If there is no God. Then someone explain life.

[Mike Cl]

Yeah enough to know that a theory has to be proven to be a fact. And the big bang is a theory.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Oh my god!!! That is one of the most stupid comments I've ever read!  Okay, g2, a theory IS a fact.  A hypothesis is a guess, but a testable guess.  You are correct, the big bang theory is a theory; therefore proven to be true. 

I have a theory--you are a troll. 

[sdelsolray]

The simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

As for as plants go the interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds

As for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Now lets ask a scientist about the great flood.

According  Robert Ballard : " a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path".

He also stated " Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred".

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

As to your first paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage:  http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm

As to your second paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

I needn't go further.  You are a plagiarizer.  Instead of thinking for yourself, and writing your own thoughts, you cheat, copy and paste, pretend it is your own writing and hope no one will find out.

[g2perk]

As to your first paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage:  http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm

As to your second paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

I needn't go further.  You are a plagiarizer.  Instead of thinking for yourself, and writing your own thoughts, you cheat, copy and paste, pretend it is your own writing and hope no one will find out.

I suggest you read the terms of service for this website.

Does that mean God exist. Was the articles true. I never claim any words but those words did represent my thoughts. Very well I might add. By the way this was a conversation between two people that decided to give facts instead of opinions.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

This discussion is not about what you think. What do you know any way. What the hell does any scientist and or theologian know what happen billions of years ago. Are you a scientist. Do you even have a job.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

It's not about what PoppeyesPappa thinks? I see. It's all about what you think. Are you an expert on the formation of life? Yes? Your ancient book of "metaphorical" stories is proof? Of what? That an ancient storyteller had a revelation from God?

Oh I know! It's not something a non-believer can know. It's all about a personal relationship with God. And is that through Christ? I cant find the God through any other means? Or is that part  just metaphorical too?

Your subjective experience, and your interpretation of that experience, is no more proof of God, than my schizophrenic experience, and my interpretation of it, are proof of alternate dimensions. It's just another delusion.

You asked us to explain life. When it comes to explaining life, maybe it's better to seek the truth, than to seek God.

[Solomon Zorn]

There are a lot of forums you could join, in the infinite internet. But you chose to come play with the atheists. It's a rough crowd. I commend you for that much. But I think that you should examine your heart about this. Are you really trying to save us from Hell, after we die, or are you here for us to save you from a life of illusion, here and now?

You want to discuss the Proverbs of King Solomon, and I gave you a couple of my favorites. But here's a proverb of Solomon Zorn:
http://www.solomonzorn.com/strength-of-doubt.html

[Solomon Zorn]

Does that mean God exist. Was the articles true. I never claim any words but those words did represent my thoughts. Very well I might add. By the way this was a conversation between two people that decided to give facts instead of opinions.

Your conversation has been with all of us.

The simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

Here you claim the story is a metaphor, so that you don't have to hold the Bible accountable for any actual, measurable, historical accuracy.

As for as plants go the interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds

Here you claim the story is literal again, and try to use the simple fact that the writer knew that plants grow from seeds, to show that he had divine knowledge.

As for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well.

It's not the age of the Earth that is 14 billion, give or take. It's the universe.

Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science.

Agree that it is falsified by science. But it is most definitely NOT falsified by the Bible. Just because you have chosen to believe that Genesis is a metaphor, in every place that it can't possibly be true, that doesn't mean that your new interpretation of it, falsifies the literal interpretation of it.

The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

If the Bible doesn't explain it, then feel free to make-up whatever works.

Now lets ask a scientist about the great flood.

According  Robert Ballard : " a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path".

He also stated " Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred".

That flood didn't cover every mountain under heaven to a depth of 20 feet. Are you suggesting that this small flood killed all the life on Earth, and it was neccesary for Noah to build...what?  A small boat to save all the neighborhood animals? Then Moses wrote another metaphor about it? Think it through. How could someone so prone to exaggeration be directed by God to write his Holy Word?

[Blackleaf]

As has been said in these forums many times, the difference between theists and atheists is that atheists aren't afraid to say "I don't know." From the very beginning, theists have always been looking to things they don't understand and saying, "We don't know, therefor gods." Lightning? Zeus. Love and attraction? Cupid and his bow. Rainbows? God's promise not to flood the entire earth again. As science treks on, the need to use gods to explain things disappears. Now, Christians say, "We don't know how life began. Therefor God must have done it." But soon, science will explain the origins of life too, and the Christian explanation will be exposed for the foolishness that it is, as it already has many times before.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You apparently don't have much understanding of science.

[Solomon Zorn]

He's usually up early, but he posted late last night, so I'm guessing he's still asleep.

[pr126]

Q : If God created the universe, who created God?
A:  Humans.

[Baruch]

Q : If God created the universe, who created God?
A:  Humans.

And Ouroboros eats his tail and disappears ;-)

[Baruch]

The original story ...

Ziusudra and his wife retired after the flood, to what is now Bahrain.  Gilgamesh went there to learn the secret of eternal life.  There was a prehistoric flood of the Persian gulf, at the end of the last Ice Age.  It is more natural for them to end up in the Persian Gulf rather than on any Turkish mountain.

[g2perk]

He's usually up early, but he posted late last night, so I'm guessing he's still asleep.

Solomon and everyone here I want to apologize.

The man The Reverend Monsignor George Lemaitre, was a Genius. He was the best if both worlds a Scientist and Theologian.  Mr. Lemaitre did not dispute the existence if God he embraced it along with his passion for research. I admire that, and now appreciate his theory. These are Quotes from him:

Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity

The following quote demonstrates a position held by Lemaître that theologians are more responsible for the church-science divide than the scientists:

Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.34



Monsignor Georges Lemaître has made numerous, lasting contributions to the modern world; to quote Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research. In these respects we must rate Lemaître's cosmology of the highest caliber."40Perhaps his greatest gift was the witness he gave as a Catholic priest, living every day the life of the mind and spirit, doing cutting edge science alongside his priestly duties. In every regard, he was unique. His life gives testament to the fact that when one trusts in God, giving one's life as a total gift, the Lord does wonderful things.41


The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague . . . In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non-believer as far as walking, or running, or swimming is concerned.

Comments anyone....[emoji6]

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

LeMaittre is an interesting thinker ;-)

[g2perk]

He's usually up early, but he posted late last night, so I'm guessing he's still asleep.

The link

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk