Previous 21 - 30 Next
Is insulting people your only debate skill?
LOL Evolution has not only passed myriad tests, it has been one of the more amazingly successful ideas every introduced. You really should learn what the term "scientific theory" means. And I love how you pick and chose what science to accept. Back in 2006-2007, Mary Schweitzer announced the discovery of T Rex soft tissue that has apparently survived 65 million years (the previous oldest soft tissue recovered from a fossil was less than one million years old). No one is more giddy about this than the scientists, but one very unique find does not erase the libraries full of data suggesting an ancient Earth. You reject carbon dating (ugh - white man magic), but you embrace this paleontologists discovery. Hilarious. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff?
This is hilarious. Relativistic gravitational effects being used in a warped way to squeeze the formation of the universe into 6 days. So you accept science when it's convenient to do so? During the first four seconds of the universe, matter formed by pair production. After two minutes, deuterium formed by the fusion of protons and neutrons. After three minutes, helium formed by the fusion of deuterium, protons, and neutrons. After that, you have to wait while heavier elements get formed in the first stars.
I would ask for something akin to evidence to support your claim, but I'm sure you'd just behave as before and shout insults and proclaim one is going to Hell.
So cures for smallpox, chickenpox, diphtheria, malaria, measles, polio, tetanus, typhoid fever, yellow fever, bubonic plague and others isn't enough for you? You remind me of that old Jewish joke: An elderly Jewish lady took her young grandson to the beach. Completely without warning, a wave crashed ashore and swept her grandson out to sea. She looked to the heavens, tears streaming from her eyes, and called out to God: "Why lord, why? Why did you take my beautiful grandson who had his whole life before him, yet leave me, a pitful old woman at the end of her life? Oh lord, would that you had taken me instead of my grandson!" Moments later, seemingly in response to her petition to the heavens, a second wave crashed ashore depositing her grandson at her feet. The elderly lady looked up to the heavens and exclaimed, "He had a hat!"
You seem to have a lot in common with the professor in the video. Rather than attempt to engage in civil debate, you launch into insults and proclamations that all who oppose you are going to Hell. Seems I recall the phrase "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1-3 KJV). Guess we can finish this discussion in Hell. I'll keep the light on for you.
Well, since you seem to want to fight instead of discuss, where did God come from? Why does God permit suffering? Why are there so many contradictory statements in the Bible? If you have to accept Jesus Christ to be saved, what about all those people who never had the opportunity? Now, the real honest answer to your question is "good question." The concept of a Big Bang is less than 100 years old, but in that time very solid evidence has been gathered to support the idea. Here is a key difference between science and religion. Science tries to come up with theories to explain the observed facts. The observed facts are that the universe appears to be expanding, there is a cosmic microwave background (the aftershock of the Big Bang), there are gravitational ripples consistent with the inflationary model, the existing matter in the universe fits in with nucleosynthesis from a Big Bang, etc. Any scientific theory has to account for all this and may have to be modified or even abandoned if data is revealed that contradicts the theory. Right now, it's pretty much anyone's guess what the universe was like before the Big Bang, but a little patience, please. The first evidence for the Big Bang came out only 50 years ago. Theology has had several millenia. Unlike the scientific approach, the religious view of creation does not rely on observed facts. It simply says this is the way it is; too bad if it looks otherwise. Now, long ago I made peace with these two seemingly opposed ideas. The story of creation occupies the 1st chapter of Genesis and spans less than 2 standard pages in a Word document and is only around 780 words in length (depending on what version of the Bible you use). The entire Bible has over 1000 pages and has almost 1000 times the number of words than in the account of creation. That means that the story of creation - the story that seems to animate so much anger and debate - is only about 1/1000th of the Bible. I'm sure some fundamentalists would want to whack me in the head with a Bible for saying this, but I don't think the authors of the Bible expected people to dwell on this issue. I'm pretty sure they never envisioned a time when one would even be able to realistically ponder the creation of the universe. Maybe I'm off base, but what I think is important in the Bible are the messages about how one should behave and how one should treat one's fellow man.
Well said, and exactly the point. He purports to be for reason but then exhibits the very antithesis of it.
Joycey - Are you trying to be stupid or were you born that way?
I guess this is another example of the hard hitting questions asked by journalists.
@RJBJr If you believe God's watch runs slower, then how can you claim Genesis to be literally correct? It's that word "literal" that gets in the way and has caused a great deal of angry debate. I am a bit bemused that you reject one of history's most influential Christian thinkers just to circumvent the Big Bang.
Previous 21 - 30 Next