For reference and if anyone wants to join in on the funguy at HSD wrote: Isaiah
40,000th Post!
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1093
Location: Everybody vote for my avatar in silly stuff!!!
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:57 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Izzy you still have the problem of no evidence whatsoever for god's existance so any argument based on him cannot hold water in a rational manner. Also your quotes from the bible have little relevance to really anything considering the already previously demonstrated lack of knowledge of the natural world by the bible if you take it in a literal way.
How do you prove that God doesn’t exist?
Please demonstrate this lack of knowledge of the natural world, I must have been still gone on vacation. There have been more than 25,000 archeological finds (according to Grant Jeffrey in “The signature of God”) that verify the bible’s accuracy about people and places. Not one destroys the accuracy of the bible. No one has been able to identify a single historical mistake anywhere in the bible. That is amazing. If men wrote it, we would definitely find historical errors after all these years – but there are none. I would love to buy “new evidence that demands a verdict” or “God doesn’t believe in atheists” for any of you that would agree to read it. Finally there are the prophecies. If there are prophecies in a text and they do not come true, what does that say about the book? It belongs in the trash can. 25% of the bible (according to Mark Cahill) was predicting future events. Every single one of those prophecies has come true in the minutest detail, except for the few remaining prophecies about the return of Jesus Christ to earth. Statistically, there is no way that a man can predict the future with 100 percent accuracy. I ask you, who is the only one who can do this? Some examples? Micah 5:2 tells us that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem – not Jerusalem, Antioch, or Atlanta. Jesus was born there. Zechariah 11:12-13 says that this Messiah will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Jesus was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Psalm 22 says that this Messiah will be pierced in His hands and His feet. This prophecy is amazing because it was written 800 years before crucifixion was ever even used as a means of punishment!! Yet Jesus was pierced in his hands and feet. I could go on…but boring people is bad
You still haven’t proved that the universe is rational, or logical, and therefore studiable (possible to apply science)
Oh, hey, um, when did you prove that God doesn’t exist with evidence and stuff?
I say that all evidence points to him. Creation, design, art, order, consciences, etc…
Evolution can’t prove the bible false for four main reasons. Firstly Mathematicians say that anything over 1 in 1,050 odds is impossible. We have 206 bones in our body, how long would they take to appear in order. Probably says it is impossible. Secondly, the fossil record. Even Darwin stated that the fossil record should contain millions of transitional forms to show that evolution is true. Interestingly, the fossil record doesn’t contain a single transitional form! It contains only complete kinds, but no transitional forms. Thirdly, missing links. Every “missing link” between ape and man has now been scientifically disproved (Mark Cahill “The one thing you can’t do in Heaven”), including Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Lucy, Nebraska Man, etc…And why are there no missing links today? We see only whole dogs, cats, horses, birds, etc…we do not see creatures that are half cow and half whale or half dog and half cat, they just aren’t there (yes, totally extreme examples, but you can grasp the point). Fourthly, survival of the fittest. We appreciate human art. Why? Because a God created a world that is beautiful and humans hold “mirrors” up to it. There is no explanation of the concept of beauty under evolution. It makes sense that it would be eliminated through survival of the fittest. Also, we could “survive” the world with a lot les brain than we actually have (I forget the exact statistic, but scientists say we use about 10% of our brains if I recall correctly. The point being, not all of it). That which is not necessary for survival would not be given to us if evolution were true. We are over-developed. Look at the peacock. Mating is based upon the size and beauty of the male’s tailfeathers. How does a peacock prefer a beautiful peacock if the tail is useless and in fact cumbersome? There is no explanation of beauty in Darwinianism. Beauty should be bred out for inefficiency. But it, under the concept of evolution, had to be bred in.
The above info was found in lectures by Dr. Kurt Wise, paleontologist.
I don’t have the time right now, but we’ll be talking about the presuppositions of science, the law of decay, prolly DNA, and some other topics, if you want to start looking those things up. Before I leave (going to church and luncheon etc) there’s a few things I want to clear up.
Quote:
Izzy: while this is an ad homenim i have found it generally true that anyone who is an astrologist cannot be counted to be anything but wrong.
My bad, he’s also a PhD in Physics, and since you said this, I looked him up (I was going on memory from reading his book a couple years ago) and it wasn’t astrology, but cosmology. Sorry bout that. If you want to look it up, it’s a book called “Starlight and Time.”
Quote:
Isaiah: Yes, it is possible to conceive of alternate explanations for background radiation. It is also possible to conceive of alternate explanations for electricity, body warmth, and your sense of sight. But by presenting any one of them, you abandon any claim to scientific validity.
Actually, it wasn’t an explanation of backround radiation but rather of starlight taking X years to reach the earth. Because I don’t know much about radiation, it was more of an implied question of “could this have caused the radiation as well?”
Quote:
By the way, if starlight radiated from one point, then wouldn't we see a bright spot in the center of the universe? Yes, we would. But we don't.
No, we wouldn’t. Imagine with me a little white ball of flour suspended in nothing. It explodes, or is stretched out by particles, everywhere. If you were to step quite a ways back and observe the particles spread out through space from outside of the particles’ perimiter, it’d still look like a white ball of flower if you stood far enough back. The WHOLE THING would be the center. The same is true of the stars. The universe is the center of the universe (lol, this sounds crazy) and there’s no place IN the universe that we know of to be this central location you refer to. There is no necessity of it existing. AND, on a different note, though I don’t think it exists, if it does, perhaps you haven’t seen all of the universe, yes? Ok
Have a nice day
http:// ww w.homeschooldebate.com/phorum/viewtopic.php?t=2142&start=500&sid=685cec5b3e876808dd95c4f81e74d297