Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jehovah the God Does Not Exist

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since the user MadCornishBiker has declined to have an official debate with me on this topic, and instead wants to have a debate in the forum, I have decided to have one here. I ask MadCornishBiker to respond in a paragraph form, not writing a response after every sentence (as it will easier for the both of us to make our arguments in a neat fashion).

The topic is "Jehovah the God Does not Exist", and I will be Pro, and MadCornishBiker will be con.

The definitions go as such:
Jehovah- Used as the name of God in the Old Testament of the Bible
http://www.merriam-webster.com......
God- An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being
(I provided the definition, as in our many forum discussions, MadCornishBiker supports this notion of a God)
Exist- To have actual being : to be real
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

I take it MadCornishBiker will agree to the parameters set, as they give no one any advantage, and set (what I think) a good basis for our (forum) debate. I wish MadCornishBiker the best of luck.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 7:08:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd change the definition of God, personally, because it could only lead to endless sophisms. For instance, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie --> God does not possess the power to lie ---> God is not omnipotent. I'd change it to: "the supreme being, creator of the universe", etc to put a stop to endless quibbles over omnipotent and omnibenevolent and the like.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 7:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 7:08:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
I'd change the definition of God, personally, because it could only lead to endless sophisms. For instance, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie --> God does not possess the power to lie ---> God is not omnipotent. I'd change it to: "the supreme being, creator of the universe", etc to put a stop to endless quibbles over omnipotent and omnibenevolent and the like.

I don't think it will get in sophisms. It will be more about the big picture (the biggest picture possible). Besides, we both tend to agree on this definition. If not, we can change it onward.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 9:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 7:23:04 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 7:08:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
I'd change the definition of God, personally, because it could only lead to endless sophisms. For instance, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie --> God does not possess the power to lie ---> God is not omnipotent. I'd change it to: "the supreme being, creator of the universe", etc to put a stop to endless quibbles over omnipotent and omnibenevolent and the like.

I don't think it will get in sophisms. It will be more about the big picture (the biggest picture possible). Besides, we both tend to agree on this definition. If not, we can change it onward.

Well, if you are debating MadCornish, it'll be at least 50% sophisms, plus whatever percentage you elect to add to it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 10:19:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 7:08:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
I'd change the definition of God, personally, because it could only lead to endless sophisms. For instance, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie --> God does not possess the power to lie ---> God is not omnipotent. I'd change it to: "the supreme being, creator of the universe", etc to put a stop to endless quibbles over omnipotent and omnibenevolent and the like.

I agree with annanicole. From what some Jehovah's Witnesses have said (and I don't know if MCB has said these kinds of things or not), I'm not sure they even subscribe to omniscience, at least not the way most Christians understand the word. Their view seems to be similar to open theism. Open theists at least claim to believe in omniscience, but in any case, there's going to be some quibbling over the meaning of words.

I think maybe a better definition of Jehovah would just be something like, "God, as he is portrayed in the Bible." After all, MCB's conception of God may differ from classical theists, and it's unlikely that he's going to want to be pigeon holed into defending any view of God other than what he can demonstrate from scripture, regardless of what words you use to define it, such as omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,808
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Since the user MadCornishBiker has declined to have an official debate with me on this topic, and instead wants to have a debate in the forum, I have decided to have one here. I ask MadCornishBiker to respond in a paragraph form, not writing a response after every sentence (as it will easier for the both of us to make our arguments in a neat fashion).

The topic is "Jehovah the God Does not Exist", and I will be Pro, and MadCornishBiker will be con.

The definitions go as such:
Jehovah- Used as the name of God in the Old Testament of the Bible
http://www.merriam-webster.com......
God- An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being
(I provided the definition, as in our many forum discussions, MadCornishBiker supports this notion of a God)
Exist- To have actual being : to be real
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

I take it MadCornishBiker will agree to the parameters set, as they give no one any advantage, and set (what I think) a good basis for our (forum) debate. I wish MadCornishBiker the best of luck.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 10:19:01 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/14/2015 7:08:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
I'd change the definition of God, personally, because it could only lead to endless sophisms. For instance, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie --> God does not possess the power to lie ---> God is not omnipotent. I'd change it to: "the supreme being, creator of the universe", etc to put a stop to endless quibbles over omnipotent and omnibenevolent and the like.

I agree with annanicole. From what some Jehovah's Witnesses have said (and I don't know if MCB has said these kinds of things or not), I'm not sure they even subscribe to omniscience, at least not the way most Christians understand the word. Their view seems to be similar to open theism. Open theists at least claim to believe in omniscience, but in any case, there's going to be some quibbling over the meaning of words.

I think maybe a better definition of Jehovah would just be something like, "God, as he is portrayed in the Bible." After all, MCB's conception of God may differ from classical theists, and it's unlikely that he's going to want to be pigeon holed into defending any view of God other than what he can demonstrate from scripture ....

Well, MCB claims direct Holy Spirit leadings which often alter the meaning (as well as the translation) of many passages. In a bind, he'll invoke John 17: 3, ramble a bit about the "deep things of God", pray for supernatural wisdom, and claim direct, personal Holy Spirit guidance.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 11:00:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Since the user MadCornishBiker has declined to have an official debate with me on this topic, and instead wants to have a debate in the forum, I have decided to have one here. I ask MadCornishBiker to respond in a paragraph form, not writing a response after every sentence (as it will easier for the both of us to make our arguments in a neat fashion).

The topic is "Jehovah the God Does not Exist", and I will be Pro, and MadCornishBiker will be con.

The definitions go as such:
Jehovah- Used as the name of God in the Old Testament of the Bible
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

And by Jesus and the Apostles. Especially where they quoted from teh Hebrew Scriptures.

God- An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being
(I provided the definition, as in our many forum discussions, MadCornishBiker supports this notion of a God)

I am not sure whether or not I do fully support those definitions, because they ignore too many factors. personally I don't feel the need to restrict Jehovah to what single words can describe. However, this is my definition of those words according to how scripture describes Jehovah.

Omnipotent - Scripture defines God as having the power to do anything he wishes, it does not say that he will necessarily wish to use it.

Omniscient - Scripture describes Jehovah as being able to know all he wishes to know, but also shows that there are some things he does not feel the need to know.

Omni-benevolent - Scripture shows Jehovah as one who wants what is best for his creation, all of it.

It also shows that he loves all of his creation, though he does not necessarily love, or even like the things that some of his creations do or have done.

However, to my mind, his omni-benevolence, if such be the right word, is shown by scripture in that he is always ready to defend those who side with him against Satan, and that he has still, after all that has been done against him, holds out the possibility for all who choose to take the path which will lead them to benefit from his benevolence.

Since that is open to all I believe that qualifies it as omni benevolence.

That is, of course the most important part of his story. Throughout his history he has shown benevolence to all, no matter who, individuals or tribes, on the stipulation only that they are benevolent to his people.

Exist- To have actual being : to be real
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

I take it MadCornishBiker will agree to the parameters set, as they give no one any advantage, and set (what I think) a good basis for our (forum) debate. I wish MadCornishBiker the best of luck.

As long as you agree to my definition of those parameters, which is how they apply to Jehovah.

I don;t need luck, but I thank you for the wish all the same.

I have the God of the universe, and his son on my team, all you have, whether or not you realise it, is either Satan or one of his demons.

That is a fact of life, pure and simple, since as scripture tells us Satan is misleading the whole world, of which he is in fact the god. That too is an unalterable fact whether ones want to face up to it or not.

Revelation 12:9
ASV(i) 9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

That is why all followers of Christ, like myself, have to come out of the world and be no part of it.

John 15:18-20
ASV(i) 18 If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

My major premise is, and has been for some time that the accuracy of Genesis 1 shows beyond reasonable doubt that Jehovah, the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, does indeed exist and is the creator of all.

Let's look at it, with my interpolations in parentheses.

Genesis 1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(A very simple statement which shows that, even before the 6 "days" begin the suin moon stars and earth have all been created. No information is given as to how, or how long it took.)

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

(Nothing much happened yet apart from the atmosphere clearing sufficiently for light from the sun to penetrate it and reach the earth, but not sufficiently for the sun to be seen. The word "day" has many meanings, and the one which appears to fit best here is " a specified time or period : age <in grandfather's day> "often used in plural <the old days> <the days of sailing ships>" note that there is no mention of any specified length of time. definition 5 from the full definition of "day http://www.merriam-webster.com..., therefore we asre stil not given any idea of teh passage of time. Notice also that rather than a bland statement we have a description of events as if by someone on the planet surface)

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Some like to try to claim that this describes the creation of the sun and moon, but since that was already described in verse 1, and light from it reaching the earth in verse 3, that cannot be so. This leads me to suspect poor translation. and that in fact Jehovah was simply clearing the atmosphere sufficiently for them to be seen from the earth at this time. Nothing else makes sense considering what has gone before.)

17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.

(Notice particularly here that Jehovah did not create every living thing as we know them today but created them "after their kind". this leaves room for adaptation as we see evidence of and which some misinterpret as evolution. It also increases the reasonableness of Noah's Ark carrying all the basic kinds, not every single variety we know now. The same can be said, as Genesis 1 shows, for all forms of life).

25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which

To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

I also like the reasoning presented elsewhere by Iredia and which I have taken the liberty of copying below: http://www.debate.org...

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical
universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an
intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose
naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural
laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the
presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't
explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that
arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't
be explained by purely material means more so since physical things lack
consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness
exists.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 11:14:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word "day" has many meanings... note that there is no mention of any specified length of time.

Except the very definition YOU provided above from God. Duh.


And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

No mention of the other billions of galaxies out there, just stars. Why would God not mention them considering we live in one of those galaxies?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yet, another reference to the length of a day.


To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Except of course, it doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution, so it's not accurate at all.

Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

Or, the authors simply made it all up. QED.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have. Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't. Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 3:48:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have.

Where does it say they were created together?

It doesn't. It gives us no idea of how long it took from start to finish, so even if those dubious datings are correct, that does not contradict verse one in any way.

Verse one is still 100% accurate in what little information it gives us.

Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't.

No of course there couldn't, and Genesis 1 doesn't say there was. The sun and moon were created in verse one since they are part of the heavens.

Did you actually read my post, because you give the impression that you did not.

They were not created in verse 16, simply made visible from the earth, which is the viewpoint verses 2 onwards are written from. After all the light from the sun is already described as reaching the earth in verse three. Since the sun was not, at that time visible from the earth only it's light is mentioned.

No, the moon does only emit reflected light, but would that be apparent from the earth? No, from the earth it appears to glow.

The stars also would only be visible once the atmosphere had cleared enough for them to be seen.

Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

And not one of them is an error. The error is ion your thinking that is what Genesis says, because it is what you want it to say, without stopping to think what it si really telling you.

In other words you are reading into it what you ant to find there and making no attempt to reconcile it with current knowledge which is actually far too easy to do for it not to be the correct way of reading it anyway.

Once again all you have proved is that you have no intention of accepting the evidence for what it is.

The biggest clue to that is your trying to claim that Genesis 1 says things it does not. It is simply a bland statement that the job was done, nothing more.

However Genesis 1 remains accurate, but limited.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Well if you prefer to accept the words of bigoted men that is your choice, it simply makes you a bigot also.

However if you choose to accept the correct and reasonable way of reading Genesis 1 you will be forced to admit that it is strong evidence or the existence of our God and creator.

I suggest that, rather than ignoring my absolutely reasonable description of Genesis one, and simply parroting someone else's words you actually think for yourself, as I did to arrive at my understanding of it all.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 3:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 11:14:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word "day" has many meanings... note that there is no mention of any specified length of time.

Except the very definition YOU provided above from God. Duh.


And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

No mention of the other billions of galaxies out there, just stars. Why would God not mention them considering we live in one of those galaxies?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yet, another reference to the length of a day.

No, simply carrying forward the metaphor which "day" is when used in that sense,

I love the way God's word gives cowards like you an escape route, lol.



To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Except of course, it doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution, so it's not accurate at all.

What little evidence that evolutionists have, and claim for themselves actually supports that account better than their pet theory, lol.

There are far too many holes in the evolutionary theory for it ever to hold water.

Of course people who think science always gets it right don;t question it as sceptics like me have.


Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

Or, the authors simply made it all up. QED.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:07:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 3:48:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

"In the beginning" means that, when creation started, the earth and universe were created together. For it states that both were created in the beginning. You just chose to ignore this contradiction. Secondly, it says God created light, not a light source, but light. Thirdly, you attribute the creation of the sun and moon to poor translation, which is a logical fallacy, because to state the bible is the word of god and perfect, and than to state that one line was mistranslated, contradicts itself. Also, god would be an universal being. Why would he write the creation story from the point of view of earth? Also, even if he writes it from the point of view of earth, what is observed doesn't change what happens. This follows with the moon. All because the moon looks like it's glowing doesn't mean it's giving off light. The moon reflects the sun's light. This is a blatant error made in Genesis, and thus, disproves the existence of God. Your whole argument is based on ignoring or twisting scientific knowledge as well as playing a semantics game by misrepresenting what the bible says.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:59:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 3:54:02 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:14:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word "day" has many meanings... note that there is no mention of any specified length of time.

Except the very definition YOU provided above from God. Duh.


And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

No mention of the other billions of galaxies out there, just stars. Why would God not mention them considering we live in one of those galaxies?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yet, another reference to the length of a day.

No, simply carrying forward the metaphor which "day" is when used in that sense,

It's says Day and Night, which is the approximate length of a 24 hour period.

I love the way God's word gives cowards like you an escape route, lol.



To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Except of course, it doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution, so it's not accurate at all.

What little evidence that evolutionists have, and claim for themselves actually supports that account better than their pet theory, lol.

That is false.

There are far too many holes in the evolutionary theory for it ever to hold water.

Prove it.

Of course people who think science always gets it right don;t question it as sceptics like me have.

LOL. You are no skeptic.


Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

Or, the authors simply made it all up. QED.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 5:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 4:07:53 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:48:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

"In the beginning" means that, when creation started, the earth and universe were created together. For it states that both were created in the beginning. You just chose to ignore this contradiction. Secondly, it says God created light, not a light source, but light. Thirdly, you attribute the creation of the sun and moon to poor translation, which is a logical fallacy, because to state the bible is the word of god and perfect, and than to state that one line was mistranslated, contradicts itself. Also, god would be an universal being. Why would he write the creation story from the point of view of earth? Also, even if he writes it from the point of view of earth, what is observed doesn't change what happens. This follows with the moon. All because the moon looks like it's glowing doesn't mean it's giving off light. The moon reflects the sun's light. This is a blatant error made in Genesis, and thus, disproves the existence of God. Your whole argument is based on ignoring or twisting scientific knowledge as well as playing a semantics game by misrepresenting what the bible says.

But it still doesn't say how long that beginning took to accomplish.

That's just you looking for things that aren't there as excuses for denying the truth.

The reason for writing that part of the account, from verse 2 on, from the viewpoint of someone on the earth is that this is exactly the perspective of the readers the readers so they can relate to it.

Read the account properly, it is obviously written from that perspective.

Why else, when the sunlight is allowed through the dust to the earth is the source of it not mentioned?

Because they could not see the sun from there.

In fact if they were not on or close to the surface of the planet, they would not, be able to see the things that are described, like the seas being gathered into one place leaving the land standing clear of it.

Was is verse one such a terse description of something which, as you say took an awfully long time to complete?

Would anyone on the earth, with no more idea of the universe than what they could see from there understand if more was said?
Of course not.

Would relative simple people be able to get their heads around the idea of millions of years?

Even today people cannot get their minds around the fact that to Jehovah 1750 years is about the same as 1.75 days is to us.

I can assure you that thinking about millions of years backwards is hard enough, try imagining millions of years in the future?

That is what all true followers have to learn to do, and it isn't easy.

No, the reason all the universe stuff is in one verse is not just to save space, though that has to be part of it, but because it would be beyond the understanding of men for millennia to come. It's all so obvious really, but people like you do all you can to avoid it, assuming of course that you are actually capable of careful thought and studying things from all angles. not just the one you want to find.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 5:28:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 4:59:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:54:02 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:14:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word "day" has many meanings... note that there is no mention of any specified length of time.

Except the very definition YOU provided above from God. Duh.


And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

No mention of the other billions of galaxies out there, just stars. Why would God not mention them considering we live in one of those galaxies?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yet, another reference to the length of a day.

No, simply carrying forward the metaphor which "day" is when used in that sense,

It's says Day and Night, which is the approximate length of a 24 hour period.

I love the way God's word gives cowards like you an escape route, lol.



To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Except of course, it doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution, so it's not accurate at all.

What little evidence that evolutionists have, and claim for themselves actually supports that account better than their pet theory, lol.

That is false.

There are far too many holes in the evolutionary theory for it ever to hold water.

Prove it.

Of course people who think science always gets it right don;t question it as sceptics like me have.

LOL. You are no skeptic.


Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

Or, the authors simply made it all up. QED.

Yes, though it means Quite Erroneous Disinformation in your case.

No, it is far too close to reality for that, you only have to read all the other creation stories, which truly are myths, to see what men came up with.

Genesis 1 has God's personality all over it, not the fanciful imaginings of men.

Jehovah is, as always practical, telling us what we need to know, and very little more than that.

He knew the time would come when we had science capable of verifying it, which it does indeed do.

he also knew that the time would come when people, frightened stiff of the idea of a much higher and more intelligent power would try to wriggle out of accepting it, and left just enough room for you to do so.

After all he is only looking for people capable of, and willing to see things his way. Especially the "willing to" since he helps us with the "capable of", if we are willing.

In fact he did something very like that once before.

Judges 7:2-5
ASV(i) 2 And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me. 3 Now therefore proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand. 4 And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go. 5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and Jehovah said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

Jehovah has his ways of clearing out the dead wood.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:17:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:53 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:48:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:


First of all, the beginning always refers to the start. Point 0, start of creation, start of an event. And in the bible, the creation of the earth AND universe was at the beginning. There's no way to get around this fact. Also, you're argument is filled with ad homenim attacks, which I hope you know, is a logical fallacy. Back to the point. Beginning means beginning. period. No way around that. Also, if it's written from an earthly point of view, how can it describe the formation of the earth? The only way to describe the formation of the earth is from an universal perspective.

Another point I would like to bring up is the story of Adam and Eve. Since we humans evolved from apes, how could god have placed human beings directly on earth? Also, before you ask for the evidence for evolution, please know I can and will provide if you so desire.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:28:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:59:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:54:02 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:14:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word "day" has many meanings... note that there is no mention of any specified length of time.

Except the very definition YOU provided above from God. Duh.


And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

No mention of the other billions of galaxies out there, just stars. Why would God not mention them considering we live in one of those galaxies?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yet, another reference to the length of a day.

No, simply carrying forward the metaphor which "day" is when used in that sense,

It's says Day and Night, which is the approximate length of a 24 hour period.

I love the way God's word gives cowards like you an escape route, lol.



To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Except of course, it doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution, so it's not accurate at all.

What little evidence that evolutionists have, and claim for themselves actually supports that account better than their pet theory, lol.

That is false.

There are far too many holes in the evolutionary theory for it ever to hold water.

Prove it.

Of course people who think science always gets it right don;t question it as sceptics like me have.

LOL. You are no skeptic.


Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

Or, the authors simply made it all up. QED.

Yes, though it means Quite Erroneous Disinformation in your case.

No, it is far too close to reality for that, you only have to read all the other creation stories, which truly are myths, to see what men came up with.

Genesis 1 has God's personality all over it, not the fanciful imaginings of men.

Jehovah is, as always practical, telling us what we need to know, and very little more than that.

He knew the time would come when we had science capable of verifying it, which it does indeed do.

he also knew that the time would come when people, frightened stiff of the idea of a much higher and more intelligent power would try to wriggle out of accepting it, and left just enough room for you to do so.

After all he is only looking for people capable of, and willing to see things his way. Especially the "willing to" since he helps us with the "capable of", if we are willing.

In fact he did something very like that once before.

Judges 7:2-5
ASV(i) 2 And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me. 3 Now therefore proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand. 4 And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go. 5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and Jehovah said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

Jehovah has his ways of clearing out the dead wood.

Hilarious how you just pile one load of bs on top of another. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 7:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Since the user MadCornishBiker has declined to have an official debate with me on this topic, and instead wants to have a debate in the forum, I have decided to have one here. I ask MadCornishBiker to respond in a paragraph form, not writing a response after every sentence (as it will easier for the both of us to make our arguments in a neat fashion).

The topic is "Jehovah the God Does not Exist", and I will be Pro, and MadCornishBiker will be con.

The definitions go as such:
Jehovah- Used as the name of God in the Old Testament of the Bible
http://www.merriam-webster.com......
God- An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being
(I provided the definition, as in our many forum discussions, MadCornishBiker supports this notion of a God)
Exist- To have actual being : to be real
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

I take it MadCornishBiker will agree to the parameters set, as they give no one any advantage, and set (what I think) a good basis for our (forum) debate. I wish MadCornishBiker the best of luck.

There is no debate about who God is--Every scholar on earth both Israelite and Christian kniow 100% for sure--from Moses on up until today the Israelites taught and serve--YHVH(Jehovah) a single being God---
100% fact--A single being God named YHVH( Jehovah) was taught to Jesus his first 30 years attending the places of worship. Every scholar on earth knows it is truth. Yet continue to be paid by trinity based religions and lie and say a trinity god exists. Theyu tell everyone that Moses who wrote the word Elohim in Genesis used it as--gods--but he did not--he used it as majestic( plural) in comparison to a mortal king--Jehovah was king in the ot--he appointed Jesus king for 1000 years( Daniel 7:13-15) --if Jesus were God he already would be king. And when Jesus hands back the kingdom to his God and Father he will subject himself----forever1Cor 15:24-28

There is no trinity god in existence.
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 7:16:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have. Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't. Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Prove its 13 billion years old--oh you cant, neither can any scientist.
God used precision science and math to create---mans use of science is flawed to the core--they have polluted Gods air, Land and water--they have made a huge hole in the ozone layer which is wreaking havoc weather all over the earth--and its to these you place your faith---please.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 7:48:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 7:16:17 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have. Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't. Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...


Prove its 13 billion years old--oh you cant, neither can any scientist.
God used precision science and math to create---mans use of science is flawed to the core--they have polluted Gods air, Land and water--they have made a huge hole in the ozone layer which is wreaking havoc weather all over the earth--and its to these you place your faith---please.

I recommend you check out this article: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org...

If scientists had no way to tell, they wouldn't have coined the age in the first place.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 2:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 7:48:38 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 7:16:17 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have. Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't. Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...


Prove its 13 billion years old--oh you cant, neither can any scientist.
God used precision science and math to create---mans use of science is flawed to the core--they have polluted Gods air, Land and water--they have made a huge hole in the ozone layer which is wreaking havoc weather all over the earth--and its to these you place your faith---please.

I recommend you check out this article: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org...

If scientists had no way to tell, they wouldn't have coined the age in the first place.

They have a way, but not a reliably accurate way. Their methods ignore too many possible variables which may or may not have effected their results, but which they have no way of knowing about. Which is, of course, why they ignore them.

Very much a case of "if we don't know about it, it doesn't exist". Bad science.

These articles are all very well, but we have no way of verifying the accuracy of them, You are putting your trust in humans when the only truly reliable "witnesses" are Jehovah himself, his son, and the faithful angels.

Rather like how they messed up when supposedly monitoring the Ozone layer hole over Australia, for growth. They ignored a very relevant factor, in this case cumulative effect.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 2:20:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 6:50:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 5:28:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:59:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:54:02 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:14:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word "day" has many meanings... note that there is no mention of any specified length of time.

Except the very definition YOU provided above from God. Duh.


And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

No mention of the other billions of galaxies out there, just stars. Why would God not mention them considering we live in one of those galaxies?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yet, another reference to the length of a day.

No, simply carrying forward the metaphor which "day" is when used in that sense,

It's says Day and Night, which is the approximate length of a 24 hour period.

I love the way God's word gives cowards like you an escape route, lol.



To me, that is a 100% accurate description, to the extent it reveals any details at all, of the preparation of the earth for life, and the placing of life on it.

Except of course, it doesn't take into account the evidence for evolution, so it's not accurate at all.

What little evidence that evolutionists have, and claim for themselves actually supports that account better than their pet theory, lol.

That is false.

There are far too many holes in the evolutionary theory for it ever to hold water.

Prove it.

Of course people who think science always gets it right don;t question it as sceptics like me have.

LOL. You are no skeptic.


Not only that it rpesents information which no human being could have known at the time of writing, nor for millennia afterwards, in fact not until much closer to the rpesent day.

That means Jehovah exists, QED.

Or, the authors simply made it all up. QED.

Yes, though it means Quite Erroneous Disinformation in your case.

No, it is far too close to reality for that, you only have to read all the other creation stories, which truly are myths, to see what men came up with.

Genesis 1 has God's personality all over it, not the fanciful imaginings of men.

Jehovah is, as always practical, telling us what we need to know, and very little more than that.

He knew the time would come when we had science capable of verifying it, which it does indeed do.

he also knew that the time would come when people, frightened stiff of the idea of a much higher and more intelligent power would try to wriggle out of accepting it, and left just enough room for you to do so.

After all he is only looking for people capable of, and willing to see things his way. Especially the "willing to" since he helps us with the "capable of", if we are willing.

In fact he did something very like that once before.

Judges 7:2-5
ASV(i) 2 And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me. 3 Now therefore proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand. 4 And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go. 5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and Jehovah said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

Jehovah has his ways of clearing out the dead wood.

Hilarious how you just pile one load of bs on top of another. LOL.

Nope dangermouse, one lot of fact on top of another.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 2:38:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 6:45:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 5:17:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:53 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:48:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:



First of all, the beginning always refers to the start. Point 0, start of creation, start of an event. And in the bible, the creation of the earth AND universe was at the beginning. There's no way to get around this fact. Also, you're argument is filled with ad homenim attacks, which I hope you know, is a logical fallacy. Back to the point. Beginning means beginning. period. No way around that. Also, if it's written from an earthly point of view, how can it describe the formation of the earth? The only way to describe the formation of the earth is from an universal perspective.

No, it doesn't, it has no relevance to time at all, only to order, especially in this context.

Scripture is simply saying that those are the actions which formed our environment.

One thing that is being clearly revealed is that you are desperate to find a way not to believe it.

Your choice, but what are you so afraid of?


Another point I would like to bring up is the story of Adam and Eve. Since we humans evolved from apes, how could god have placed human beings directly on earth? Also, before you ask for the evidence for evolution, please know I can and will provide if you so desire.

But did we evolve from apes?

That is the theory, true, but there is no demonstrable evidence of that.

Even DNA is no proof since it cannot deny the probability that Jehovah simply altered the DNA as much as needed to produce the differences and left it at that. That is why tehre is so mcuh commonality throughout creation, within certain groups.

For instance a dog's skeleton contains almost exactly the same components as a human skeleton, with only the dimensions altered.

Even fish has a skeleton which is basically the same, which runs through all vertebrates with only the proportions altered.

Just to speak of the hind leg, a dog has toes and a ball of the foot similar to ours, except they walk on that.

They have a heel, a knee and a hip joint, all of which bend in the same direction as ours and are similar to ours, except that in proportion to their size their thigh is very much shorter, as is their lower leg, however the distance from heel to toe is much greater. In fact all three are roughly the same length.

That is the way of any good designer. If it works, stick with it.

Don;t forget we share approximately 50% of our DNA with bananas, did we evolve from them also?

Sorry, the theory of evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved, and never will. It has far too many holes, and microbiology discovers new holes in the theory almost daily, and has never explained the existing ones, as revealed by the Intelligent Design research.

People who believe in the theory of evolution are simply putting their faith in people they do not know, and whose honesty and integrity they have absolutely no knowledge of.

Only God can be truly trusted, because if he says a thing it will be so, and he has the power to ensure that it is.

Christ believed in Adam and Eve, but then as God's son he was there at the time. That's good enough for me.

People forget that in God's son incarnate, we had a witness on earth who had seen it all and been involved in most of it.

As Jesus said, people tend to look, but not see, listen but not hear, under Satan's influence.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 7:03:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 2:38:08 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
But did we evolve from apes?

That is the theory, true, but there is no demonstrable evidence of that.

Demonstrating his pig ignorance and then declares how wrong he is.
What an oxygen thief.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 9:23:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 2:38:08 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Even DNA is no proof since it cannot deny the probability that Jehovah simply altered the DNA as much as needed to produce the differences and left it at that. That is why tehre is so mcuh commonality throughout creation, within certain groups.

Once again, MCB has to make up lies in order to defend his beliefs.

Sorry, the theory of evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved, and never will. It has far too many holes, and microbiology discovers new holes in the theory almost daily, and has never explained the existing ones, as revealed by the Intelligent Design research.

MCB has never taken the time to understand evolution, hence he has to lie again in order to defend his beliefs.

People who believe in the theory of evolution are simply putting their faith in people they do not know, and whose honesty and integrity they have absolutely no knowledge of.

MCB does not understand the concept of going to school and learning things.

That's good enough for me.

MCB admits he has no use for understanding and knowledge.


As Jesus said, people tend to look, but not see, listen but not hear, under Satan's influence.

Let's not forget MCB has boogeymen living under his bed that scares the bejeezus out of him.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 1:20:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 2:38:08 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:45:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 5:17:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:53 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 3:48:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:


In your first rebuttal, you claim that "the beginning" has no relevance to time at all. Here, you are making claims about scripture with nothing to back it up. Whereas I, on the other hand, am taking scripture word by word and am forming the argument from there. You will most likely claim that the true way to interpret scripture is your way, which is the "true Scotsman" logical fallacy. I recommend you look it up.

You claim there is no evidence for evolution. On the contrary, there is ample of evidence. Here are links that you should read through. If you claim that these evidence are just coincidences, than I can claim that the bible isn't the word of god, and the very little things it gets right or sheer coincidences (in which it gets many things wrong).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://necsi.edu...
http://www.bozemanscience.com...
To deny the evidence would be sheer ignorance. Which is a shame too, for I know many Christians who believe in evolution (and if you claim that they aren't "true Christians", you would again be committing the true Scotsman fallacy).

Also, here's a simple claim I can make; I know Jehovah the God doesn't exist, because The Flying Spaghetti Monster(TFSM) tells me Jehovah doesn't exist. You see, I have personal, special connection with TFSM, and I know that you're god, Jehovah, is actually the works of the devil, because TFSM tells me so. Also, my holy book, The Book of Science, seems to be right a lot of the time. And if it's wrong, it magically changes itself to make itself right again! If that's not a miracle, I don't know what is!
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 2:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 7:48:38 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 7:16:17 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have. Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't. Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...


Prove its 13 billion years old--oh you cant, neither can any scientist.
God used precision science and math to create---mans use of science is flawed to the core--they have polluted Gods air, Land and water--they have made a huge hole in the ozone layer which is wreaking havoc weather all over the earth--and its to these you place your faith---please.

I recommend you check out this article: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org...

If scientists had no way to tell, they wouldn't have coined the age in the first place.

I will believe God.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 2:21:05 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 7:48:38 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 7:16:17 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:21:26 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 11:00:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:20:12 PM, Pase66 wrote:

Now, the Book of Genesis contains many SCIENTIFIC fallacies. The first one occurs in the first sentence itself: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Now, using science, we know that the universe (which I presume to mean heavens) is 13.7 billion years old, while earth is just 4.6 billion years old. If there is a 9.1 billion years gap in between when the two were formed, how could they have been created together? They couldn't have. Now, a second error I will point to is when God said, "Let there be light". After he made light, he created grass, trees, and the such. But after he created the grass and tree's, he created "two lights" one "greater" and one "lesser light" (the sun and the moon). Other than the fact that the moon doesn't produce any light, but merely reflects the light from the sun, God created the "greater" light AFTER he created the grass and trees. But, we know that the sun (it's light) is needed for grass and trees to exist. Yes, he created light before, but how can there be light on earth if there is no sun? Distant stars can't shine their light powerfully enough to give birth to grass and trees. So, how could there be light on earth if there is no sun? There can't. Now, these are just two (three if you count the sun and moon error) in the book of genesis. If god wrote this book, it would have to coincide perfectly with what science says (for science is the tool for explaining how the universe works). But it doesn't. Since you stated that since genesis is perfect, god exists. But I showed that genesis contains fallacies, and is thus not perfect, and thus, god does not exist.

Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...


Prove its 13 billion years old--oh you cant, neither can any scientist.
God used precision science and math to create---mans use of science is flawed to the core--they have polluted Gods air, Land and water--they have made a huge hole in the ozone layer which is wreaking havoc weather all over the earth--and its to these you place your faith---please.

I recommend you check out this article: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org...

If scientists had no way to tell, they wouldn't have coined the age in the first place.


I will believe God.

Well, what if God is the one who started and guided evolution?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...