Hey guys, I just had an interesting event with a relative of a friends of mine. It started through a statement my friend Kevin made a quote from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

In which a relative of his replied:
"It is a fact that God knows exactly what the universe is for and why He created it. Theories come and go, but the Word of God is truth and it is eternal."

And i jokingly without trying to start a conflict replied:
"Only within a book."

And you can see how from there it began :P

Though i do have to say it was a very interesting and insightful debate, it wasn't too much on the side of "The bible says its true so it is!"
It was more of the misconceptions people make over Scientific ideas and especially the idea of Theory, they love to point out that "A theory is not proof or fact, it can be changed therefore it is not in any way accurate to anything"

In either case heres the debate, hope you find it insightful and understand the way people misunderstand science even in todays educational system. Just remember don't get frustrated, don't stoop down to name calling or anything childish. In my case i was lucky to find someone quite intelligent in the right areas though informed with misinformation maybe from biased sources.

PS. Please don't use this post to look down on Theists, it is not their fault this misinformation is brought to them and they are not any smarter or dumber than us, we are just as intelligent, some people are just given the wrong information, or others try to shun it to the side in fear of questioning their Faith. This is purely for informational purposes.

P.S.S. I did not edit any of the text shown here, i just merely added the dividers for an easy read. Of course due to privacy i took out the last names except mine, just FYI.

Here we go!:

Christopher Andreev
ok i'll start with again im doing this to break any misconceptions
about Atheists so go ahead and ask me anything of your chosing. I do
want to ask one question to start it off though: in the idea of
"Science" a neverending changing process that seeks for the most
accurate proof of an idea, yes it changes all the time,... and yes it
doesn't mean its completely right, but thats the beauty of it, if
anyone can find a flaw in a Theory they can change it by proving it
wrong or proving their own point.

With this said science has brought us to where we are today, medicine,
technology, safety, housing. Without science you could easily say that
we would still be living up to 30ish years old by death of disease,
malnutrition, or housing.

In this sense, how can you completely attempt to "debunk" the idea of
evolution when forensic sciences can detect a dead body from hundreds
of years ago, and that same method can detect the world being older
than 6000 years as depicted by the Bible.
Yesterday at 8:36pm · Comment · Like / Unlike · See Wall-to-Wall
Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins dealt with the limitations of radiocarbon dating a few years ago in his highly touted book, The Blind Watchmaker. Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (1986, p. 226 emp. added).

Both evolutionists and creationists stand in agreement that radiocarbon dating, which can be used only to date organic samples, is totally ineffective in measuring the alleged millions or billions of years of the evolutionary timetable. [In truth, even when dating things that are relatively young, carbon-14 dating is imperfect and based upon certain unprovable assumptions (see Major, 1993)

In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374).... Read More

The fact is, significant traces of carbon have been detected in samples that “should not” contain carbon. Since evolutionists are unwilling to adjust their million/billion-year timetable, they are forced to conclude that radiocarbon dating is always faulty when it comes up with young dates (measured in hundreds or thousands of years) for assumed old specimens (supposedly millions of years old). Do you see anything wrong with this picture? The fact is, coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils containing traces of carbon is no surprise. One would expect to find such if the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood are true.

Besides, even if the Earth is billions of years old, which I am inclined to believe that it may be, God was not under any obligation to use 24 hour days and 365 day years while forming the Earth. He transcends time and space constraints. What he called a day could have been a million years.

Now my question to you is can you explain irreducible compexity in a way that makes Macroevolution make sense?
Yesterday at 9:59pm
that is complexity, not compexity
Yesterday at 10:02pm
Christopher Andreev
Carbon-14 dating only is reliable to an extent of at most 60,000 years, it also has to be, its alatitude also has to be at least bellow or above ground level otherwise the amount of oxygen exposed to the bones can change a variable in the equation that changes the whole age in general making it older or younger than it appears. But since its max age is 60,000 years and the assumed time frame for dinosaurs is more than billions of years, its obvious that an unpredictable error will occur with carbon-14 dating causing it to seem like it was earlier than that because the method used was the wrong kind of method.

Macro-evolution is hard to argue as its a long time span before any change can be seen. Thats why microevolution is more common to be believed because in biological terms many viruses "evolve" their own immune system to counter ours. We can see this in the current H1N1 flu that is spreading. Though we can see with more than just carbon dating and other dating methods how past humans and early primates are related to us. I did a research on a few tribes in Africa dating back 80-100 thousand years, their bone structure was similar through such a small timeline but their external appearance wasnt that of a typical human in todays world, as well as their methods. They used tools just as we did, tools such as smashing two rocks against each other to sharpen one of the rocks in a pointy
knifelike shape to use as weapons and other tools. This is my own research but looking at a few other tools i've seen some dating back to 2.6 million years ago, when early primates starting coming. We have a whole section of ancestral relatives that shows the change of the bone structure, from jaws, to cranium, to shoulders,back and leg bones. They all fit in a timelined "Puzzle" that dates all the way to us. So why not see this as actual or potential proof of us being primates at one point in a 2.6 million year span?
... Read More
Yes it seems a bit redundant and quite hilarious to most to say that "We came from monkeys" but thats only because our mindset that we as human beings are better than any other animal, when in fact we ARE animals just like any other. Once we realize this we see the similarities. Monkeys in todays world also use sticks and such as tools though the main difference is they do not know how to make them, they just know how to use their surroundings to their advantage.

Now yes, Macroevolution is hard to prove in our less than 100 year lifespan, but the proof lies in the puzzle of bones structures changing from a primate like species to us, the tools they used, and their habits like being nomads or the creation of agricultural establishments.
Yesterday at 10:24pm · Delete
Christopher Andreev
PS. They arent "Forced" to conclude that it is faulty, they test the carbon 14 method on items found and is known to have been around for a timeline of 10-60 thousand years (such as more advanced knife-like-devices or pottery) and they test what happens as the device becomes older and older and they can start seeing an error because by the looks of a it look something like this:


to something like this with a more defined edge:... Read More

now u can see with your eyes that the second one seems more "advanced" as rock knives go, but in a sense the first one's tests are hypothesized to be around lets say "80,000 years old while the second is 50,000, but with carbon the first ones are actually dated to 12,000 which makes no sense as progress for "knife" technology to go backwards rather than improve, by this example one can tell that the error is large, as well as if one has a whole set of knives ranging fro m 80,70,60,50,40,30,20 years and each can be seen clearly in which timeline it belongs but carbon says otherwise. So its not Forced to conclude its faulty, they realize its faulty and they use tests to be sure before they actually acknoledge it completely.

And the whole "God creating time" thing is a bit of an implication as the Bible itself has no acknowledgement for the idea of "time" other than dating the setting for a story, and nowhere does it say that God created the idea of time, even as more proof is the sabbath, if there was no set day limit, then why do we imply that the sabbath is the seventh day? (or sixth to others) by the idea of a current day week, than by a Godly day week. Its on implycation that anyone can make because the Bible is vague enough in which people can twist around the information to fit their agenda.
Yesterday at 10:35pm · Delete
"It's obvious that an unpredictable error will occur"...hmmm, doesn't sound very scientific to me..Yes, you are correct, Macro-evolution is hard to argue, that is because it cannot be recreated or proven...hmmm, doesn't sound very scientific to me..You switch to talking about microevolution, which has nothing to do with this argument, since it ... Read Moresays nothing about how the earth or humans were created in the first place. Ok so monkeys use tools...that's how we know there isn't a God?
These all sound like assumptions made from circumstantial evidence at best..
And you completely ignored the question of irresucible complexity.
Uh and yah, I don't know what you mean by the Sabbath being on the 7th day is implied? The Sabbath is the Seventh day, which is clear in the Bible, and that day is Saturday...Sunday is the first day of the week on any calendar..So it is The 1st to others, not the 6th..!! I thought I was arguing with someone worth their salt but I'm starting to think differently,,,this is getting boring now
Yesterday at 10:48pm
I CAN use implications and assumptions because my argument is not restricted to anything scientific. Yours is, however, because your basis for non-belief is that it cannot be proven scientifically..so anything you come up with that is not scientifically proven is at best only equally as plausible as anything I say, because the whole premise of your... Read More argument is that it is (supposedly) backed by science...If you do not have absolute proof of something you use as evidence, then do not present it from a scientific standpoint because it is just based on your BELIEF that it is true based on assumptions...If something cannot be proven, it doesn't become scientific just because it was said by a scientist...Even my 5th grader knows the difference between a theory and a fact.
Yesterday at 11:04pm
Christopher Andreev
Christopher Andreev
No ok, i didnt switch to talk about microevolution, i stated that "Its more believable than macro" i wasnt giving anything else on micro other than that statement.

The sabbath depends on wether you believe in either, there are the 7th day adventists and then there are the regular 6th day, but i thought you would know this just by the statement.

In another case, yes my answer was a but half-butted, but i just found more information on carbon:... Read More

Carbon has a "Half life" of 5700 years, i presume you know what that means.
So if anything (body, artifact, ancient animal) even has 100% carbon, by the first 5700 that 100 goes to 50, then at 16400 it goes to 25 then at 17100 it will be 12.50. Now if we look at the limit of carbon dating (~60000 years) we see that that creates for around 11 half years (rounded up) in this case:
100%... 50...25..12.5... 6.25...3.125... 1.5625... 0.78125... all the way to 0.097%

now by half life:
"A half-life often describes the decay of discrete entities, such as radioactive atoms. In that case, it does not work to use the definition "half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay". For example, if there is just one radioactive atom with a half-life of 1 second, there will not be "half of an atom" left after 1 second. There will be either zero atoms left or one atom left, depending on whether or not the atom happens to decay."

at this tiny amount of percentage left its very unrealistic to have a whole atom, so after this point there is no more to actually account for.
Yesterday at 11:05pm · Delete
Christopher Andreev
the only proof you have of a creator is by a bible and by apostles that say who they are and are believed to be who they are by their word, when they themselves we're simple people and prone to lieing. The scientific proof is more bound by todays rules and can be proven countless times even in today day, otherwise you have a persons word to modern tests.
Yesterday at 11:07pm · Delete
There are no 6th day people that I know of..Are there people who consider Friday to be the Sabbath?
Yesterday at 11:07pm
Christopher Andreev
ok let me restate it, there are those that use the sabbath as Sunday, and those that use it as Saturday. it all depends on what week format you use... in either case that isnt a big deal other than the information i've presented
Yesterday at 11:09pm · Delete
The fact that you said the Sabbath being on the 7th day is only implied tells me you haven't read the Bible..You shouldn't argue against something you haven't even read.
. When I got a new washer I didn't wonder if it had created itself...It was made so know it had a maker... the only proof you need that there is a creator is that something was ... Read Morecreated..pretty basic common sense. Do you think that a washer is too complex to have made itself? What about the bacteria flagellum or DNA...How comples are they and why is it believable that they came about by themselves? Back in Darwin's day they thought a cell was just a bunch of jelly like material. They had no idea of it's complexity to sway them into realizing that it could not have formed itself.
Of course I could use magical thinking and that there was this something that came out of nowhere all by itself even though it wasn't alive and didn't have a brain and it just exploded one day into a whole bunch of stuff then it all came together into all kinds of things, which goes against nature since the universe is expanding, not coming together, and things naturally fall apart rather than come together over time...
And one of the things it formed all by itself was DNA which just coded itself into the most complex code the world has ever known, and all of this without any intelligence or purpose behind it all. But believing in all of this would take a lot more faith than I could conjure up.
14 hours ago
No matter what you believe happened at first, you must at some point get to the place where you ask yourself one last time "And where did that come from?" and you have no answer. So where do you go from there? You at that point must say to yourself that you don't understand that part and that you just don't know. Therefore the possibilities at this... Read More point are now wide open and cannot be explained scientifically. That being understood and I'm sure agreed upon..I happen to have an answer at this point..You do not. God explains that we are not to have full understanding in this lifetime..Your first atom or quark or whatever you believe first existed does not explain to you that you are not supposed to have a full understanding...If it did, it would be some sort of being, and therefore possibly some sort of God. My belief when I get to that point is a belief that makes sense of all of the questions, yours just opens up more unanswered questions. You really should think about all of this real hard and decide if this dead end thinking is really what you want to base your whole existence on
14 hours ago
Just to set the record straight, I thought I should mention that radiocarbon dating is never used by professionals to date long dead fossils. As was mentioned, radiocarbon dating has serious drawbacks in its ability to date old or young objects. Radiometric dating is, however, used and cross-confirmed using multiple isotopic pairs (i.e. rubidium/... Read Morestrontium, potassium/argon, uranium/lead, etc.), with half-lives on the order of millions or billions of years, in multiple, often rival, laboratories around the world. This fact is far too commonly overlooked. Radiocarbon dating is restricted to archaeological finds, not fossils. Just thought I'd throw some real facts into the mix.
13 hours ago
K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) Method

This method is based on the decay of 40K to 40Ar and is probably the most commonly used radiometric dating technique available to geologists
But the problem with this is that: (1) there is no way to know that all of the Argon 40 escaped when the rock melted; (2) there is always an amount of air-Argon remaining in the rock when it hardens, especially since air contains 1% Argon.
if the rock has experienced high temperatures during any part of its formation, this will give a null result to the dating. As it stands, Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon are thought to be the best dating methods, since it is believed that one can determine the original amount of daughter element in the sample, but the anomalies remain. ... Read More
One of the more popular radioactive methods is the measurement of the decay of Uranium into Lead. Evolutionary theory holds that the half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years, which, since they estimate the earth to be the same age, serves as a coincidental dating device.
Decay rates measured within the last 50-80 years depend on a pure parent sample which is set aside for a length of time to produce the daughter element, but this assumes that the present decay rate has always been the same, which cannot be proven.

Taking the known decay rate of Uranium from laboratory experiments, these results can then be compared to the remaining Uranium in the rock specimen, along with the amount of Lead in the rock, and it can be estimated how long it has taken for the Lead to form from the original Uranium. Although this sounds quite logical, it is only so in theory. The reason is that such a method depends on three unprovable assumptions:

(1) all the Lead found in the specimen must be assumed to be originally from Uranium, but there is no way to know this for certain. There may have been some Lead already in the rock when it was formed, before the Uranium in the rock began to decay. Since it is known that natural Lead appears in rock, it is quite presumptuous to attribute all of it to Uranium decay. Of course, if the amount of Lead in the rock pre-existed the decay of Uranium, then the age of the rock will turn out to be much less than if all the Lead in the rock was due to Uranium decay.

(2) Due to the process of leaching, Uranium, as well as other radioactive elements, are quite capable of dissolving in water. Hence, if the rock was subjected to water for any length of time (of which there is an abundant supply on earth), this would directly effect the amount of Uranium the rock would contain at any given time. In this scenario, if one were to measure the age of the rock unaware that Uranium had leached out, the estimation of age would be much too great. Biblical scientists, who hold to a world-wide deluge as recorded in Genesis 6-9, assert that these flood waters would disrupt all such isotope dating in which the parent element was subject to leaching.

(3) Current radiometric dating assumes the rate of decay has remained constant for millions of years, without any appreciable deviation due to outside forces. This is commonly known as uniformitarianism. Although it is true that radioactive atoms have been subjected to temperature, pressure and chemical changes in the laboratory without changing their decay rate, still, natural forces, such as neutrinos from cosmic radiation disturb the decay process. The decay rates of ions are known to differ from neutral atoms. Decay rate is also based on the speed of light, which, as of this past decade, numerous laboratory experiments and astronomical anomalies show that it is not constant. In addition, such things as the reversal of the earth’s magnetic field, which has been documented as occurring in both the past and near present, as well as any galactic event, such as a supernovae explosion, could cause alterations to the decay rate of radioactive elements.

Although other elements are often used to measure radioactive decay, such as Potassium, Thorium, Strontium, and a half dozen others, they are all subject to the same above caveats as Uranium. In fact, some of these elements are even more soluble in water than Uranium salts.

Since we cannot go back in time to compare with a REAL KNOWN age, it is all being compared to assumed ages to begin with, whether it's carbon or radiometric or whatever...but, no matter, the existence of a God that created the universe is not dependant on how long the Earth has been here.The Bible doesn't say it has been here for 6.000 years, how could it, then if someone reads it 10,000 years from now it would still say the Earth has been here 6,ooo years..the words on the page wouldn't change,,,so it doesn't say that...Maybe some people have deduced that somehow, but they may be assuming that God is on a 365 day year system up there in Heaven which I'm sure he is not. Even other planets have differing lengths for their years, why would we assume God has the same year length we do? This is all irrelevent...Could we please stop talking about dates as if they matter somehow?
12 hours ago
Christopher Andreev
Alright, your trying to throw the little inconsistency that i said about the sabbath, and i corrected myself, people use the weeks DIFFERENTLY, some use saturday as the 7th while others use sunday as the 7th, in either case, the fact is that there are people that believe saturday is the sabbath and sunday is the sabbath. From this how can you assume that I have not read the bible? I have read the whole thing in my past as I am ex-christian, and recently go over it from time to time and look over it in situations such as these.

Your throwing the whole subject out of its focus as i have disproved your claims on radio carbon dating with its inconsistent half life, and the methods whoever used to date that fossil was using the wrong fossil because of the fault in a half life (even when the speciment has 100% carbon, it is hard to measure in such a long length of time because by 60000 years there is no more carbon left.

On your claim for my not knowing how the universe came to be. Your absolutely RIGHT, i DONT know how it came to be, and no one does. You cannot claim you know how it came to be because of a book with circular logic that says that it is the word of God because its the Bible which was written in the words of God... You cannot simply say you know you have the answer to the world because of this book because it doesn't say anything on the matter of evolution and atoms, you simply imply that God created the universe, and anything that science comes up with (evolution, big bang) you simply say God did that too.... Read More

But keep in mind evolution and big bang came from scientific research and testing. (though not the big bang so much) and this is why we dont "preach" that the world was created by the big bang. So far that is our only lead to a type of world start and we use this in text books and other places as a starting point. NO DOUBT will the big bang change in the future, because thats what theory is, its FLEXIBLE and changable, because if someone can disprove the idea of God (e.g. Saying "If there is a God let him strike me with thunder") and nothing happens, in the scientific community will take that as proof against a God. While the Theist community will say "oh your silly, he's not going to just strike you, you have the idea wrong". Or some other excuse rather than take the actual evidence of the matter that it did not actually happen.

Now the scientific community works with the Scientific theory, im sure you've heard of it.
The idea of hypothesizing, testing, and if the result don't fit the idea, you take note of it and redo the experiment and observe changes. With this we can provide many proofs such as gravity on earth which we can distribute to cosmic gravitational pull, such as the moon in orbit around the earth, and the earth in orbit around the sun (In which was disbelieved in the past because many thought that the sun revolved around the sun etc).

My point. In order for a Theory to be a Theory, it has to be proven. The Carbon Dating was proven to only work 60000 years by me to you from the expected half life of carbon. Therefore from that we can see how carbon dating works and we can use it in certain situations.

Just because Theory is "flexible" and ever changing doesn't mean its false or does not work, if you look around everything around you works on theory, combustion engines, flight, wireless technology, medicine we take. Yet they all work however proven. The reason theory is MEANT to change is because we can NEVER KNOW EVERYTHING. therefore when someone finds some sort of error in a theory it can be PROVEN AND CHANGED.

And no, not the WHOLE THEORY will be changed because we understand the basis for it, but the small detail within the theory will be changed in co-ordinance with the new information.

Alot of people dont understand the way a theory works and simply say "Oh its a theory, its not a fact, it changes all the time so it must not be right if its not completely factual."

And this is where alot of misunderstandings about science comes from.
8 hours ago · Delete
This is what you said "then why do we imply that the sabbath is the seventh day? (or sixth to others)"
You didn't say that Saturday or Sunday was implied, you said the 7th day was implied...and it is not implied, it is clear. So that's what I was talking about. Anyway, everyone knows (or should know) that the Sabbath day is still Saturday. Most ... Read Morepeople worship on Sunday because the Bible says it is the Lords day based on the day Jesus was resurrested, which is clearly shown in the Bible to be the day after the Sabbath. Whether changing the day of worship to Sunday is ok with God I do not know and it is irrelevent to this argument.
And you have proven nothing about carbon dating. Have you not read anything I posted? It is based on assumptions of assumed known ages to begin with so it is not scientific and cannot be proven correct. Also irrelevent to this argument because God is not constrained to the Earths' current 24 hour day.
So move on from both of these please.
If you do not know how the universe came to be, then why do you claim that anyone else's idea must be false. You don't know. Why would you take someone who knows something, and tell them they should not believe it, then when they ask you then what is the answer, you say I don't know?? How much sense does that make..To say "What you believe is wrong, and you should follow my belief because what I believe is I don't know" is asanine.
4 hours ago
And I don't know why I am arguing about the origins of the universe with someone who doesn't even know how to use "your" and "you're" correctly in a sentence. That is always a dead giveaway that a person doesn't do much reading.
4 hours ago
You say "My point. In order for a Theory to be a Theory, it has to be proven." Then you say "therefore when someone finds some sort of error in a theory it can be PROVEN AND CHANGED." Ha ha first it's proven true, then there is an error in it, then the already proven thing is changed! Then it is again "Proven" differently. .(But this time we mean it) that's funny.
4 hours ago
Christopher Andreev
Ah, very nice strategy, trying to enter my faults as my downside. First of all I'm sorry i'm not being grammatically correct because last time i checked this isn't an essay, if you would like i could write you an essay and it will be grammatically error-less? Second your question is that if I myself do not know where the world comes from how can I assure that you're "solution" to the start of the world is false? Well basically here's the thing, the word of the Bible is, again, in a circular logic. E.g.

1. I am God
2. I have written this book
3. It is the word of God... Read More
4. Therefore this book is not Wrong because I, God, Tell you its not wrong, From within the book itself.

And please don't respond with anything in the lines of "How dare you call yourself God??" because im not, im just stating how the book presents itself.

Listen, books can say alot of things, and they can say it is true as well, you can write ANY book and say it is true from within itself, because the book tells you its true, therefore it has to be true. That is the circular logic. That is not "Proof" of anything, other than the book itself is "asinine" and tries to play it off like it actually is something when its not. Its a book that tells itself that its "God's Word". The proof of this you may say is the disciples that kept track of lets say a man named Jesus, which again this is a whole new subject of debate whether the second hand sources are trust-able let alone existent, let alone the name "Jesus" was quite popular in Nazareth at that time period, so many of these writings can be quite exaggerated. In either case lets not get into this side of the arguement

Oh and this is what im talking about, when you state: " It is based on assumptions of assumed known ages to begin with so it is not scientific and cannot be proven correct."
You ignore the fact that we use the same half life system to date todays murders, and other forensics, yet when it comes to dating a distant past all of a sudden its an assumption? Nice, great "logic" on that one.

Half life is determined by keeping track of how much carbon is decaying, keep in mind that half life does not mean that directly at 5700 years 50% of the amount is gone, no. You can keep track of carbon over a yearly period and see the decay happen, and see the pattern. If you want to compare it mathematically it would be like the positive X axis of a parabola. As time goes on less decays but it keeps decaying nonstop.
eg. 100, 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc
we can see the difference in the numbers as
50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc
this is the amount it decreases by for every piece of half life passes. It decreases but it never reaches "0".
This is how we can tell by the change over lets say 1 year that it will start to decrease slightly, and since its constant we can see how much it decreases over the thousands of years beforehand. Constants DO NO CHANGE.

And you once again misunderstood theory, like every other person thats tried to understand it.
Yes it is changed, but not the whole idea.
If lets say we had a certain wave signal that we use as wireless internet at the moment, and we discover another type of wave that is better and more flexible than the one we use now, we will edit the Theory to state that THERE ARE OTHER waves that can carry data, in this case we are CHANGING the THEORY but not changing HOW IT WORKS, because... it works!

If we take a certain medicine and it seems to do the job well. But later on it is discovered that it may cause certain side effects. THOSE SIDE EFFECTS ARE ADDED TO THE THEORY. It is changed, but the basic idea of the theory is the same, because it works!

Do you get my drift?

In either case, if you haven't anything to disprove at this point, other than "Your way of thinking is flawed because its an assumption" then this conversation is over, i have stated my side and have (whether you believe it or not) stumped YOUR assumptions of science. At this point you may want to research a bit more on biology, dating, and chemistry before you begin this sort of argument.
about an hour ago · Delete
Christopher Andreev
Christopher Andreev
Also, in the case of me judging you're idea of how the world began. If there is something more complicated than "God did it" out there as science has shown us, it is better to be in the mindset of "Lets try and find out how the world works" rather than just say "God did it" and leave it to the side.

Humans are extremely curious, not by the forbidden fruit, or the serpent, or any other aspect of your Religious downside. You can Question anything, you have the power to. Question the Bible, Question Science, Question how the world works. Otherwise you'll be constricted to "Do not question the bible, it is Gods word, he doesn't like it."
And you call Atheists closed minded. We Question Everything We See. That is what open minded means, we question your belief with proof, all you can show is the bible, we question Every Other Religion with proof, and they do the exact same. We want proof, not a book that was written by Humans who can lie and make information up as they go.
... Read More
We are not bound by any law of God or other. We question it. But, we are bound by the law of "Humanity" We treat each other with respect rather than what you would call "Non-Moralled" atheists.
We have morals, Bibles and Religions arent the only place one can get morals from. We can recognize pain, physical by the nerves in our body, and mental by the activity of our brains, we know negative and positive feelings, and we know positive feelings feel better, therefore we do the right thing based on the feelings. And of course we understand the idea of death and we do not partake well with war.
about an hour ago · Delete
Christopher Andreev
Also, let me add, you promote your thought in Religion with "Faith". Although its a strong and emotional idea, it briefly states. "You have to drop every other form of external conflict and really Believe that He exists, that Heaven is real, that the Bible is true." When you apply Faith, you simply ignore every other reasoning there is, especially ... Read Morethis whole conversation we've had. Though it was fun, i really hope you can research a bit more into the idea of evolution and science. And not from biased websites that use the wrong method to figure out how old a dinosaur is and claim that their own asinine method use is "Sciences" fault and not their own.
about an hour ago · Delete
The Truth doesn't have to be proven. It is the truth whether you believe it or not. Our proof as Christians, is our personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We KNOW His presence and His love, and we KNOW He is, because He proves HIMSELF to us in an intimate relationship and showers us with His love. The message of LOVE in the Bible is what Christopher has missed.
46 minutes ago
Amen Diane!
42 minutes ago
Christopher Andreev
Sure there are many essences of love within the bible i will give you that. But there are also somewhat of... not so much:

There are acts of Betting with the devil to make a test to see if Abraham will sacrifice his own child to God, Sure he stops him in the end... But why does God have to prove a persons dedication to the Devil? Or himself, by his "omnipotence" he easily knows who we are and how dedicated we are to him, why commit something so ruthless and hurtful for Abraham to prove a stupid point to the devil?

There are acts from God that promotes Genocide of the Israelites, in this act he doesn't mind the act of rape and enslavement of said Israelites.... Read More

There are accounts where the firstborn child of a Person must be "given" to god just like the livestock, in that day they sacrificed livestock to God as respect, therefore the first born child is to be sacrificed on the seventh day.

Exodus 23:33
30 "You must give me the firsborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days but give them to me on the eight day."

One may argue that he means "give me" as in let him be exposed to God on the 7th day, or he should be sent to a church or other establishment for his life. But he mentions to do the same with the cattle and sheep, why send cattle and sheep to a holy spot? They are obviously below humans as Genesis has shown us. And in that day sacrifice was made on a weekly basis to praise God, it is not at all uncommon to sacrifice a cattle or sheep then. And with this quote it is saying that one should "give me the firstbornes of your sons, the same with your cattle and sheep." Which explicitly means sacrifice your first born after a week to me.

Make sense?

Im using the:
New International Version
With Helps
Words of Christ in red Letters

care to explain?
29 minutes ago · Delete
Christopher Andreev
All im saying is if your going to go to the bible for any sense, make sure you recognize the faults as well as the good. Though the faults outweigh the good in a rockslide, that is why many people selectively pick and choose pieces of the bible to teach rather than teach it as it is from start to end.
28 minutes ago · Delete

Ok, I'm going with Diane...Like I said..I don't have to prove anything...I'm not coming from a scientific standpoint so I can bring in assumption, implication, and faith as much as I want.. You are coming from a scientific standpoint so your ideas have to be proveable and factual. Otherwise they are just ideas and therefore carry no more weight ... Read Morethan my ideas based on faith carry. I am so done now..You can explain it to God one day and see if he agrees with you... Don't post anything else cause this is giving me a stomach ache for real and it's not fun to have to try to answer extremely long posts with multiple points all at once.
I'm going back to playing Farmville and we will see who won this argument in the end one day
2 minutes ago


All I am going to say to you is that you will never understand the Bible like a Saved person is able to descern what God says because you do not have the Holy Spirit in you to give witness of what God is trying to say to His people. The Holy Spirit speaks to us as we are reading it. Not to mention you can't read it just once and presume to know ... Read Morewhat an all knowing, Holy God meant by things written therein. The Bible is a living Book and it can speak to people differently, based on their lives, knowledge, and circumstances. I may read a passage to day and get one thing out of it and then next week or month or year read the same thing and get something totally different. You have to have faith, without faith this whole conversation is useless. I guess when Jesus comes back we will see who is right the Atheist or the Christian. If I am right I have gained Heaven and you will receive Hell. If you are right and there is no God than I still have lost nothing.

Christopher Andreev
Alright, all im going to say it was interesting debate and thank you for keeping it sophisticated. =) I'll go ahead and remove you if you wish.

No don't remove me cause it might make all of this go away and I want to keep it here!
2 minutes ago

Christopher Andreev
Haha, ok, again thanks for the insight on both sides =)
about a minute ago · Delete


Views: 61

Comment by John Nguyen on November 15, 2009 at 7:21pm
Impressive that you still thanked them after they essentially told you that they hope you burn in agony for all eternity. With a smile, of course. Oh, and I was worried for a second that we'd manage to get through this without someone invoking Pascal's Wager.
Comment by Krysis on November 15, 2009 at 8:31pm
Yeah, its hard to go through something without pascals, unless of course they themselves have not heard of Pascals Wager. Again, in sense this is in public domain now, and if i had shown rational misconduct everyone would be able to see it. I kept my patience and now we can easily see who overturned the subject from logical debate to "Your going to hell, but god still loves you"
Comment by Doug Reardon on November 15, 2009 at 8:37pm
It isn't the "Traveler's guide to the galaxy" Its the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams!
Comment by Krysis on November 15, 2009 at 9:07pm
ahh, i corrected him, lol, he goes "ah nice that you noticed that, but its a little too late now" Lmao
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on November 16, 2009 at 3:03pm
Wow... long conversation... with ppl like this... I don't usually bother debating. If they don't have the will to research thoroughly and accurately what they're debating against... it's kinda pointless.
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on November 16, 2009 at 3:03pm
However... I cn understand where ur coming from


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service