Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surely you realize that mountains cannot rise suddenly. That is as silly as a worldwide flood caused by a ticked off deity! Considering that the earth is much much older than what the bible says, I don't see whale bones on mountaintops as a condundrum for evolution at all. I recall reading something about the melting glaciers and the end of the ice age causing the water to rise and it mentioned sea creature fossils in mountains. I'll have to dig and find it.
I know that the mountains cannot rise suddenly but that is what "science" are spouting as how the whale bones were trapped suddenly with other marine life on mountaintops.
We can't SEE the whole universe and science can't either. Not until or if they can build a bigger telescope. Now they are saying they may be other universes. Have you ever thought science is still at it's infancy?
There are hundreds upon thousands of things we don't know. That does not mean that wherever you find it convenient you just insert the dogmatic God equation into it and say "There! Problem solved!" That does absolutely nothing for the advancement of knowledge, to the scientific method, or to any other avenue important to the human race by which we research and develop.
We must be diligent yet resourceful when we ask questions of the universe and how things operate and work. Speculation is fine as it may lead to the solving of problems previously unanswered. But, let's not get so pathetic in our speculation such as that we just give up and inject a supernatural entity wherever convenient. We did that once before. It was called The Dark Ages.
No one ever said, "there problem solved." God works through people--scientists and others. You cannot prove He doesn't.
BUT I do have a proof. Jesus who came to earth and died for our sins. He preformed many miracles and even raised the dead. You do not believe, I do believe. You cannot prove it is untrue, I have eye witnesses who were there and wrote about it. You still do not believe them, I do believe them.
No one ever said, "there problem solved." God works through people--scientists and others. You cannot prove He doesn't.
BUT I do have a proof. Jesus who came to earth and died for our sins. He preformed many miracles and even raised the dead. You do not believe, I do believe. You cannot prove it is untrue, I have eye witnesses who were there and wrote about it. You still do not believe them, I do believe them.
Ya' can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case, that is you. Care to share your evidence?
You have the negative. "There is no God." You prove there isn't.
Again, you cannot prove a negative. Only positive claims are subject to evidence. For example, you cannot provide evidence that unicorns don't exist but I doubt you believe in them. If I make the claim that unicorns do exist, it is up to me to show you the evidence.
I really hate having to make these analogies but I have no better way of explaining it. So again, you have made the positive claim that the christian god exists. You have to provide the evidence.
No one ever said, "there problem solved." God works through people--scientists and others. You cannot prove He doesn't.
BUT I do have a proof. Jesus who came to earth and died for our sins. He preformed many miracles and even raised the dead. You do not believe, I do believe. You cannot prove it is untrue, I have eye witnesses who were there and wrote about it. You still do not believe them, I do believe them.
Not being able to prove something untrue does not make something a guaranteed truth. That's basic Logic and Philosophy 101. If you wish to claim something happened or existed, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence. Simply saying that you "believe" it happened is really pretty lame evidence, don't you think?
I've already explained to you the necessity of the methodology of deducing logical and formative evidences via the scientific method. I don't see why religious motives require an exception to this. All I'm asking for is a substantive paper not based on speculative notions whereby what you believe is conclusively proven without a shadow of a doubt - like courtroom evidence.
That's really not that much to ask for before people choose to inject dogma into scientific and reality based explanations, is it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
