Genesis 22

[PsyOps]

hurf-a-durf we're here aren't we lolololol

sorry, I figured I'd go ahead and take care of that one (like it means anything).

Yes, I know... unless it has some 500 page complex mathematical computation to explain it can't possibly be true.

 

[PsyOps]

no. you are 100% wrong. no one is convinced, which is why there is constant testing going on to try and prove or disprove said existance.

Why would you need further testing on something you are convinced is true?

impossible and everyone knows it. However, it is in the works =) Evolution is already proven. The rest will probably fall in place. Either way, there is more evidence pointing to the scientific theory (some) then god (none).

Something that is proven is that which everyone agrees is true. Everyone knows water is made up of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Everyone knows the earth is round and not flat. Not everyone agrees that we are the result of evolution. But if it is proven, what else is there to fall into place?

As long as I can question the validity of it (in this case evolution) i consider the "science" behind it false. Wxtornado's test is that there must be concrete proof. What is the concrete proof? Not theory or conjecture. Concrete proof.

 

[Xaquin44]

Why would you need further testing on something you are convinced is true?

you're something lol

I say no one is convinced 100% and you say I'm convinced. Thats pretty much the opposite of what I said.

crazy

Something that is proven is that which everyone agrees is true. Everyone knows water is made up of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Everyone knows the earth is round and not flat. Not everyone agrees that we are the result of evolution. But if it is proven, what else is there to fall into place?

dunno .... maybe something, maybe nothing .... we may find out someday.

As long as I can question the validity of it (in this case evolution) i consider the "science" behind it false. Wxtornado's test is that there must be concrete proof. What is the concrete proof? Not theory or conjecture. Concrete proof.

if you can question it's validity in a scientific nature, then that is science. It isn't true or false, it's in a state of discovery. Do we know every single thing there is to know about evolution? No. Do we know some things? Yes. Thats the point of research etc. etc.

there is concrete proof of things evolving. there is no proof that accounts for every single thing evolving. again, and though it falls on deaf ears, give it time.

should science abandon its search for the cure for various cancers? after all, there is no concrete proof that an all encompassing cure will be found.

 

[This_person]

if you can question it's validity in a scientific nature, then that is science. It isn't true or false, it's in a state of discovery.

Thus, evolution is not proven, as you stated above.

Do we know every single thing there is to know about evolution? No. Do we know some things? Yes. Thats the point of research etc. etc.

And, not knowing means it's not proven. It's a hypothesis for which there is supporting data. That's really it.

there is concrete proof of things evolving. there is no proof that accounts for every single thing evolving. again, and though it falls on deaf ears, give it time.

There is not concrete proof that a species can evolve into a higher order species, though. And, there's not a shred of proof that humans evolved from some mythical single celled organism. Zero proof. Makes it equal to other beliefs/myths/fantasies for which there's no proof, just conjecture

should science abandon its search for the cure for various cancers? after all, there is no concrete proof that an all encompassing cure will be found.

Obviously not, why would you suggest such a thing? Who is advocating not doing research to learn?

 

[PsyOps]

you're something lol

I say no one is convinced 100% and you say I'm convinced. Thats pretty much the opposite of what I said.

crazy.

So you’re not convinced that we are the result of an evolutionary process?

dunno .... maybe something, maybe nothing .... we may find out someday.

That’s pretty vague when so many of you folks come into the religion forum to disclaim God based on a “dunno” premise. What you’ve just proven is that belief in scientific theory (no matter what it is) pans no wider or deeper than a belief in God. They both rely on your last sentence “we may find out someday”. Actually, we WILL find out someday.

if you can question it's validity in a scientific nature, then that is science. It isn't true or false, it's in a state of discovery. Do we know every single thing there is to know about evolution? No. Do we know some things? Yes. Thats the point of research etc. etc.

Everyday I live as a Christian is a new day of discovery of God. It may not rely on scientific or mathematical data but it relies on daily living. I don't need math or miracles or God to talk to me. All I have to do is look at how life and nature are intertwined to convince me. Funny how that is so easily discounted as a valid means for believing in something yet those same people so easliy cling to numbers and theories.

there is concrete proof of things evolving. there is no proof that accounts for every single thing evolving. again, and though it falls on deaf ears, give it time.

I agree. And I have concrete personal experience that there is a God. I’ve expressed it in other threads. But because it’s not accompanied with some sort of number or test it can’t possibly be true.

should science abandon its search for the cure for various cancers? after all, there is no concrete proof that an all encompassing cure will be found.

Not at all. I am a huge believer in science as a means to find answers for our problems as well as things like deep space phenomena and evolution. I have said it several times that I believe there is an evolutionary process going on, but it’s a process that was set in motion by a higher being. It centers around life and whether you believe life can be formed from where life did not exist previously. I don’t think it can. Evolution does not explain at all let alone vaguely.

 

[Xaquin44]

So you’re not convinced that we are the result of an evolutionary process?

100%? Of course not. I still give it a higher probability then 'god' though, as at least there is concrete evidence that evolution does take place.

That’s pretty vague when so many of you folks come into the religion forum to disclaim God based on a “dunno” premise. What you’ve just proven is that belief in scientific theory (no matter what it is) pans no wider or deeper than a belief in God. They both rely on your last sentence “we may find out someday”. Actually, we WILL find out someday.

I don't disclaim god fully (you would know this if you actually read my posts), but as there is no evidence supporting him at all ....

Belief in scientific theory isn't supposed to be as deep as god .... it's why you constantly search out evidence as opposed to simply taking it at face value.

also, we may find out one day. There is certainly no certainty that we will.

Everyday I live as a Christian is a new day of discovery of God. It may not rely on scientific or mathematical data but it relies on daily living. I don't need math or miracles or God to talk to me. All I have to do is look at how life and nature are intertwined to convince me. Funny how that is so easily discounted as a valid means for believing in something yet those same people so easliy cling to numbers and theories.

seeing how life and nature are entertwined isn't by any means proof of god.

I agree. And I have concrete personal experience that there is a God. I’ve expressed it in other threads. But because it’s not accompanied with some sort of number or test it can’t possibly be true.

by all means, explain how it is true. I'm amazed that one man can beyond the shadow of a doubt prove gods existance.

Not at all. I am a huge believer in science as a means to find answers for our problems as well as things like deep space phenomena and evolution. I have said it several times that I believe there is an evolutionary process going on, but it’s a process that was set in motion by a higher being. It centers around life and whether you believe life can be formed from where life did not exist previously. I don’t think it can. Evolution does not explain at all let alone vaguely.

we're actually fairly in line with our thinking here. That said, I'll still support science as at least it makes a grab for knowledge.

 

[PsyOps]

100%? Of course not. I still give it a higher probability then 'god' though, as at least there is concrete evidence that evolution does take place.

I honestly don’t see how anyone can ignore that we live in an adaptive environment where species have evolved over time. But this theory has been distorted into claiming to explain how life itself came into existence when in fact it doesn’t support this at all.

I don't disclaim god fully (you would know this if you actually read my posts), but as there is no evidence supporting him at all ....

Belief in scientific theory isn't supposed to be as deep as god .... it's why you constantly search out evidence as opposed to simply taking it at face value.

also, we may find out one day. There is certainly no certainty that we will.

No sense in being crass. I read your posts, I just don’t remember every person’s every intricate detail. Forgive me.

If you do read other folk’s posts (which I know you do) you will see they believe science is the end-all for explaining our existence, but can’t produce the “concrete” evidence. But you don’t confront them. You confront the Christians that challenge these points. This explains why I interpret your position in that way I have.

seeing how life and nature are entertwined isn't by any means proof of god.

Devoid of a scientific explanation to the contrary, it is to me.

by all means, explain how it is true. I'm amazed that one man can beyond the shadow of a doubt prove gods existance.

It’s not just one man, it’s billions of believers, over several millennia. If that isn’t enough proof then perhaps you’re not looking in the right place. I wrote this in a different thread… belief in God has been around a lot longer than science. I don’t believe this sort of thing is born out of a void just as life didn’t spring up out of a void. We accept that anthropology, through the observation of generations of man, explains how we have evolved yet we reject the same data that includes these same people that were believers of God as any sort of evidence of a God.

we're actually fairly in line with our thinking here. That said, I'll still support science as at least it makes a grab for knowledge.

Not sure I get this but it sounds like you’re saying believers don’t pursue knowledge? One of the great mysteries of man is our pursuit for more knowledge about God. There has been no larger effort in human existence than the pursuit to understand God.

 

[Xaquin44]

It’s not just one man, it’s billions of believers, over several millennia. If that isn’t enough proof then perhaps you’re not looking in the right place. I wrote this in a different thread… belief in God has been around a lot longer than science. I don’t believe this sort of thing is born out of a void just as life didn’t spring up out of a void. We accept that anthropology, through the observation of generations of man, explains how we have evolved yet we reject the same data that includes these same people that were believers of God as any sort of evidence of a God.

Believers, do not evidence make.

also, belief in 'god' hasn't been around longer than science. Belief in 'a god', possibly. I'm afraid that one may be lost to the ages. Certainly, however, science predates the christian god.

 

[Xaquin44]

Not sure I get this but it sounds like you’re saying believers don’t pursue knowledge? One of the great mysteries of man is our pursuit for more knowledge about God. There has been no larger effort in human existence than the pursuit to understand God.

I was just saying that I mostly agree with you on that last blurb there.

I also agree with your statement that more time has been devoted to proof of god then probably anything else. Which makes it even more disheartening that none has been found.

 

[PsyOps]

I was just saying that I mostly agree with you on that last blurb there.

I also agree with your statement that more time has been devoted to proof of god then probably anything else. Which makes it even more disheartening that none has been found.

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't He hasn't been found. I was talking about seeking a better understanding of God, not the existence of God. There's a difference.

 

[wxtornado]

But this theory has been distorted into claiming to explain how life itself came into existence when in fact it doesn’t support this at all.

Show me one instance where evolution claims this - I only see theists repeating this same mistake, over and over.

 

[Xaquin44]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't He hasn't been found. I was talking about seeking a better understanding of God, not the existence of God. There's a difference.

saying you've found him in spirit means nothing to anyone else though. It isn't tangible. It's like saying I've found the cure to the common cold in my heart. ok ....

also, humans shouldn't even bother trying to understand god, as our minds couldn't comprehend infinity anyway.

 

[PsyOps]

Show me one instance where evolution claims this - I only see theists repeating this same mistake, over and over.

You missed my point. I said that evolution doesn't say this. I was saying (a little revision on my words) that hard-core evolutionists use evolution as a means to discount God and to explain our existence as a replacement for the possibility of a God.

 

[PsyOps]

saying you've found him in spirit means nothing to anyone else though. It isn't tangible. It's like saying I've found the cure to the common cold in my heart. ok ....

It means nothing to anyone else? You speaking for EVERYONE? This is pretty narrow thinking. And define tangible. It's very tangible to me. Just like some "fictitious" equation can somehow TANGIBLY explain the existence of a black hole…?

also, humans shouldn't even bother trying to understand god, as or minds couldn't comprehend infinity anyway.

So, you’ve moved from believing Christians don’t seek knowledge to we shouldn’t even bother seeking knowledge. How absurd. Even though we will probably never completely understand the nature of our universe doesn’t mean we should continue researching it.

 

[Xaquin44]

It means nothing to anyone else? You speaking for EVERYONE? This is pretty narrow thinking. And define tangible. It's very tangible to me. Just like some "fictitious" equation can somehow TANGIBLY explain the existence of a black hole…?

I said what I was trying to say wrong. I was trying to say that everyones faith is different. Say you 'found god' .... ask a thousand different people who also have, and you'll never find the exact same circumstances.

So, you’ve moved from believing Christians don’t seek knowledge to we shouldn’t even bother seeking knowledge. How absurd. Even though we will probably never completely understand the nature of our universe doesn’t mean we should continue researching it.

no no no I didn't say to stop seeking knowledge, I just mean that by definition, god can not be understood.