got a question,,

can someone not believe, yet have Faith ????

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

There were many that didn't believe even though Jesus performed miracles right in front of them!
Some won't believe until they feel the fire or hopefully Gods forgiveness instead.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

I will try not to dodge your question like you did mine about Moses living to be 900 years old.

Sorry I admit you are right. It was Noah who lived to be 900+ years of age.

So let me get this srtaight, You keep demanding some sort of factual proof from us. But yet you expect us to just accept your non sense about the complexity of the universe? you reply more in this thread than anyone?
I'm not meaning this to be offensive but dude, you must be crazy.
You expect us to just eat up your BS like it's unchallenged fact.

One thing that I have learned about debates like this STR8HUCKIN is not to get wrapped up in trying to answer every comment by everybody that has a beef with the debate. But I will make one brief reply to your assertion, while I am away from my regular computer. I have commented as much as anyone recently on this post and have no problem with how much commenting others do.

Maybe it bothers you that I comment as much as I have, if so then this will be my only comment to you unless you have something more constructive to say.

I only ask people to give proof for the statements they make, and I don’t see as much proof as I see assertions being made. That is not to be confused with offering proof and it not being accepted, there is a difference. Making an assertion and making No attempt to provide proof is different from attempting to provide proof and not being accepted.

Since there are a number of people posting on this forum, on this subject, both pro and con, it’s not a matter of us accepting just my comments anymore then us accepting your comments. However, I have looked back and not seen any assertions or proof given by you. This seems to indicate you either don't have anything positive to offer in the conversation or you are not informed enough to comment about it.

Your excuse for not presenting facts is that you don't have the time to constantly montitor the forum,

I said that when I had time to respond to the question that was asked to me by Nitro I would, it didn't mean I was not going to respond, it just meant I was not going to respond at that moment. I do have more things to do in life then just instantly answer questions on an internet blog. Right now I am using someone else’s computer to do some work and thought I would check the forums and then I see statement.
However, I will tell you this. I am not going to let it bother me one way or other if you or anyone else for that matter accepts what I have to say. Quite frankly I have not seen any profound statements from you to accept one way or the other. I am not meaning this to be offensive either, but if you got a statement or an assertion to make, then by all means make it, otherwise don't set back and jab at someone whose opinion you don't agree with. That gets you place on the IGNORE LIST!

Nitro: I have no problem with a person that admits that they are wrong and I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again. I just enjoy the conversation when it is held in an honest way to learn other peoples point of view. Right now I am going to go fly!

Nitro: I have no problem with a person that admits that they are wrong and I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again. I just enjoy the conversation when it is held in an honest way to learn other peoples point of view. Right now I am going to go fly!

Now here's something we both agree on. Can't argue with that!
It's a little windy here in Vegas, mind if you put in a little prayer to help out.

I said that when I had time to respond to the question that was asked to me by Nitro I would, it didn't mean I was not going to respond, it just meant I was not going to respond at that moment. I do have more things to do in life then just instantly answer questions on an internet blog.

No, this is what you said.

I can post a lot more information showing the logically reasons that many people believe the Universe has an intelligent creator, but I do have more things to do then constantly monitor this forum.

You tried to turn this around on me by saying:

Maybe it bothers you that I comment as much as I have, if so then this will be my only comment to you unless you have something more constructive to say.

After you butchered my quote to suit yourself. Here is the real quote

Your excuse for not presenting facts is that you don't have the time to constantly montitor the forum, yet you reply more in this thread than anyone?

You tried to omit the bold portion then use it later on for more twisting of my words. See below.

However, I will tell you this. I am not going to let it bother me one way or other if you or anyone else for that matter accepts what I have to say. Quite frankly I have not seen any profound statements from you to accept one way or the other. I am not meaning this to be offensive either, but if you got a statement or an assertion to make, then by all means make it, otherwise don't set back and jab at someone whose opinion you don't agree with. That gets you place on the IGNORE LIST!

I was never taking a jab at you at all. I am sorry you feel this way. I was merely trying to point out that you have no facts in your defense of god, so why try and make us non-believers present facts that you know we can't produce?

The proof is out there, and no body reads it...I like it when he talks about the "supernatural signs appeared while he was hanging," Now that sounds like a bonafide witness account to me...

Even most of the Indian nations in this country know of the account of the "Great White Father" before the white man came over. He actually appeared to some of the nations. From everything I have been able to gather, is when Jesus while in the grave went under the earth and other land masses around the world about the good news.
The under the earth part is very intriguing, specially after reading Admiral Byrd references ...

STR8HUCKIN, this is becoming silly. I am not sure what your problem is with my posting, but I am going to try to straighten it out. I originally had your entire post highlighted and was going to quote it like this.

So let me get this srtaight, You keep demanding some sort of factual proof from us. But yet you expect us to just accept your non sense about the complexity of the universe?? Your excuse for not presenting facts is that you don't have the time to constantly montitor the forum, yet you reply more in this thread than anyone?

However, I decided to lift the part out about

Your excuse for not presenting facts is that you don't have the time to constantly montitor the forum,

I don’t believe I ever changed one word of what you said, nor did I misquote you in any way. I simply highlighted what you said in two sections. If I said it in one section and then commented on each section immediately after the relevant comment, I don't see how it would have changed anything, but maybe I am wrong about that. So I will try again with the original quote.

So let me get this srtaight, You keep demanding some sort of factual proof from us. But yet you expect us to just accept your non sense about the complexity of the universe?? Your excuse for not presenting facts is that you don't have the time to constantly montitor the forum, yet you reply more in this thread than anyone?
I'm not meaning this to be offensive but dude, you must be crazy.
You expect us to just eat up your BS like it's unchallenged fact.

1) I am not demanding factual proof, what I am asking is, if you make an assertion or statement; please provide your reasons for making such a statement.

2) It may be nonsense to you but if you ask ANY astronomer or Physicist they will tell you that the Universe is very complex.

3) Whether I reply more or less than anyone else doesn't mean I have time to answer every question given to me immediately upon request.

4) Yes, I am working on a post that will highlight some of the reasons why, beginning of quote. "many people believe the Universe has an intelligent creator" end of quote. I absolutely stand by that statement, because there are a lot of people or many people or whatever word you want to use, that do believe the Universe had an intelligent creator. I am sure there are a number of people that believe differently. One thing about it, God allows people to believe what they want to believe and the country we live in allows freedom of speech. So we all have opinions that can be expressed. I am not saying that the information will change anyone’s mind or that anyone accepts it, but at least I am willing to go out on a limb and make such a post. Furthermore if you don’t want to read it, then simply skip on by to the next posting.

What I am also trying to help you understand is to go out on a limb and post some kind of statement about the universe or God or creation or whatever. Then be prepared to give reasoning to support your assertion, but so far I have not seen that from you. Maybe you don't believe my statements, but at least I am making some. If you are going to be a part of the conversation then take a stand of some kind other than trying to take a jab at what others or saying, or maybe I should say take a jab at what I am saying.

I remember studying some of theses subjects in both my High School and College Physics classes. I know this is long and to some it is probably boring but I thought I would post some of this information. If you don't want to read it, then by all means skip over it.
However, "Many people" view as evidence the universe having a creator in such things as the precise measurements of four fundamental forces that are responsible for all properties and changes affecting matter.

The four fundamental forces come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. As a matter of fact, everything we see around us is really involved. As I have often said, unless something has always existed it must have a cause. One of the four fundamental forces is is gravity. Another is the electromagnetic force. Take for instance the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom and atoms could not combine to form molecules.

On the other hand, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms, what does this means; well it means there would be no life. You have to accept the fact that, even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.

However, on a cosmic scale just a slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible.

What if gravity were stronger proportionately, with just a tiny adjustment, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced. The structure of the universe involves much more than fine-tuning just gravity and the electromagnetic force. Two other physical forces also relate to our life.

Consider the strong nuclear force, which glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. It has been suggested that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found. If the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving energy.

The fourth force in this discussion, called the weak nuclear force, controls radioactive decay. It also affects thermonuclear activity in our sun. Mathematician and physicist Freeman Dyson, yes there really was a Freeman Dyson for all of you fans of Star Trek the next Generation who remember the episode called Relics with Scotty from the original star trek in this episode. But anyway, according to Mr. Dyson, the weak force is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak force were much stronger or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on stars like our sun would have difficulties.

Furthermore, scientists believe that the weak force plays a role in supernova explosions, which they give as the mechanism for producing and distributing most elements.

No planet like earth has been found elsewhere in the universe. Yes, I know that scientist believe that there are probably many possible planets out in the universe that might support life. But the earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger and hydrogen, a light gas, would collect, being unable to escape the earth’s gravity. Thus, the atmosphere would be inhospitable to life. On the other hand, if our earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate so any extreme the other way and life would not be possible on the earth.

Professor David L. Block said in the book Our Universe: Accident or Design? "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 per cent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect would have occurred about 4 000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 per cent further from the sun, runaway glaciations.

To the above precision, you can add the fact that the earth rotates on its axis once a day, the right speed to produce moderate temperatures. Venus takes 243 days to rotate. Just think if the earth took as long! We could not survive the extreme temperatures resulting from such long days and nights.

I also remember reading this about the sun once and found it fascinating. If the location of our sun and solar system was closer to the center of the Milky Way galaxy, the gravitational effect of neighboring stars would distort the orbit of the earth. However, if it was at the very edge of our galaxy, the night sky would be all but devoid of stars. And based on current concepts of the universe, scientists have calculated that at the edges of the Milky Way, there would not have been enough of the needed chemical elements to form a solar system like ours.

From personal experience, everyone knows that things tend go from order to disorder. Any parent can tell you this, or anyone working in a garden can tell you the same thing. I remember my folks having a farm when I was little. If you did not continue working in the farm, weeds would grow. Well what has that got to do with anything? Scientists refer to this tendency as "the second law of thermodynamics. We can actually witness this law at work daily. For instance if you were to leave it alone, a new automobile or bicycle would eventually become scrap. Abandon a building and it will become a ruin. I know of an old family home that has not been lived in for some time. Guess what, is has lost value because of decaying, well what about the universe? The law also applies there too. You would think that the order throughout the universe should give way to complete disorder, but that is not what is happening.

Professor of Mathematics Roger Penrose discovered the opposite is happening, when he studied the state of disorderliness (or, entropy) of the observable universe. A logical way to interpret such findings is to conclude that the universe started off in an ordered state and is still highly organized.

In fact, our existence is contrary to this recognized law. So why is it that we are alive here on earth?

Robert Jastrow, Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University, wrote a book called The Enchanted Loom—Mind in the Universe. In this book he made this statement. "Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion."

He then commented on the implications: "The astronomical proof of a Beginning places scientists in an awkward position; for they believe that every effect has a natural cause."

Ok, let's summarize it in this way.

1. Gravity—a very weak force on the level of atoms. It affects large objects—planets, stars, galaxies.
2. Electromagnetism—the key attracting force between protons and electrons, allowing molecules to form. Lightning is one evidence of its power.
3. Strong nuclear force—the force that glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.
4. Weak nuclear force—the force that governs the decay of radioactive elements and the efficient thermonuclear activity of the sun.

I have always enjoyed astronomy even when I was a kid. That is why I enjoyed seeing the two hundred inch hale telescope outside San Diego California. This telescope was instrumental in the discovery of galaxies in the first part of the 20th century. Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see and this reminded me of a book I remember reading about the discovery of the planet Pluto some time ago. This planet was discovered by astronomer Clyde Tombaugh. Scientist knew it had to be out there because of mathematical equations and observations of other heavenly objects. In January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars, but they could not see them, hear them, smell them or sense them in any way, kind of like God!

This same principle applies to many who believe in a Creator, because they can conclude this, because they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.

Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted as saying in the book The Nature of the Universe: "To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be. Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements.

Ok, I know this probably doesn't satisfy anyone that is already predisposed to believing something different, but at least I am offering something to think about.

Balance

God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel, found him, resting on the seventh day..

He inquired, "Where have you been?"

God smiled deeply and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, and I've put life on it... I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a place to test Balance.."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, "I'm still confused."

God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. "For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over here I've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things."

God continued pointing to different countries.. "This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel , impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land area and said, "What's that one?"

"That’s the State of Texas , the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful mountain s, rivers and streams, lakes, forests, hills, and plains. The people from the State of Texas are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, and they are going to travel the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, carriers of peace, and producers of good things."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, "But what about balance, God? You said there would be balance.."

God smiled, "There’s Washington DC . Wait till you see the idiots I put there!"

Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep

LOL Hoot, that's funny! Thank you

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.

I have been following this thread some myself, and Hootowl post is kind of funny

But not sure what it has to do with the debate about God existing. I kind of find that interesting myself.

It's doesn't have anything to do with it, but some people like trying to be funny. They may not always have any real substance to offer, but it makes their day go better.

I got no real problem with it, I like to laugh too sometimes.

I just threw that in there to help lighten things up.

Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep

1) I am not demanding factual proof, what I am asking is, if you make an assertion or statement; please provide your reasons for making such a statement.

So then what did you mean when you said this?

You are also making statements and offering zero proof. If you are familiar with debating and discussing different points of view, then you would realize that whom ever makes the positive ascertain is responsible for providing the proof.

2) It may be nonsense to you but if you ask ANY astronomer or Physicist they will tell you that the Universe is very complex.

What made you say this? Just trying to take a cheap shot at me?

3) Whether I reply more or less than anyone else doesn't mean I have time to answer every question given to me immediately upon request.

No one cares if you reply more than anyone else. I'll spell it out for you one last time. You claimed that you didn't have time to present facts. I pointed out that you had enough time to respond in this thread more than anyone else. Remember it has NOTHING to do with you answering a specific post.

Whats silly about this whole thing is that you are not even comprehending what my post says before you blurt out a bunch of BS.

No one cares if you reply more than anyone else. I'll spell it out for you one last time. You claimed that you didn't have time to present facts. I pointed out that you had enough time to respond in this thread more than anyone else. Remember it has NOTHING to do with you answering a specific post.

Whats silly about this whole thing is that you are not even comprehending what my post says before you blurt out a bunch of BS.

I am glad you are spelling it out to me one last time!

After you butchered my quote to suit yourself. Here is the real quote

Quote
Your excuse for not presenting facts is that you don't have the time to constantly montitor the forum, yet you reply more in this thread than anyone?

You're right, I must not be comprehending what your post is saying or what you are trying to say. It appears we are arguing over semantics instead of substance.

It takes very little time to make a quick rebuttal to a post, it takes a lot more time to actually research an argument and try to come up with some convincing information to respond. I have offered some quick rebuttals such as this, but I took my time to try to "present some facts," I have now posted a rather lengthy post with what I feel has "presented some facts" supporting the argument that the Universe is way to complex to have created itself but needed a creator.

How would something create itself? From what?

That's why I have to laugh at hard core evolutionists. It's like they ignore the fact of the incomprehensible. People can't accept something incomprehensible. Science will discover infinity... wait, they already have a symbol for it LOL

Did time evolve over time?

Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep

That's why I have to laugh at hard core evolutionists. It's like they ignore the fact of the incomprehensible.

That certain individuals are unable to 'comprehend' certain concepts means very little -- other than that educations vary widely, both in quality and degree.

Did time evolve over time?

Good question. Only answer that comes to mind at this point is that in seven minutes it'll be beer-thirty, a moment that's been evolving since this morning.

<burrpprp>

op-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-t

How would something create itself? From what?

That's why I have to laugh at hard core evolutionists. It's like they ignore the fact of the incomprehensible. People can't accept something incomprehensible. Science will discover infinity... wait, they already have a symbol for it LOL

Did time evolve over time?

Ok so who created God? Did he create himself? From what?

This is why I laugh at hard core bible thumpers. It's like they ignore all the facts and just interpret the bible how they see fit.

Ok so who created God?

Well now... There's a conundrum.

BANG! and God said...

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.