[Galveston1]

It is somewhat tiresome to continually hear that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths passed down by illiterates. Among other things, there is history in the Bible, much of which has been PROVEN by SCIENCE. That should be a clue that there is something more here than fiction. Much of what science has learned in the last 200 years or so was revealed in scriptures centuries or millenniums earlier. Some of you have minds like steel traps, tightly closed!

[Credendovidis]

For sassyT

Re your remarks to Choux :

- Imperical "proof" is no proof. In reality it is an admission that we have no idea why something is like it is.

- You demand "conclusive evidence" for a post that clearly indicated that it was just a scientific and logical explanation. Lacking any fair arguments you now start twisting words to support your own religious based babble.

- Your statement that people who question the content of a book (that is full of faults, contradictions, and historical blunders) have "biased beliefs and lack of knowledge and understanding of the text is another wild claim. It is your twisting of words that clearly does NOT produce facts.

- Choux statement was not highly speculative at all. There is lots of support for that view. Nor is the book you referred to confusing for Choux or others who question it's content.

- Seems to me that you are running out of proper answers, and turn now to the approach by Ken Ham and co, by twisting words and meanings, and/or making wild claims and support that by selected religious texts from a book that is full of mistakes itself.

;)

[Galveston1]

For sassyT

Re your remarks to Choux :

- Imperical "proof" is no proof. In reality it is an admission that we have no idea why something is like it is.

- You demand "conclusive evidence" for a post that clearly indicated that it was just a scientific and logical explanation. Lacking any fair arguments you now start twisting words to support your own religious based babble.

- Your statement that people who question the content of a book (that is full of faults, contradictions, and historical blunders) have "biased beliefs and lack of knowledge and understanding of the text is another wild claim. It is your twisting of words that clearly does NOT produce facts.

- Choux statement was not highly speculative at all. There is lots of support for that view. Nor is the book you referred to confusing for Choux or others who question it's content.

- Seems to me that you are running out of proper answers, and turn now to the approach by Ken Ham and co, by twisting words and meanings, and/or making wild claims and support that by selected religious texts from a book that is full of mistakes itself.

;)

You say full of mistakes. Seems we've been down this road before. OK. Time to put up or shut up. Specifically what mistakes? Please try to find some of significance and give book, chapter and verse.

[Credendovidis]

It is somewhat tiresome to continually hear that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths passed down by illiterates.

You have to blame sassyT for that absurd statement. I would not make such an allegation... Those who introduced stories, heresay, and myths into their part of the Bible could not be illiterates, as there are very few empty pages in that book...

;)

[Credendovidis]

You say full of mistakes. Seems we've been down this road before. OK. Time to put up or shut up. Specifically what mistakes? Please try to find some of significance and give book, chapter and verse.

What an unnecessary aggression. I already posted three items on that , just as you described.
So I suggest that not I but you "shut up", and do not react to only the last three of four posts, but read the entire lead before posting your absurd demands.

;)

[mimi83]

What an unnecessary aggression. I already posted three items on that , just as you described.
So I suggest that not I but you "shut up", and do not react to only the last three of four posts, but read the entire lead before posting your absurd demands.

;)

Credondovidise, I think what everyone here is trying to say to you is.. the bottom line is you do not know what the origin of life is, so what ever you believe whether it is in the bigbang or some other scientific theory the bottom line is those theories are not facts or truth they are just scientific guesses. So the fact that you believe in them despite the fact that there is no proof to prove the theories true, means you have faith. There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the universe came from the big bang or what ever thoeries you have sujested here. So your ideas on how the earth came into being are just part of the doctrine of your Beliefs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this I find very disturbing and must say makes you seem like a very irrational person.
In your opinion the Bible is a book of Myths, however this belief of yours is not a fact because you have no evidence to prove your claims. So I will respect your opinion and I think that is what everyone else here should do. Everyone is entitled to their own opnion as long as us Christians know the real truth that all that matters.

To Galverston and Sassy:
Don't waist your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's.

[achampio21]

Interesting how people come to your thread credendovidis and make comments like

"don't waste your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's"

If I rememeber correctly, you dear credendovidis posted this thread and it was purely out of that sayer's own spitefullness to post a negative comment. I don't recall a negative comment made until the one's that don't think the way you do showed up on this thread.

Very intersting. I don't think cookie monster would approve. ;)

[Credendovidis]

Credondovidise.....

Do you have serious spelling problems ? Or is this an example of your deliberate and disrespectful attitude towards people that have a different worldview than yourself?

... the bottom line is you do not know what the origin of life is, so what ever you believe wether it is in the bigbang or some other scientific theory the bottom line is those theories are not facts or truth they are just scientific guesses.

First of all : I NEVER made any claims about the origin of life, nor about the origin of the universe. I clearly stated that both are thesis, but are in agreement with the available objective supported data which we have on both events.

By your reaction you show to be incapable of understanding what that reservation meant, in your eagerness to shout down any for you opposing views . How silly and childish !

Secondly : specially as my statement is UNLIKE anything that can be stated about religion and it's claim on both subjects. These religious claims miss any format of objective supported evidence, i.e. are total wild claims.

So the fact that you believe in them dispite the fact that there is no proof to prove the theories true, means you have faith.

TOTAL NONSENSE ! I provided supported thesis data on both subjects. There is ample supported evidence for the Big Bang, though nobody can prove why and how that Big Bang occurred. By winding the clock backwards all available evidence and scientific findings support the Big Bang thesis. There is no faith involved at all.
Faith is required for any anything that is based on the creationist's claims.

There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the universe came from the big bang or what ever thoeries you have sujested here. So your ideas on how the earth came into being are just part of the doctrine of your Beliefs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this i find very disturbing and must say makes you seem like a very irrational person.

As you seem so eager to pigeonhole people, let me provide a description of you : I find you a very illogical thinker with a total lack of any real scientific understanding and comprehension. You seem to think that you can debate an item that - clearly from what you post - goes far above your mental capacities.

In your opinion the Bible is a book of Myths, however this belief of yours is not a fact because you have no evidence to prove your claims. so i will respect your opinion and i think that is what everyone else here should do. Everyone is entitled to their own opnion as long as us Christians know the real truth that all that matters

The book of myths exists, and it is callled "bible". It is so full of mistakes, hearsay, historical faults, contradictions, etc. that children stories show more reality sense. Loads and loads more.
What is interesting so far is that NOBODY here has been addressing the issue I posted about a (claimed to exist) supranatural omnipotent all powerful deity who is incapable of producing a fault free instruction book for humanity, and ends up to be responsible for the content of a book that is so badly written and supported that nobody understands it's true meaning (if there is one), and therefore requires weekly interpretation by a cloud of worldwide "rephrasers" who have to do their utmost to make at least some sense out of it, so that people can consider the value of a couple of it's lines.

To Galverston and Sassy: Dont waist (sic) your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's.

Your problem is that you seem to think that this is the Christianity board. But this is the religious discussions board, where all views are welcome, and where non-christian views have equal rights to be posted, no matter how they differ from your views.

You do not even understand the mission statement as provided by the focal point of your religion : JC's "Go forth and spread the word".
Where in the bible can I find JC's suggestion not to waste your time with "people like this" ?
Next to that : this board is precisely the place where people who like to come on sites of other views may post, question, debate and promote their own beliefs, religion, and/or worldviews.

And : who is here trying to undermine other people's views? Not I. All I say and have stated time and time again is :

BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE : NO PROBLEM ! BUT DO NOT CLAIM THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS "THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH" , UNLESS YOU CAN SUPPORT THAT RATHER SUBJECTIVE SUGGESTION WITH AT LEAST AN INKLING OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WILD CLAIMS.

:rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

Very intersting. I don't think cookie monster would approve. ;)

Indeed! Neither will the Pink Unicorn be happy with that...

Responses like mimi's show the amazing intolerance some posters on this board possess, and their incapability and unwillingness to even consider worldviews and argumentation that opposes their own.

Sad, is it not?

:rolleyes:

[sassyT]

Credondovidise, i think what everyone here is trying to say to you is.. the bottom line is you do not know what the origin of life is, so what ever you believe wether it is in the bigbang or some other scientific theory the bottom line is those theories are not facts or truth they are just scientific guesses. So the fact that you believe in them dispite the fact that there is no proof to prove the theories true, means you have faith. There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the universe came from the big bang or what ever thoeries you have sujested here. So your ideas on how the earth came into being are just part of the doctrine of your Beliefs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this i find very disturbing and must say makes you seem like a very irrational person.
In your opinion the Bible is a book of Myths, however this belief of yours is not a fact because you have no evidence to prove your claims. so i will respect your opinion and i think that is what everyone else here should do. Everyone is entitled to their own opnion as long as us Christians know the real truth that all that matters.

To Galverston and Sassy:
Dont waist your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's.

Lol.. I agree with you Mimi.. People like Credo are in serious denail.. His moto is "i will only believe when i see it".. apparently he was there to witness the Big Bang :D

[sassyT]

TOTAL NONSENSE ! I provided supported thesis data on both subjects. There is ample supported evidence for the Big Bang, though nobody can prove why and how that Big Bang occurred.

Credo There is also ample supported scientific evidence to prove the Big Bang is highly unlikely. Read these top 30 scientific problems with theory...
BB top 30 problems

By winding the clock backwards all available evidence and scientific findings support the Big Bang thesis. There is no faith involved at all.
Faith is required for any anything that is based on the creationist's claims.

So there is ample Scientific evidence to prove the Big Bang is a Hoax but you believe it anyway. So there is a lot of Faith involved in your Belief ;)

[NeedKarma]

There is also ample supported scientific evidence for a to prove the Big Bang is highly unlikely. Read these top 30 scientific problems with theory...
BB top 30 problems

Hi Sassy,
I was curious so I went to that website. I'm a little dim in this area and I was wondering if you could explain a section for me:

" · Emission lines for z > 4 quasars indicate higher-than-solar quasar metallicities. [[61]] The iron to magnesium ratio increases at higher redshifts (earlier Big Bang epochs). [[62]] These results imply substantial star formation at epochs preceding or concurrent with the QSO phenomenon, contrary to normal Big Bang scenarios.

· The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to detect them. [[63]] Moreover, the relative abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big Bang. [[64]] The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar's own environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires."

Also the article seems to be full of endnotes relating to sources but the links go nowhere, why?

[achampio21]

OKAY!! I HAVE A GOOD ONE!!

This is for the sassyt's and mimi's. Since you believe in a higher power and find it absolutely ridiculus that credendovidis does not and can't believe that he is doubting your religion. And since you make it obvious that you believe in a/the Bible and most of it's contents and if you believe in God and/or Jesus then you must live by that faith and most of it's rules. SOOOOOOOOOOO let me ask you this question...

Do you believe in Jesus and what he preached to the His followers??

(just wanted to use color like everyone else! :))

Oh and you guys keep wanting links to prove what credendovidis is saying here is a good one for you!!
Biograpgy of Edwin Powell Hubble (1889 - 1953)

And a little excerpt:

But the most astonishing discovery Hubble made resulted from his study of the spectra of 46 galaxies, and in particular of the Doppler velocities of those galaxies relative to our own Milky Way galaxy. What Hubble found was that the farther apart galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other. Based on this observation, Hubble concluded that the universe expands uniformly. Several scientists had also posed this theory based on Einstein's General Relativity, but Hubble's data, published in 1929, helped convince the scientific community.

And then just a little more evidince that credendovidis claims are true...

Big Bang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Big Bang (disambiguation).

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. General relativistic cosmologies, however, do not actually ascribe any 'physicality' to space.The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe, originally conceived to describe its origins, that is best supported by all cosmological observations. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. Observational evidence for the expansion of the universe came first from Edwin Hubble's 1929 discovery that galactic distances are proportional to their redshifts.[1] Since the universe is seen to be expanding today, theoretical cosmologists can make detailed predictions of the universe's denser and hotter past. A major feature of Big Bang cosmology is its prediction of the conditions of an early universe having extreme densities and temperatures that today can only be probed in high-energy environments. The results of Big Bang predictions have been found to conform accurately and precisely to a variety of astronomical observations.

Ironically, the term 'Big Bang' was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory that he did not believe to be true.[2] However, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 was taken as almost undeniable support for the Big Bang.

Analysis of the spectrum of light from distant galaxies reveals a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law, which is taken to indicate that the universe is undergoing a continuous expansion. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background radiation discovered in 1964 provides strong evidence that due to the expansion, the universe has naturally cooled from an extremely hot, dense initial state. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background led to almost universal acceptance among physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that the Big Bang describes the evolution of the universe quite well, at least in its broad outline.

Further evidence supporting the Big Bang model comes from the relative proportion of light elements in the universe. The observed abundances of hydrogen and helium throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.


And you know what's funny. I just now looked all that up read it all and found that what credendovidis said about science having supported evidence is true.
So maybe get GOOGLE before you get RUDE!! LOL! I like that!!

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

OKAY!! I HAVE A GOOD ONE!!

This is for the sassyt's and mimi's. Since you believe in a higher power and find it absolutely ridiculus that credendovidis does not and can't believe that he is doubting your religion. And since you make it obvious that you believe in a/the Bible and most of it's contents and if you believe in God and/or Jesus then you must live by that faith and most of it's rules. SOOOOOOOOOOO let me ask you this question...

Don't Get it twisted.. I couldn't care less what Credo thinks about my beliefs, I find his beliefs just as ridiculous as he finds mine. Not surprise there.. lol
What I am trying to do, with little hope of progress, is to help Credo realise and acknowledge the fact that my beliefs are no more based on faith as his are. The bottom line is niether of our beliefs, both his and mine, have enough evidence to qualify them as undoutable FACTS. He seems to be struggling to come to terms with this fact. There is just as much scientific, archological, testimonial and objective evidence to validate the Bible's claims as there is for any other theory on origin out there. I could also paste hundreds of links to evidence of biblical claims too. It is just a matter of what evidence one feels is more convincing and the Choice one makes is purely subjective.

[achampio21]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Don't Get it twisted.. I couldn't care less what Credo thinks about my beliefs, I find his beliefs just as ridiculous as he finds mine. Not surprise there.. lol
What I am trying to do, with little hope of progress, is to help Credo realise and acknowledge the fact that my beliefs are no more based on faith as his are. The bottom line is niether of our beliefs, both his and mine, have enough evidence to qualify them as undoutable FACTS. He seems to be struggling to come to terms with this fact. There is just as much scientific, archological, testimonial and objective evidence to validate the Bible's claims as there is for any other theory on origin out there. I could also paste hundreds of links to evidence of biblical claims too. It is just a matter of what evidence one feels is more convincing and the Choice one makes is purely subjective.

Okay, first off I don't have it twisted. You and the other people that keep arguing with credendovidis keep saying the same things.. that what he is saying doesn't have any factual evidence to it but that yours has all kinds of evidence. And that credo's way of thinking is credo's BELIEF. But you and the others are failing to realize is that credo can "think" whatever credo wants. And even if you don't agree with it or even like it you can't change it or tell credo that credo is wrong. Because you can't tell someone that their way of thiniking is wrong but in the same breathe tell them yours is right.

And by the way you didn't answer my question from the quote you took. Because if you believe in Jesus and follow his teachings then you would already know what I am telling you and would be loving and caring towards credo and not sarcastic and hateful. Because sarcastic, hateful, spiteful, and overall hurtful people are not good christians and aren't following their religion like they should. And would then be a hypocrite.

And you are NOT helping credo by being negative and sarcastic. So you saying you are trying to help credo is a down right bs lie. You are simply trying to prove credo wrong and prove your own point and gain some sort of ego boost out of doing so. Which again is not very christian. And the bible says that being that way towards a brethren is wrong.

So SassyT, I believe YOU need to come to the very same reality thet you claim to be trying to get credo to. Your "beliefs" do not have hard core facts backing them up. And NEVER once did credo state that his had facts. Credo stated that there is lots of supporting evidence, and that most of the "evidence" of Jesus's existence is from the bible which was written by prophets and the like and is based purely on heresay.

So try again, what exactly are you trying to get at on this thread?

And ps> what archeological and scientific objective evidence is there? Give me a link .

[sassyT]

[QUOTE=achampio21]

Okay, first off I don't have it twisted. You and the other people that keep arguing with credendovidis keep saying the same things.. that what he is saying doesn't have any factual evidence to it but that yours has all kinds of evidence. And that credo's way of thinking is credo's BELIEF. But you and the others are failing to realize is that credo can "think" whatever credo wants. And even if you don't agree with it or even like it you can't change it or tell credo that credo is wrong. Because you can't tell someone that their way of thiniking is wrong but in the same breathe tell them yours is right.

And by the way you didn't answer my question from the quote you took. Because if you believe in Jesus and follow his teachings then you would already know what I am telling you and would be loving and caring towards credo and not sarcastic and hateful. Because sarcastic, hateful, spiteful, and overall hurtful people are not good christians and aren't following their religion like they should. And would then be a hypocrit.

And you are NOT helping credo by being negative and sarcastic. So you saying you are trying to help credo is a down right bs lie. You are simply trying to prove credo wrong and prove your own point and gain some sort of ego boost out of doing so. Which again is not very christian. And the bible says that being that way towards a brethren is wrong.

So SassyT, I believe YOU need to come to the very same reality thet you claim to be trying to get credo to. Your "beliefs" do not have hard core facts backing them up. And NEVER once did credo state that his had facts. Credo stated that there is lots of supporting evidence, and that most of the "evidence" of Jesus's existence is from the bible which was written by prophets and the like and is based purely on heresay.

So try again, what exactly are you trying to get at on this thread?

And ps> what archeological and scientific objective evidence is there? Give me a link .

Let me help you get out of the twisted web you seem to have entangled yourself in. I will try make this as simple to understand as possible

FACT 1: NO-ONE can prove beyond a doubt the origin of Universe.

FACT 2: There is evidence for many theories (Big Bang, Creation, Aliens etc), and there is also evidence against those theories.

Now here is the fact Credo is struggling with the most..

FACT 3: Credo's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS, they are just BELIEFS
Sassy's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS either.


I will continue to hope that Credo will become rational enough to admit to these facts because he somehow is under the delusion that his beliefs are based on facts and yet they are based on FAITH in an unproven thoery.

[achampio21]

Here are some FACTS for you. The following are some quotes from credendovidis over other religious discussions. The parts highlighted in seagreen are positive or show that credo accepted someone else's views in a positive way. Following these quotes are some quotes from sassyT. I even looked up other discussions that sassy made statements in and surprisingly found the same sarcastic tone in all of them. Notice sassy's quotes do not have any sea green.

As Chuck posted : the christian faith has an answer to that, based on their belief.
However, as this is not the Christianity board, every other belief or view is here just as valid, be that based on belief in the Unicorn, the Spaghetti Monster, or whatever else someone wants to believe or disbelieve.
There are no remains of Jesus left in any way. There are even serious doubts if a person called Jesus ever existed. Some even suggest that Jesus' existence is entirely based on myth and belief only. Whatever is true : just as Jesus' birth is based on rather debateble claims, so are his (untraceable) remains. How conveniant !

Sorry dear for calling you a "he". Humble apologies hereby offered!

As to your new point : the problem is that people only reply to such fundamental questions from their own worldview. A Christian will reply as per his or her Christian views, just as a Muslim will reply as per Muslim views, a Jew as per Jewish views, and a Secular Humanist as per humanistic views.

Personally I like your position. You accept and believe in a higher power, but without any linking to any human created religion or church organisation. You are therefore a deist.
A sound decision that excludes all that religious squabbling about who believes "correctly" and has "the one and only truth".
The only problem is that your acceptance of a higher power on itself is also a submission to something for which there is no objective supporting evidence, but is based on some human created "god". Just one more step, and you are a true humanist also...

As to your point "God gave us the intelligence to use ..." :
If there is a God, and that god gave that to humanity, than he/she would like us to use that capacity to the fullest, and exclude niches involving deities and worshipping of deities, while perhaps exclude the capacity to hurt others in any possible way.

The reality of life is that intelligence came with our need to be better and smarter , and to have an edge on others, and gain from that capacity, and therefore to use that intelligence at the expense of others. Humans are just smart apes, with a thin layer of ethical veneer that is only microns thick. That is why there are wars, hurt, and pain.
Your "American dream" is based on that edge to be better than others, and lift yourself above the average.

For me that shows that deities do not exist, but it is up to everyone to draw his or her own decision!

Nobody and no view have more "rights" here or anywhere else. Believe whatever you like to believe. But whatever you BELIEVE , realize that it is BELIEF. It only becomes a fact once you provide objective supporting evidence for whatever you claim to be "true" !

Opinions are never facts. They are opinions. The difference between religious and non-religious views is that the first is based on BELIEF only, and the non-religious views are often based on facts and/or the lack of facts that should be provided for religious views - if believers claim them to be "the one and only truth".

The reality is that believers claim something without being capable of providing even the smallest iota of objective supporting evidence for what they claim. Ever.
Non-believers do not have to prove that the religious CLAIMS are incorrect. Claims are just claims, and so far I have never seen any objective supporting evidence for any of the basic and essential religious claims by religions. Like the Christian-Judean God exists, the Bible is based on God's words, Jesus was the son of God, etc.

Thanks! The same goes for you and some others here just as well.
The important thing in all these discussions is respect for other views, whatever your own view is.
I could not resist here (though I seldom do that) to provide a glimpse on my personal views in this matter !
And these views are based on Secular Humanism.

And now some quotes from sassyt:

lol Credo, for someone who has said quite are large amount of unsupported claims, you sure do have a lot of nerve for asking people to provide objective evidence. What objective evidence have you provided us for your beliefs? You keep saying "objective evidence......." yet you done nothing but make unsupported claims.
If you believe there is no God and Jesus never died and rose again that is your BELIEF based on FAITH not facts.

Hi Credo,
I have been reading your posts and have responded to quite a few of them and I have found it quite ironic that you claim to only believe in things that have objective evidence however none of the claims you have made are backed by any such evidence. In fact most of your beliefs are based on Faith not facts. So please before you make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs, consider and examine your own beliefs and you will realise that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does any other religious belief. You are only creating a double standard which makes you appear to be a hypocrite.

FYi A demon has deceived you into believing the above.

You are so ignorant on the subject its scary. The Bible is a reliable historic document. Most of the historical events are confirmed by other non biblical writings. For example, the Ancient Egyptians wrote about the calamities that God sent to Pharaoh at his refusal to releace the Isrealits. It was even documented by the Egyptians that the rivers turned to blood. That is just one example of the Bible's Historicity. So before you emabarrase yourself I would do a little more search on the subject.

lol actually if God does exist you're screwed God gave you a brain and you are not using it. You see everything around you trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and you come to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from no where by accident. If you were using your brain and common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
Its just like if I landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and I come to the conclution that it just a apeared on jupitor from no where and evolved over time. A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor. Apparently you don't see things that way so God would condemn you for not using the brain he gave you.

[jillianleab]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me, but I had to remark on this:

[QUOTE=sassyT]

The bottom line is niether of our beliefs, both his and mine, have enough evidence to qualify them as undoutable FACTS. He seems to be struggling to come to terms with this fact.

A scientific theory is made up of facts. That's what makes it a theory.

[achampio21]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Let me help you get out of the twisted web you seem to have entangled yourself in. I will try make this as simple to understand as possible

FACT 1: NO-ONE can prove beyond a doubt the origin of Universe.

FACT 2: There is evidence for many theories (Big Bang, Creation, Aliens etc), and there is also evidence against those theories.

now here is the fact Credo is struggling with the most..

FACT 3: Credo's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS, they are just BELIEFS
Sassy's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS either.


I will continue to hope that Credo will become rational enough to admit to these facts because he somehow is under the delusion that his beliefs are based on facts and yet they are based on FAITH in an unproven thoery.

Again you totally missed the point. Maybe it is I that needs to make statements more simple to understand. Or maybe you could re-read the same post that you quoted me on and realize that you just made yourself look incredibly slow.

[sassyT]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me, but I had to remark on this:



A scientific theory is made up of facts. That's what makes it a theory.

I am a science masters student so I know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.
A thoery is based on observation, limited knowledge, hypthesis, An assumption based on limited information or [U]knowledge[/U]; a conjecture

Let give you an example of the Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white"
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Not that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white, nor does it prove that all swans are white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. So a theory is not a fact it is nothing more than an educated guess based upon observation and limited knowledge.