, yes.

Wrong in the exreme! No evidence exists for old ages, only a belief based interpretaion of the evidence. Big difference.[/quote:f4f2d]

the evidence gave rise to the idea. there is no belief.

[quote:f4f2d]the premises are large amounts of physical evidence, though.

You are very wrong, not an iota of physical evidence exists, or ever will exist. just their preset, physical only universe in the future and past beliefs, that is all, not a thing more. Absolutely.[/quote:f4f2d]

science is made of evidence and inferrances. not belief. if there were no evidence, such ideas would not be around today.

[quote:f4f2d]what we know of our universe and the laws that guide it are only what we have observed. no belief required, other than to test things multiple times by various people in different ways.

Thats right, what we know of it, and that consists in how it now works. Real science, physical only science is fine, and dandy, but only applied to the present (near past or future as well). trying to assume it applies in the futire is against the bible, and pure belief, and cannot be supported, and I challenge anyone in the world to do so, if they think they can! Ha.[/quote:f4f2d]

the future is the future, the past is the past. any limitations put on it are simply arbitrary. there is no barrier other than additional variables to consider.

 

[dad]

until evidence arises that the speed of light is not constant, it is indeed sound reason to assume that the universe is extremely old. combining that with the knowledge that objects in the universe are flying away from a sngle point, and you get to the big bang. no belief required. you could feed the two items of data to a computer and it would reach the same conclusion.

The speed of light is constant, no one questions this! The question is, was it this physical only universe, and it's pitiful slow light, that was here, or will be here in the future! The amswer we know, no it was not. You claim the present only universe is 'constant'-meaning always was always will be, and I challenge you to evidence this and prove it, because you can't, just assume it, and believe it.

[quote:1ed8f]considering that light has not changed in the years since we have known how to observe it, and also that any large variances in light would likely be obvious to even observers from long ago, one can reach the conclusion that the speed of light is constant. this is then extrapolated backwards in time.

I don't think it ever did change, since it came to be in a PO universe, so no one says it changed, like decay tares, and other things of this temporary universe-just that it was not this light and will not be this Po light in the future! Also, no decay. You cannot just claim there was or will be, as anyone can claim things, and assume things, and believe things. You need to give solid scientific evidence it will always be the same or admit it is not science!

it's not proof to the contrary that matters.

If you claim it as science, you better be able to support it.

we have observed the deaths of other stars. similarly, many aspects of the nature of our own sun are known. there is no "ticking clock" on the sun, but as nature does not provide those, that is not what science looks for. there is nothing particularly unusual about our sun, but for teh fact taht we are in orbit around it. there is no evidence that our presence affects the sun in any manner but the most neglegable. you are correct that science deals with evidence, not belief or basless speculations.

We observe death and decay all around, as well as new life, and birth, but so what? We know decay and death exist in this PO universe, no one says there is not. You need to support your claim the universe always will be and was so, or stop calling it science.

science does deal with more than just the present, though. predictions are always made, and the validity of many theories rests on those predictions. everything that we observe is from the past, therefore science deals heavily in the past. the present though, is fleeting.

Predictions are fine if they concern the several thousand year timeframe of this temporary physical only universe. If predictions are made beyond this they are baseless. You say everything we observe is from the past, but the question is how far in the past, and based on what evidence.

science does not try to destroy faith in god. it only presents what is observed and inferred.

A lot is pesented in the name of science that is way beyond this. The inferance is only in your mind anyhow, because it infers that the present universe always will be, which is a belief, and nothing more! Anyone can infer God was wrong, but you need to put up, or....

for matters of which there is a largely incomplete picture, science only dwells on what is in evidence, and what is inferred from that evidence.

Then present the evidence that connects the present physical only universe with the future, or far past, exactly, not assumption, or belief-evidence, if you want to call it part of science! You can't.

again, there is no belief. there is only evidence. there are predictions and inferrances based on that evidence, though. the concept of an ancient universe came from within science, was inferred from the existing evidence for such.

Not true. Show me the evidence, where's the beef? Prophesies are a dime a dozen, or predictions, and none you can evidence go beyond the timeframe of the PO universe.

the only benchmark of how things are and have been in the past is what is in the world today

.

See what I mean? Your basis for all past and future is the present physicakl only universe, and how it now works. Let me tell you, in the present, science is pretty darn good, but don't try to carry it into the future in your mind, cause that is just belief.

that consists of observed phenomena, artifacts from the past, etcetera. science does not oppose the notion that things could be very different however many years ago or however many years in the future. until then though, unless evidence is uncovered to support claims that that happened/will happen, science sticks with what it has.

I have the same fossil record, and evidence, only your interpretauion of it is based solely on your old age beliefs. Look at the evidence itself, and it does not in any way speak of a future that is physical only.

science makes no claims to a spiritual world. that is outside its scope. it only deals with natural phenomena. in science, all evidence invariably confirms the natural nature of the universe.

Of course not, it can't so much as detect a ghost or angel!!!! It deals in the physical only, therefore it believes the physical only present is indicitive of a future and past that is also the same, which is bogus, and only a belief, and cannot be proved, or supported.

it's not a matter of single bits of evidence. it's very similar to a court of law- a single bit of evidence, a single witness only goes so far. the more evidence there is for someting, the more someting is tested to be true, the more artifacts from the past that lead to specific conclusions, the more certain the idea becomes.

Sounds good, but does not apply to proving the future or past was physical only! All this evidence is available for anyone to use their beliefs to interpret, not just your unsupportable beliefs! If you had evidence of a future and past thet were PO, it would be different. YOu don't, you never will, the future and past were, apparently, from the biblical description, together with the spiritual, and not physical only!

the ideas that you speak of were inferred by extant evidence. there is no belief. those ideas are only still there because that is where the evidence has taken us. until more evidence comes to light, that is where we will stay.

Until evidence comes to light, your beliefs are fired.

the evidence gave rise to the idea. there is no belief.

Only because it has been assumed and believed that only the present physical only was the be all end all. Now you are required to support the claim.

science is made of evidence and inferrances. not belief. if there were no evidence, such ideas would not be around today.

You say it, but it is not true, if so, evidence that the future and far past was physical only, like the present, or admit you can't, cause you can't, and that it is just you belief!!!!!!!

the future is the future, the past is the past. any limitations put on it are simply arbitrary. there is no barrier other than additional variables to consider.

[/quote:1ed8f]
Exactly, so do not try to limit the past and God's tommorow to your imaginary unsupportable present only based, physical only past and future!
You got nothin.

 

[Heidi]

The only science that is irrefutable is that which defines God's laws. The rest is man-made which is by definition, fallible. Sorry. :wink:

 

[Wertbag]

But fish have eyes as well, and bones, and I think brains, and muscles, and hearts. So are men fish? Looking at similarities in creations, even if in some cases a lot of adapting may or may not have occurred, is merely an exercise in imagination.

I'm not even talking about types or species of animals. Yes fish are a type of animal and therefore fit the same description I mentioned for the other animals. Let see, the dictionary definition of an animal:
"A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."
The classification "animal" is simply being used to mean living creature, of which humans are of course a part. We are unique in our complex thought processes, but barring that have the same physical characteristics, same feelings and same problems that we see in all other life forms.

Are they made in the image of God? No, only we are! Do they have full free will as we do? I don't think so.

The image of God is a widely debated point as to whether it means mental or physical shape. Of course primates have a similar physical shape, so could be considered in Gods image if humanoid form is all that is meant. Mentaly we know other animals have the same feelings, same fears, same needs, they don't have the same complex thoughts but otherwise have many of the same mental processes. Is it only complex brains that is in Gods image then?

Do animals have free will? Of course. The lion wanders where it will, kills as it pleases, and decides where it will make its home. Fully its choice, complete free will.
We think more about our actions, but how we act and what we consider right and wrong are things taught to us and not automatically known upon birth.

 

[dad]

The classification "animal" is simply being used to mean living creature, of which humans are of course a part.

Wrong. It is a a part of creation that were created, and that are not men, but seperate. WE named the animals, we are not animals.

[quote:582ce]We are unique in our complex thought processes, but barring that have the same physical characteristics, same feelings and same problems that we see in all other life forms.

You gotta be kidding? Same feelings? Or do you just mean we have nerves here? Thought processes? So a baboon meditates on the word day and night, and thinks about building jet planes?

The image of God is a widely debated point as to whether it means mental or physical shape.

But whatever it means, (you forgot free choice, some think that may be it as well), we do know this, we were created in His image. Animals were not. Claiming men are beasts is a trait of evolutionary thought, that also claims we are relatives to cockcroaches, rats, and flies! Considering yourself a beast comes with a lot of baggage!

Of course primates have a similar physical shape, so could be considered in Gods image if humanoid form is all that is meant.

This is a clue. it means more.

Mentaly we know other animals have the same feelings, same fears, same needs, they don't have the same complex thoughts but otherwise have many of the same mental processes. Is it only complex brains that is in Gods image then?

No.

Do animals have free will? Of course. The lion wanders where it will, kills as it pleases, and decides where it will make its home. Fully its choice, complete free will.

Really? I do not agree. It is a wild beast. Free will is more than walking at leisure.

We think more about our actions, but how we act and what we consider right and wrong are things taught to us and not automatically known upon birth.

[/quote:582ce]

There is a light that every man born into the world is lighted with. In each of us there is something that knows right from wrong, to some extent. A concience. Like a lttle angel sitting on our shoulder. We have the choice to do the right or not. It is a useless excercise imagining you are a beast. We are not beasts, and to ckaim this is based on a limited understanding of God, and the true nature of man.

 

[Heidi]

And that is precisely why when people curse the name of a religious figure, it's not Buddha, Krishna, Vishnu, or allh, it's Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven because deep inside of us, we all know the truth. Satan knows that the only one who has power over him is Christ and our Father in heaven which is why he leads us to curse Christ and rebel against Christ. And that is why all atheists rebel against Christ but could care less about allh, Buddha, etc., because they have no power over us.

 

[Loren Michael]

The speed of light is constant, no one questions this! The question is, was it this physical only universe, and it's pitiful slow light, that was here, or will be here in the future! The amswer we know, no it was not. You claim the present only universe is 'constant'-meaning always was always will be, and I challenge you to evidence this and prove it, because you can't, just assume it, and believe it.

i don't see why you need to deride the speed of light. it's pretty darn fast. also, until there is evidence that the universe is in flux, there is no basis for giving credence to that idea.

[quote:7704d]considering that light has not changed in the years since we have known how to observe it, and also that any large variances in light would likely be obvious to even observers from long ago, one can reach the conclusion that the speed of light is constant. this is then extrapolated backwards in time.

I don't think it ever did change, since it came to be in a PO universe, so no one says it changed, like decay tares, and other things of this temporary universe-just that it was not this light and will not be this Po light in the future! Also, no decay. You cannot just claim there was or will be, as anyone can claim things, and assume things, and believe things. You need to give solid scientific evidence it will always be the same or admit it is not science![/quote:7704d]

[quote:7704d]it's not proof to the contrary that matters.

If you claim it as science, you better be able to support it.[/quote:7704d]
scientific evidence does not come in a negative form. you don't "prove an idea wrong"- you prove an opposing or new or additional idea right. science builds off of itself.

[quote:7704d]we have observed the deaths of other stars. similarly, many aspects of the nature of our own sun are known. there is no "ticking clock" on the sun, but as nature does not provide those, that is not what science looks for. there is nothing particularly unusual about our sun, but for teh fact taht we are in orbit around it. there is no evidence that our presence affects the sun in any manner but the most neglegable. you are correct that science deals with evidence, not belief or basless speculations.

We observe death and decay all around, as well as new life, and birth, but so what? We know decay and death exist in this PO universe, no one says there is not. You need to support your claim the universe always will be and was so, or stop calling it science.[/quote:7704d]
i was only talking about the death of the sun. i'm not sure what you are referring to, so i cannot respond.

[quote:7704d]science does deal with more than just the present, though. predictions are always made, and the validity of many theories rests on those predictions. everything that we observe is from the past, therefore science deals heavily in the past. the present though, is fleeting.

Predictions are fine if they concern the several thousand year timeframe of this temporary physical only universe. If predictions are made beyond this they are baseless. You say everything we observe is from the past, but the question is how far in the past, and based on what evidence.[/quote:7704d]
limitations of a few thousand years are purely arbitrary. there is nothing in science that indicates that we should limit ourselves so.

[quote:7704d]science does not try to destroy faith in god. it only presents what is observed and inferred.

A lot is pesented in the name of science that is way beyond this. The inferance is only in your mind anyhow, because it infers that the present universe always will be, which is a belief, and nothing more! Anyone can infer God was wrong, but you need to put up, or....[/quote:7704d]
without being more specific, i cannot address your first claim other than to say that people who misuse the term, "science" do a disservice to us all, but it doesn't change the nature or knowledge of science. as for inferring that god is wrong, i have done no such thing, nor does science. science only observes evidence and makes inferrences based on that evidence. if i, personally have inferred that god is wrong, please call me on it and show me where i have erred.

[quote:7704d]for matters of which there is a largely incomplete picture, science only dwells on what is in evidence, and what is inferred from that evidence.

Then present the evidence that connects the present physical only universe with the future, or far past, exactly, not assumption, or belief-evidence, if you want to call it part of science! You can't.[/quote:7704d]
it has already been stated that science can examine the past and predect aspects of the future. the only barrier to how long ago or far forward is the large number of new variables, and our limited capacity for observation.

[quote:7704d]again, there is no belief. there is only evidence. there are predictions and inferrances based on that evidence, though. the concept of an ancient universe came from within science, was inferred from the existing evidence for such.

Not true. Show me the evidence, where's the beef? Prophesies are a dime a dozen, or predictions, and none you can evidence go beyond the timeframe of the PO universe.[/quote:7704d]
evidence for...? for an ancient universe? i believe we have already discussed that. it is on record.

[quote:7704d]the only benchmark of how things are and have been in the past is what is in the world today

.
See what I mean? Your basis for all past and future is the present physicakl only universe, and how it now works. Let me tell you, in the present, science is pretty darn good, but don't try to carry it into the future in your mind, cause that is just belief.[/quote:7704d]
the presence of accurate predictions of the future, and accurate predictions of what we will find of the past give credence to science's ability to predict both. it's simply a matter of carrying evidence to its apparent conclusion.

I have the same fossil record, and evidence, only your interpretauion of it is based solely on your old age beliefs. Look at the evidence itself, and it does not in any way speak of a future that is physical only.

i do not know of any valid scientific theory that ends itself to that idea. i would be happy to know of one, though. my interpretation comes from the the evidence that we have.

[quote:7704d]science makes no claims to a spiritual world. that is outside its scope. it only deals with natural phenomena. in science, all evidence invariably confirms the natural nature of the universe.

Of course not, it can't so much as detect a ghost or angel!!!! It deals in the physical only, therefore it believes the physical only present is indicitive of a future and past that is also the same, which is bogus, and only a belief, and cannot be proved, or supported.[/quote:7704d]
science only deals with things that can be observed. if angels and ghosts can be observed, there is a science out there that deals with them.

[quote:7704d]it's not a matter of single bits of evidence. it's very similar to a court of law- a single bit of evidence, a single witness only goes so far. the more evidence there is for someting, the more someting is tested to be true, the more artifacts from the past that lead to specific conclusions, the more certain the idea becomes.

Sounds good, but does not apply to proving the future or past was physical only! All this evidence is available for anyone to use their beliefs to interpret, not just your unsupportable beliefs! If you had evidence of a future and past thet were PO, it would be different. YOu don't, you never will, the future and past were, apparently, from the biblical description, together with the spiritual, and not physical only![/quote:7704d]
could you define "PO" please? i am unfamiliar with the term. also, generally the best way to interpret evidence is to compare it to existing evidence. not to filter it with preexisting beliefs.

[quote:7704d]the ideas that you speak of were inferred by extant evidence. there is no belief. those ideas are only still there because that is where the evidence has taken us. until more evidence comes to light, that is where we will stay.

Until evidence comes to light, your beliefs are fired.[/quote:7704d]
i have not stated my beliefs. only what i know of how science works.

[quote:7704d]the evidence gave rise to the idea. there is no belief.

Only because it has been assumed and believed that only the present physical only was the be all end all. Now you are required to support the claim.[/quote:7704d]
the onus is on the new claim. all that science ascribes to is that what it has observed is likely true. it is always open to change (within its body od knowledge), though.

[quote:7704d]science is made of evidence and inferrances. not belief. if there were no evidence, such ideas would not be around today.

You say it, but it is not true, if so, evidence that the future and far past was physical only, like the present, or admit you can't, cause you can't, and that it is just you belief!!!!!!![/quote:7704d]
evidence is what manifested the current ideas in science. the onus is not on science to prove every other idea wrong, it is on the evidence for competing or new ideas to bring them to the fore.

[quote:7704d]the future is the future, the past is the past. any limitations put on it are simply arbitrary. there is no barrier other than additional variables to consider.

Exactly, so do not try to limit the past and God's tommorow to your imaginary unsupportable present only based, physical only past and future!
You got nothin.[/quote:7704d]
there are no motions to put limitations on god within science. science does not purport to seek or to replace god. the nature of the past and future, as known by us, is only through the evidence that we have of it.

 

[Loren Michael]

things. and a ""

i believe you made a thread about that subject a while ago, and it has been discussed thoroughly. :

thanks anyways, though. :angel:

 

[dad]

i don't see why you need to deride the speed of light. it's pretty darn fast. also, until there is evidence that the universe is in flux, there is no basis for giving credence to that idea.

It's not fast compared to how fast spirits can travel, or the light in a merged universe that is together with the spiritual. The bible says a new heavens is coming, and this one is temporary and will pass away. There is no basis basis for giving credence to any idea that says otherwise. Certainly not some harebrained belief that is not supportable, that claims the universe was always and always will be physical only. You'd need evidence for that doozy for sure.

[quote:7bce2]scientific evidence does not come in a negative form. you don't "prove an idea wrong"- you prove an opposing or new or additional idea right. science builds off of itself.

I am not asking to you prove something wrong, just back up your claim it always was and will be a physical only universe. You say it is science, so, support it!!! Or be hitherto falsified in your failure to do so!

i was only talking about the death of the sun. i'm not sure what you are referring to, so i cannot respond.

The sun is forever, it will never burn out or die. The bible says so. The present radioactive decay will cease to exist, and I suggest did not exist in our far past.

limitations of a few thousand years are purely arbitrary. there is nothing in science that indicates that we should limit ourselves so.

So, science claims it went on always, and always will, because it can't see anything different in the present. A present based, and only present based, as well as physical only speculation that cannot ne proven, or supported.

without being more specific, i cannot address your first claim other than to say that people who misuse the term, "science" do a disservice to us all, but it doesn't change the nature or knowledge of science. as for inferring that god is wrong, i have done no such thing, nor does science.

God in the bible tells us the universe and all life was made in a week. Real science has nothing to say about it, but geology, cosmology, biology and the paleofraud group, etc, all teach old ages, that oppose bible timeframes. All of the old age claims are based squarely on the belief that the universe was always, and always will be physical only, like the present! No proof for this can exist, or does exist. All evidence they claim for it is the same evidence we can use for creation, and only their belief based old age assumptions color the evidence in their own eyes.

it has already been stated that science can examine the past and predect aspects of the future. the only barrier to how long ago or far forward is the large number of new variables, and our limited capacity for observation.

It cannot examine the pre flood times, or garden. Nor make predictions on it. It cannot examine God's tommorow either. All it has is the present. The present that we do not know was the same as the past or future, only believe, one way or the other. Your capacity fpr observation ends in the physical only universe right here. Claiming otherwise is not science but falsely so called science.

evidence for...? for an ancient universe? i believe we have already discussed that. it is on record.

Evidence that says the future and past were the same as the present PO.

the presence of accurate predictions of the future, and accurate predictions of what we will find of the past give credence to science's ability to predict both.

What in the world are you talking about? Can you apply that to something that has something to do with backing up your belief in a PO past? The bible makes predictions as well, you know.

it's simply a matter of carrying evidence to its apparent conclusion.

If you mean assuming forever is like the PO present, that is neither evidenced, nor apparent.

science only deals with things that can be observed. if angels and ghosts can be observed, there is a science out there that deals with them.

So if cavemanish present science can't detect ghosts and angels, depite a majority of people on earth now, and in the past, having had reasons to believe in them, there just ain't no such thing? Ridiculous. We know they are there science just isn't up to snuff yet.

could you define "PO" please? i am unfamiliar with the term. also, generally the best way to interpret evidence is to compare it to existing evidence. not to filter it with preexisting beliefs.

Physical Only. Good, then don't use assumptions of a PO present based universe to interpret evidence.

the onus is on the new claim. all that science ascribes to is that what it has observed is likely true. it is always open to change (within its body od knowledge), though.

The new claim was that there were old ages, and science made it. After some digestion, and thought, science is now asked to evidence the claim, if it is solid science. The old ages claims are based on the present, physical only being all there was or will be! So, let's see the evidence, or admit it is just a belief, and we'll get the old ages beliefs the hec out of some public schools being taught as science!

there are no motions to put limitations on god within science. science does not purport to seek or to replace god. the nature of the past and future, as known by us, is only through the evidence that we have of it.

[/quote:7bce2]

Speaking of evidence, then I am telling you that none exists to support your fantasy future, or past. It is science, falsely so called.

 

[Loren Michael]

i don't see why you need to deride the speed of light. it's pretty darn fast. also, until there is evidence that the universe is in flux, there is no basis for giving credence to that idea.

It's not fast compared to how fast spirits can travel, or the light in a merged universe that is together with the spiritual. The bible says a new heavens is coming, and this one is temporary and will pass away. There is no basis basis for giving credence to any idea that says otherwise. Certainly not some harebrained belief that is not supportable, that claims the universe was always and always will be physical only. You'd need evidence for that doozy for sure.

when looking at the evidence, that is the only conclusion that one comes to. by definition it is supported, as the idea is borne of the same evidence.

I am not asking to you prove something wrong, just back up your claim it always was and will be a physical only universe. You say it is science, so, support it!!! Or be hitherto falsified in your failure to do so!

considering that claim has not been made, there is no need to do so. evidence merely gives support to the notion that the universe has pretty much always obeyed a certain set of laws. no evidence has risen to the contrary, so the idea is not approached.

[quote:122d1]limitations of a few thousand years are purely arbitrary. there is nothing in science that indicates that we should limit ourselves so.

So, science claims it went on always, and always will, because it can't see anything different in the present. A present based, and only present based, as well as physical only speculation that cannot ne proven, or supported.[/quote:122d1]
until evidence arises that supports another idea arises, we limit ourselves to what we know of it. science is not given to wild speculation. in this way it is supported.

[quote:122d1]without being more specific, i cannot address your first claim other than to say that people who misuse the term, "science" do a disservice to us all, but it doesn't change the nature or knowledge of science. as for inferring that god is wrong, i have done no such thing, nor does science.

God in the bible tells us the universe and all life was made in a week. Real science has nothing to say about it, but geology, cosmology, biology and the paleofraud group, etc, all teach old ages, that oppose bible timeframes. All of the old age claims are based squarely on the belief that the universe was always, and always will be physical only, like the present! No proof for this can exist, or does exist. All evidence they claim for it is the same evidence we can use for creation, and only their belief based old age assumptions color the evidence in their own eyes.[/quote:122d1]
all that is being taught is what the evidence reveals. if the evidence gave a strong indication for a creation-based origin, that would be reflected in what is taught.

[quote:122d1]it has already been stated that science can examine the past and predect aspects of the future. the only barrier to how long ago or far forward is the large number of new variables, and our limited capacity for observation.

It cannot examine the pre flood times, or garden. Nor make predictions on it. It cannot examine God's tommorow either. All it has is the present. The present that we do not know was the same as the past or future, only believe, one way or the other. Your capacity fpr observation ends in the physical only universe right here. Claiming otherwise is not science but falsely so called science.[/quote:122d1]
the evidence has not uncovered such occasione or locations, and thos does not examine them. all that is claimed is what the evidence reveals. no absolute barriers to knowledge have been discovered as of yet, though- beyond, perhaps, the big bang. other than that, i'm not sure anyone knows what such a barrier would look like.

[quote:122d1]evidence for...? for an ancient universe? i believe we have already discussed that. it is on record.

Evidence that says the future and past were the same as the present PO.[/quote:122d1]
that was addressed this earlier in this post.

[quote:122d1]the presence of accurate predictions of the future, and accurate predictions of what we will find of the past give credence to science's ability to predict both.

What in the world are you talking about? Can you apply that to something that has something to do with backing up your belief in a PO past? The bible makes predictions as well, you know.[/quote:122d1]
the nature of science is to make predictions to test a theory. in the case of the past, the evidence stands on its own. there is no "non-natural" evidence of the past, thus, in the eyes of science, the past remains natural.

[quote:122d1]it's simply a matter of carrying evidence to its apparent conclusion.

If you mean assuming forever is like the PO present, that is neither evidenced, nor apparent.[/quote:122d1]
no evidence has been found of an unnatural history, and no evidence has been found that would lead to the idea of an unnatural future. hence, the paradigm is not expected to change.

[quote:122d1]science only deals with things that can be observed. if angels and ghosts can be observed, there is a science out there that deals with them.

So if cavemanish present science can't detect ghosts and angels, depite a majority of people on earth now, and in the past, having had reasons to believe in them, there just ain't no such thing? Ridiculous. We know they are there science just isn't up to snuff yet.[/quote:122d1]
i made no claim that there is no such thing as ghosts and angels. they are not observed, there is no evidence for them, thus science does not study them.

[quote:122d1]could you define "PO" please? i am unfamiliar with the term. also, generally the best way to interpret evidence is to compare it to existing evidence. not to filter it with preexisting beliefs.

Physical Only. Good, then don't use assumptions of a PO present based universe to interpret evidence.[/quote:122d1]
evidence is the only thing that is used. any assumptions are based on that evidence.

[quote:122d1]the onus is on the new claim. all that science ascribes to is that what it has observed is likely true. it is always open to change (within its body od knowledge), though.

The new claim was that there were old ages, and science made it. After some digestion, and thought, science is now asked to evidence the claim, if it is solid science. The old ages claims are based on the present, physical only being all there was or will be! So, let's see the evidence, or admit it is just a belief, and we'll get the old ages beliefs the hec out of some public schools being taught as science![/quote:122d1]
the evidence for the claim, which has been discussed, is what gave rise to the notion of an ancient universe in science.

[quote:122d1]there are no motions to put limitations on god within science. science does not purport to seek or to replace god. the nature of the past and future, as known by us, is only through the evidence that we have of it.

Speaking of evidence, then I am telling you that none exists to support your fantasy future, or past. It is science, falsely so called.[/quote:122d1]
notions of the past and future are intrinsically bonded to the evidence that bore them.

 

[reznwerks]

refute

The only science that is irrefutable is that which defines God's laws. The rest is man-made which is by definition, fallible. Sorry. :wink:

What are Gods laws in regards to science and why don't they correspond to what we can see, test, and measure consistantly?

 

[reznwerks]

animal

The classification "animal" is simply being used to mean living creature, of which humans are of course a part.

Wrong. It is a a part of creation that were created, and that are not men, but seperate. WE named the animals, we are not animals.
How can you deny that we are not an animal? Our bodily functions all work the same way as other mammals. If a God made us special why didn't he make us different than other animals?

[quote:c980a]We are unique in our complex thought processes, but barring that have the same physical characteristics, same feelings and same problems that we see in all other life forms.

You gotta be kidding? Same feelings? Or do you just mean we have nerves here? Thought processes? So a baboon meditates on the word day and night, and thinks about building jet planes?
It's the evolution of our brain that has made us unique in the animal world. Sooner or later however man is not going to be the king of his domain as the past has shown us that other species will dominate for one reason or another. It could be man will anhililate himself with mass destruction or an unknown virus will us off, or we may be hit with an asteroid or the temperature on the planet will rise too high or fall suddenly all of which will give rise to creatures that are better suited to the environment.

[quote:c980a]The image of God is a widely debated point as to whether it means mental or physical shape.

But whatever it means, (you forgot free choice, some think that may be it as well), we do know this, we were created in His image. Animals were not. Claiming men are beasts is a trait of evolutionary thought, that also claims we are relatives to cockcroaches, rats, and flies! Considering yourself a beast comes with a lot of baggage!
I didn't think the truth was baggage.Why did God make us like an animal if we were so special? We look similar to the apes, and chimps, we eat food, and process it the same, we live and die the same as animals. The claim our spirit goes somewhere else has not proven itself out. THere is no evidence of it.

Of course primates have a similar physical shape, so could be considered in Gods image if humanoid form is all that is meant.

This is a clue. it means more.

Mentaly we know other animals have the same feelings, same fears, same needs, they don't have the same complex thoughts but otherwise have many of the same mental processes. Is it only complex brains that is in Gods image then?

I agree that mans brain is unique but that is not evidence of God. That is what has evolved to make us different. It is this brain that makes us think we are differnent but the reality is that there is no proof of it. As I said we funtion the same way as other animals. If we were special we would not. If we were made in Gods image that should mean that we would not have to eat food , go to the bathroom, and etc.

Do animals have free will? Of course. The lion wanders where it will, kills as it pleases, and decides where it will make its home. Fully its choice, complete free will.

Really? I do not agree. It is a wild beast. Free will is more than walking at leisure.

We think more about our actions, but how we act and what we consider right and wrong are things taught to us and not automatically known upon birth.

There is a light that every man born into the world is lighted with. In each of us there is something that knows right from wrong, to some extent. A concience. Like a lttle angel sitting on our shoulder. We have the choice to do the right or not. It is a useless excercise imagining you are a beast. We are not beasts, and to ckaim this is based on a limited understanding of God, and the true nature of man.
Right and wrong is a cultural thing. A society will bind together based on shared social agreements regardless of where the society is. Like other animals that live socially there is a norm of behavior which allows them to function as a society. Chimps , wolves , lion packs etc all live socially and have their unwritten laws of behavior with others. The bible brings nothing new to the table in regards to laws of right and wrong. Hammuabis code was written long before the bible and the bible only mirrors it. No society on earth condones murder, theft, etc.

[/quote:c980a][/quote:c980a]

 

[reznwerks]

curse

And that is precisely why when people curse the name of a religious figure, it's not Buddha, Krishna, Vishnu, or allh, it's Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven because deep inside of us, we all know the truth.
All religions get persecuted. You are just aware of your Christian persecution. The sad fact is that most of the conflict today involves religion and not necessarily Christian so as usual your information is incorrect.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Satan knows that the only one who has power over him is Christ and our Father in heaven which is why he leads us to curse Christ and rebel against Christ. And that is why all atheists rebel against Christ but could care less about allh, Buddha, etc., because they have no power over us.

Satan knows squat because he doesn't exist. If Christ had power over him he would have been reigned in already. To have a "loving" father not do this is the height of irresponsibilty. There is absolutely no reason to do as the Christian claims of making man endure a type of earthly boot camp in order to live forever in his presence.

 

[Wertbag]

And that is precisely why when people curse the name of a religious figure, it's not Buddha, Krishna, Vishnu, or allh, it's Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven because deep inside of us, we all know the truth.

Atheists deny all religions equally. We debate christianity more as its the main western religion, if I walk outside I'll meet christians preaching on street corners but I would not see a hindu, muslim or jew doing the same. Its just mainly locational.

Wrong. It is a a part of creation that were created, and that are not men, but seperate. WE named the animals, we are not animals.

Then there is actually no debate, we are just simply using different definitions. We are saying animal = living creature, you say animal = living creature except for humans because we came later.

You gotta be kidding? Same feelings? Or do you just mean we have nerves here? Thought processes? So a baboon meditates on the word day and night, and thinks about building jet planes?

Did you even read my statement? Seem to have gone at right angles some how... I said "We are unique in our complex thought processes" so obviously thinking about jet planes is a human only characteristic. Feelings are very different to complex thoughts. For example we know animals feel fear, pain, love, hate, lust, anger, pride, joy etc. These can be seen in the wagging dogs tail, the mothers love for her offspring, the cats cry as you tread on his tail, the gorrilas display of power or the cat presenting you a dead mouse. Animals think, animals feel, and we share that in common.

Really? I do not agree. It is a wild beast. Free will is more than walking at leisure.

I guess you've got a different definition of free will then? I would simply think it means you have the ability to do as you please. Lets check the handy dictionary: "Done of one's own accord; voluntary"
Yes the lion wanders where it wants, kills want it wants, does as it pleases. This is complete freewill by this definition. Please let me know how your definition differs from the norm.

In each of us there is something that knows right from wrong, to some extent.

Not at all. We are taught right from wrong, and we accept societies definitions on these. Years ago slavery was common, it was not considered wrong, nowdays we would be horrified by it. During the Roman times they ran blood games, people killed by wild animals or other people for the pleasure of the crowd. Tens of thousands of people packing stands to watch the show. It was not considered wrong, it was the social norm and that was the way it was taught.
Is it wrong to execute by stoning? Is it wrong to duel with pistols or swords? Is it wrong to drink alcohol? Is it wrong to smoke? Your answers to these questions are based on what you've been taught and what society says. Ask the Taliban the same questions and you'll get very different replies.

 

[dad]

when looking at the evidence, that is the only conclusion that one comes to. by definition it is supported, as the idea is borne of the same evidence.

The conclusion something is supported can only come if something is supported, and you cannot support a future or past that will be or was only as the present is, physical only. The only support possible fot that claim is your belief, nothing else. We cannot say, because it is a certain way now it always was and will be that certain way, just because we think it might be, of feel it likely must be so. Evidence, evidence evidence, and you have none! We have lots of evidence for real science, magnetism, -things stick. -Gravity, -things that go up come down, etc. For your fantasy futeure, none at all, it in strictly and purely your belief. Coincedentally, all old ages are based on this unsupportable belief!

considering that claim has not been made, there is no need to do so. evidence merely gives support to the notion that the universe has pretty much always obeyed a certain set of laws. no evidence has risen to the contrary, so the idea is not approached.

But no evidence says the universe always operated under only the laws of physics, you are mistaken. That is assumption only. We can say that as long as the universe was physical only, and we (you) don't know how long that was by any evidence, PO laws applied. This is true. But not any issue under scrutiny, because we all know this, at least more or less, we think we do. Light cannot have drastically changed speeds, for example, because the effects on the rest of the universe would be apparent (at least so they say). But the point is, that if there were a seperation of the spiritual from the physical at some point, all we would be able to detect is the physical only, because we cannot understand the merged eternal universe, and the spiritual component. WE would see, as we do, just the light that can exist in the physical only universe, and was left here at the split. We could not detect the former merged pre split light! And etc.

until evidence arises that supports another idea arises, we limit ourselves to what we know of it. science is not given to wild speculation. in this way it is supported.

Oh yes it is, look at granny and the speck, no one has a clue where they supposedly came from. Look at your claim the future must be physical only, just because it now is!! Unsupportable, wild claim. Better to just admit you have no idea, and do not know, cause you don't, you just think, assume and believe.

all that is being taught is what the evidence reveals. if the evidence gave a strong indication for a creation-based origin, that would be reflected in what is taught.

If they could detect creation remnants that might be true, but creation- if occuring in the complete, eternal merged universe, was not in a physical only present universe we see! How could you detect it? All you can cetect is physical things, and assume that that is all there everwas or will be. That is ridiculous. Your belief in this, and it's implications of old age, granny bacteria, the creator speck, etc. are just belief based. You have no right to use your belief, and call it part of scienvce, pushing other beliefs out, and terrorizing children with your teachings in the name of science, but only falsely so called! 'Hey kids, the bible is wrong, no eternal heavens can exist, you're all gonna die, and God didn't create it in a week, it was billions of years ago, and a little speck. Oh, and children, we all came from a germ, or lifeform, and the sun will burn out one day, and we live on a meaningless speck of a meaningless planet, and we are all beasts and animals.' All based on the core belief of claiming with no possible support that the physical universe will always be all there is.

the evidence has not uncovered such occasione or locations, and thos does not examine them. all that is claimed is what the evidence reveals. no absolute barriers to knowledge have been discovered as of yet, though- beyond, perhaps, the big bang. other than that, i'm not sure anyone knows what such a barrier would look like.

I can guarantee you have no idea, so stick to what we do know, the present. Here, science is testable, and observable, and supportable. Cut the fairy tales, and faith robbing dark morbid tales of you fantasy past and future!

no evidence has been found of an unnatural history, and no evidence has been found that would lead to the idea of an unnatural future. hence, the paradigm is not expected to change.

Thats what you think! Your unnatural claims of a death and decaying eternity are not supportable, and bogus. All that is needed is for the christian majority to tune in to the fact that the old ages you preach are strictly belief based, and not science. If that fails, the rule of Christ is coming soon anyhow, and all will be made right in very very short order, of this you can be sure.

i made no claim that there is no such thing as ghosts and angels. they are not observed, there is no evidence for them, thus science does not study them.

OK, do you admit that there is a spiritual?

the evidence for the claim, which has been discussed, is what gave rise to the notion of an ancient universe in science.

What evidence has been discussed? I have not so much seen a single thing on offer here in the least way applicable?!! Let me be clear, you have none, and never will, so stop making false claims! The new heavens that are eternal are coming, and these ones will pass away, I gurantee you have no supported case against this absolute.

notions of the past and future are intrinsically bonded to the evidence that bore them.

Does this come with english subtitles? There is no evidence of either a merged or physical only past or future. Word games don't do it!

 

[dad]

Re: animal

How can you deny that we are not an animal? Our bodily functions all work the same way as other mammals. If a God made us special why didn't he make us different than other animals?

We are different. Physical bodies and your opinion of the mind, and free will etc only tell us of your opinion, and belief, they do not speak to real differences. Bodily functions do not an animal make, when the body is of man.

It's the evolution of our brain that has made us unique in the animal world. Sooner or later however man is not going to be the king of his domain as the past has shown us that other species will dominate for one reason or another. It could be man will anhililate himself with mass destruction or an unknown virus will us off, or we may be hit with an asteroid or the temperature on the planet will rise too high or fall suddenly all of which will give rise to creatures that are better suited to the environment.

Man will not kill himself, God will have to step in. Your nightmare dreams have no basis in reality. Any more than claiming a new heavens will not be revealed, and these ones pass away forever. These things are only in your head, not science.

I didn't think the truth was baggage.Why did God make us like an animal if we were so special? We look similar to the apes, and chimps, we eat food, and process it the same, we live and die the same as animals. The claim our spirit goes somewhere else has not proven itself out. THere is no evidence of it.

Your inability to perceive the spiritual is your problem. Of course physical science cannot evidence the spiritual, or it would not be natural science. It is neutered in this respect, and handicapped! Most people in the world know there is a spiritual, don't cry to me if you can't detect your way out of a paper bag with paltry present science. The important thing is, you have no evidence that there is no spiritual, of course either. The limitations of PO science are quite apparent. Like a box, it has limitations. Christians can look outside the box.

I agree that mans brain is unique but that is not evidence of God. That is what has evolved to make us different. It is this brain that makes us think we are differnent but the reality is that there is no proof of it.

No, it is your brain that has that bee in it's bonnet. There is more to our thoughts than a brain. Inspiration, for example, from without the body, input through the processor of the brain. But PO science know so little it is hard to even mention such things to those in the box!

As I said we funtion the same way as other animals. If we were special we would not. If we were made in Gods image that should mean that we would not have to eat food , go to the bathroom, and etc.

In heaven, we don't have to eat food if we don't want. We are in a physical body now, and a temporary physical only universe as well, like a prison. Largely the result of sin, and the fall of man.

Right and wrong is a cultural thing. A society will bind together based on shared social agreements regardless of where the society is.

To some degree, yes, but also as I mentioned we come with a built in right and wrongometer. Now, if we ask Jesus into our hearts, why that tunes it up to a much greater degree.

Like other animals that live socially there is a norm of behavior which allows them to function as a society. Chimps , wolves , lion packs etc all live socially and have their unwritten laws of behavior with others

.

Termites, and ants too. How about germs? You preach a hollow doctrine.

The bible brings nothing new to the table in regards to laws of right and wrong. Hammuabis code was written long before the bible and the bible only mirrors it. No society on earth condones murder, theft, etc

Of course it does, Love God, love others. There are lots of things God brings to the table. Otherwise, these animals who want to kill men with atomic bombs, and germ warfare, and abortions, and etc. would think their wickedness was as right as right can be.