Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

Are the laws ineffective, worldwide?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

Are the laws ineffective, worldwide?

First you have to have a creation. Is the Big Bang the creation? Scientists have stated that the Big Bang doesn't need a creator. I read the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and they cover the point about the Big Bang does not needing a creator. So, what other creation would need a creator? Evolution?

a creator can exist and the bible can still be fiction

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

Are the laws ineffective, worldwide? No it's just impossible that there's nothing above the creator or that the creator isn't surpassed by something. The idea of omnipotence is true about nature, but as an asymptotic terminal point in a positive or negative correlated graphical hierarchy of intelligent life/dimensional complexity.

Originally posted by Oneness
The idea of omnipotence is true about nature, but as an asymptotic terminal point in a positive or negative correlated graphical hierarchy of intelligent life/dimensional complexity. **** does that mean?

Originally posted by red g jacks
**** does that mean?

I don't think you would want to know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First you have to have a creation. Is the Big Bang the creation? Scientists have stated that the Big Bang doesn't need a creator. I read the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and they cover the point about the Big Bang does not needing a creator. So, what other creation would need a creator? Evolution?

How can a scientist say what does, and doesn't need A Creator? Have either of the authors you mentioned ever created anything in their lives?

Evolution is more like the product of denial with the purpose to satisfy materialistic persons. Men didn't even create the organisms they research to come up with that nonsense, therefore evolution isn't worthy of being classified with creation.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
How can a scientist say what does, and doesn't need A Creator? Have either of the authors you mentioned ever created anything in their lives?

Evolution is more like the product of denial with the purpose to satisfy materialistic persons. Men didn't even create the organisms they research to come up with that nonsense, therefore evolution isn't worthy of being classified with creation.

Well you would have to read the book. Also, I don't think evolution qualifies as a creation. But it is in not way a denial of anything.

I'm asking for you to give me a creation. To be honest, I don't believe in a creation. Therefore there cannot be a creator if there is not creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well you would have to read the book. Also, I don't think evolution qualifies as a creation. But it is in not way a denial of anything.

I'm asking for you to give me a creation. To be honest, I don't believe in a creation. Therefore there cannot be a creator if there is not creation.

...Neither of the authors have created anything, so there's no need to waste time reading about their speculation. Evolution definitely doesn't qualify for creation, I agree with you. However, evolution is a theory that steers away from animals and humans being created separately (denial), and instead lumps them together with the goal to justify claims of origin by mere similarities.

I can't give you a creation. Why don't you believe in a creation? Are you yourself not a creation? What about your flesh, blood, muscle, bone...were organic materials not created?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
...Neither of the authors have created anything, so there's no need to waste time reading about their speculation. Evolution definitely doesn't qualify for creation, I agree with you. However, evolution is a theory that steers away from animals and humans being created separately (denial), and instead lumps them together with the goal to justify claims of origin by mere similarities.

I can't give you a creation. Why don't you believe in a creation? Are you yourself not a creation? What about your flesh, blood, muscle, bone...were organic materials not created?

Rather someone has or has not created anything is irrelevant. It leads to an ambiguous conclusion. It may or may not be possible to create.

Humans are animals. To say that they are not is denial. But again this is irrelevant to the topic.

I was created by my parents, but I know you are not talking about that kind of creation. You are talking about creating something from nothing. I personally believe that nothing can never exist for something to come from. Therefore, the universe is eternal. It simply changes over time, like the big bang. That is why I do not believe in a creation.

Irrelevant to who? The Bible says that a sentient intelligence identified / accepted to be God made the heavens and the earth. So, I must ask about this presumed conclusion. Would it be selective, ambiguous, or a logical and sound conclusion? If it's not God....surely we would keep going with...a no limits fallacy? Where does it stop?

Humans are like animals, being material beings. Again, irrelevant to who though? The Bible says animals came first, then man. So how do we have a common ancestor, to have evolved from? Which one is fiction, The Bible or Evolution? I guess biologists want the building blocks, to make plants and animals artificially or something.

You were produced by your parents because even they aren't capable of creation. To say your parents didn't produce you is denial. It's relevant, because it correlates with events spoken of in that book.

If I'm not mistaken, there are some physicists that believe in "nothing," and speculate that it's unstable, always able to make "something" in regards to the universe's origins. How come "nothing" can be defined, or speculated about, if it doesn't exist? How can't you believe in something that is a recognizable value? Is it because it's invisible to you?

So what's not factual about the Bible?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
So what's not factual about the Bible?

Well the bible is a mix of many books. Most of them are fictional stories, but there are books that talk about factual things, like how the Jewish people worshiped.

The creation story is just a story. We know that the Earth is much older then 6,000 years, and there in no way the human race could have come from two people. Adam and Eve's children would have had to merry each other, and that inbreeding would have killed all humans long ago.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well the bible is a mix of many books. Most of them are fictional stories, but there are books that talk about factual things, like how the Jewish people worshiped.

The creation story is just a story. We know that the Earth is much older then 6,000 years, and there in no way the human race could have come from two people. Adam and Eve's children would have had to merry each other, and that inbreeding would have killed all humans long ago.

Really? What books did the Bible take from?

How can we be so sure the Earth is much older than 6,000 years? Is it because of geologists looking at rocks, studying their formations and compositions and how elements are able to effect them over time? Fossil evidence? Carbon dating?

Just wondering...because the book says there is a being that can make heavens, and the earth in 7 days. I don't see why he couldn't make mountains and canyons any less astonishing as to baffle those who wonder about their origins.

Humans starting from 2 people is an interpretation. Regardless, if the Earth is older than 6,000 years....how long did it take humans to recognize each other as "equals?" Like...how come at one time, we apparently evolved from a common ancestor and were friends. A few thousand years later, we forgot? Had to re-establish it?

When we came from this common ancestor, were we adults or infants?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
So what's not factual about the Bible? I don't think you understand how "burden of proof" works.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is it literally, by calculation, logic, or rationale, impossible for A Creator to exist?

{edit}

nah. Not worth it. You're literally espousing young earth creationism, yes? That's too steep a hill for me to climb right now. Insofar as this thread goes, though, I cosign Neme and Shakya's comments so far.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I don't think you understand how "burden of proof" works.

You want a scan of The Creator? Or do you accept the creation around you?

Existence of the universe does not prove that there is a creator, in particular since there are many other, and some more plausible, explanations put forth as well.

Originally posted by red g jacks
a creator can exist and the bible can still be fiction

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Evolution is more like the product of denial with the purpose to satisfy materialistic persons. Men didn't even create the organisms they research to come up with that nonsense, therefore evolution isn't worthy of being classified with creation.

Evolution theory seems plausible because there is thought and work behind it.

Creation consist of nothing more than belief without proof. ie "The Universe exist, therefore a creator had to have created it."

They're also not really opposed. One can both have creation and evolution theory.

Originally posted by Robtard
They're also not really opposed. One can both have creation and evolution theory.

Which is something most christian religions preach anyways.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
You want a scan of The Creator? Yes.

Although I don't have the capability to provide that, no other mortal does either. At the same time, it says that it's not time to see him yet in this supposedly fictional book.

Wow, a Creator that literally can't be mocked in any way. Is that a way to accept him? Do you think people would use photoshop on his images to disgrace someone that powerful if I posted for access?

Originally posted by Robtard
Evolution theory seems plausible because there is thought and work behind it.

Creation consist of nothing more than belief without proof. ie "The Universe exist, therefore a creator had to have created it."

They're also not really opposed. One can both have creation and evolution theory.

Thought and work? More thought and work than engineering light, matter, stars, and galaxies? And other cool stuff?

I disagree. I haven't seen a human capable of creation to this day, they can't even create other humans.

According to this fictional book...men did not physiologically evolve...or...mutate...from animals. Although taking the book as fictional in worst case scenario, you could say a creator was responsible for this...evolution. Then you'd have to make your own story to support it, using things already of existence.

Originally posted by Digi
{edit}

nah. Not worth it. You're literally espousing young earth creationism, yes? That's too steep a hill for me to climb right now. Insofar as this thread goes, though, I cosign Neme and Shakya's comments so far.

I would just like to know what people feel is fictional about the bible, that's all. Any doubts that are like....seriously powerful enough to deny a Creator, from inside of creation.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Although I don't have the capability to provide that, no other mortal does either. At the same time, it says that it's not time to see him yet in this supposedly fictional book.

Wow, a Creator that literally can't be mocked in any way. Is that a way to accept him? Do you think people would use photoshop on his images to disgrace someone that powerful if I posted for access?

Why would a God care about being mocked or not? I would think a God that created everything would be above having his feeling hurt, or getting mad.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Although I don't have the capability to provide that, no other mortal does either. I accept your concession.

Conclusion: God probably doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I would just like to know what people feel is fictional about the bible, that's all. Any doubts that are like....seriously powerful enough to deny a Creator, from inside of creation.

And we have told you.

I don't see a creation in the sense of something from nothing. If there is no creation, then how can there be a creator?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Thought and work? More thought and work than engineering light, matter, stars, and galaxies? And other cool stuff?

I disagree. I haven't seen a human capable of creation to this day, they can't even create other humans.

According to this fictional book...men did not physiologically evolve...or...mutate...from animals. Although taking the book as fictional in worst case scenario, you could say a creator was responsible for this...evolution. Then you'd have to make your own story to support it, using things already of existence.

Well, we know humans have worked on Evolution theory. Which was the point.

Odd. Very odd statement.

Not sure what you're going on about. But Evolution theory and Creation can exist together, you don't have to be: "it has to be one or the other". Which was my point.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I accept your concession.

Conclusion: God probably doesn't exist.

I never conceded to anything.

Why are you so unsure? Probably...yes or no?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I never conceded to anything.

Why are you so unsure? Probably...yes or no? No, you have.

Because I'm not an idiot and as such don't make empirical statements on whether or not something that has yet to be proven or disproven exists or not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And we have told you.

I don't see a creation in the sense of something from nothing. If there is no creation, then how can there be a creator?

What you are asking makes no sense. How can there be no creation? To have existence without creation sounds like a very complicated fantasy.

Originally posted by NemeBro
No, you have.

Because I'm not an idiot and as such don't make empirical statements on whether or not something that has yet to be proven or disproven exists or not.

You're an idiot if you can't see that you're a creation...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First you have to have a creation. Is the Big Bang the creation? Scientists have stated that the Big Bang doesn't need a creator. I read the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and they cover the point about the Big Bang does not needing a creator. So, what other creation would need a creator? Evolution? creation does not a creator... so all of a sudden something just exploded for no reason ???

Originally posted by Jynocidus
What you are asking makes no sense. How can there be no creation? To have existence without creation sounds like a very complicated fantasy.

Looking around us only proves that there is something that exists. It doesn't prove that it had a creation. The energy that makes up all of the universe cannot be created of destroyed only changed.

Please provide proof of a creation.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
You're an idiot if you can't see that you're a creation... You seem upset.

It's okay, most people who have their first debate with me are like that the first time.

This might help.

http://cdn-4.hemorrhoidinformationcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/preparation-information-H.I.C.jpg

Originally posted by Shabazz916
creation does not a creator... so all of a sudden something just exploded for no reason ???

Are you talking about the Big Bang? It is debatable rather or not the Big Bang was a creation. It could have just been a change. I think that it was more likely a change.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you talking about the Big Bang? It is debatable rather or not the Big Bang was a creation. It could have just been a change. I think that it was more likely a change. its a debate... but before we could debate it it was written

Originally posted by Shabazz916
its a debate... but before we could debate it it was written

What was written?

Originally posted by NemeBro
You seem upset.

It's okay, most people who have their first debate with me are like that the first time.

This might help.

http://cdn-4.hemorrhoidinformationcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/preparation-information-H.I.C.jpg

I didn't know we were debating. All you did was successfully drag me off topic. So let me present you with the question again.

What exactly is so fictional about the bible? What's so special about any doubt you may have, that should sway people that this story (never happened / is over and should only be used for such and such / completely disregarded / written off / etc) ?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I didn't know we were debating. All you did was successfully drag me off topic. So let me present you with the question again.

What exactly is so fictional about the bible? What's so special about any doubt you may have, that should sway people that this story (never happened / is over and should only be used for such and such ) ?

Where do you get the idea that he has doubt. I can't speak for NemeBro, but I have no doubt. I know the bible is a collection of fictional stories mixed with governmental documents that describe how the Hebrews lived and worshiped.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Where do you get the idea that he has doubt. I can't speak for NemeBro, but I have no doubt. I know the bible is a collection of fictional stories mixed with governmental documents that describe how the Hebrews lived and worshiped. what if its fictional that implies its lies.... point out a lie

Originally posted by Shabazz916
what if its fictional that implies its lies.... point out a lie

Is Star Wars a lie?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is Star Wars a lie? we know star wars is a lie

Originally posted by Shabazz916
we know star wars is a lie

No! It is inappropriate to call a work of fiction a lie.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Where do you get the idea that he has doubt. I can't speak for NemeBro, but I have no doubt. I know the bible is a collection of fictional stories mixed with governmental documents that describe how the Hebrews lived and worshiped.

Well, the compilation that I have access to says somewhere to let it be true, and let every man be a liar...

Do you take everything the government says to be absolute, or a book that's been around for ages? There's other people besides Hebrews portrayed in the book also.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Right and that is not a lie. To lie is too decisive, and a work of fiction does not try to decisive. If someone were to go around and say that Star Wars was the truth, then they would be lying. with information or events that are not real... ok dnt call it a lie.. but it is not real

Originally posted by Shabazz916
with information or events that are not real... ok dnt call it a lie.. but it is not real

The bible is a book of stories mixed with some Hebrew governmental documents. The bible is too complicated to sum up in one word.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is a book of stories mixed with some Hebrew governmental documents. The bible is too complicated to sum up in one word.

the bible is a book of happening, things to come, things to live by, examples

Originally posted by Jynocidus
My statement should make sense. In the Bible it says to let it be true, and every man a liar. Perhaps when I said compilation you got confused. Sometimes I wonder if there's more to the book somewhere...
The bible is wrong. Also, to try and prove the bible true by using the bible as evidence is circular logic, and that proves nothing.
Originally posted by Jynocidus
Hopefully with that cleared up, my question still stands.
Do you take everything the government says to be absolute, or a book that's been around for ages? There's other people besides Hebrews portrayed in the book also.
Your question is irrelevant. The diversity of the bible only proves its diversity.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I didn't know we were debating. All you did was successfully drag me off topic. So let me present you with the question again.

What exactly is so fictional about the bible? What's so special about any doubt you may have, that should sway people that this story (never happened / is over and should only be used for such and such / completely disregarded / written off / etc) ? I am not a Biblical scholar, so it's hard for me to point out what is and is not fictional within.

I can however say that all evidence dictates that the Earth took far longer than six days to create, for example, so that story is probably fictional.

Nothing is special about it. If you choose to believe that the universe was "created", be it by God or not, hey man that's good for you. Just don't expect everyone to buy what you're selling.

Also, is English your first language? Your posts are irritating to read.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
the bible is a book of happening, things to come, things to live by, examples

The bible maybe a book of things to live by, but it is not a book of things to come.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible maybe a book of things to live by, but it is not a book of things to come. it is... it states things that have happened and will happen if you do not believe

Originally posted by Shabazz916
it is... it states things that have happened and will happen if you do not believe

No, all of the prophesies in the bible can be explained through postdiction.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I am not a Biblical scholar, so it's hard for me to point out what is and is not fictional within.

I can however say that all evidence dictates that the Earth took far longer than six days to create, for example, so that story is probably fictional.

Nothing is special about it. If you choose to believe that the universe was "created", be it by God or not, hey man that's good for you. Just don't expect everyone to buy what you're selling.

Also, is English your first language? Your posts are irritating to read.

Obvious.

I disagree. I'm not impressed by what I've seen. I won't waste an argument on you, though.

Nothing is special about it. People wonder what nothing is, did you know that? Nothing isn't a creation, though? Only to a creator, but...one day you'll see.

You are no longer needed here. Go "troll" elsewhere

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, all of the prophesies in the bible can be explained through postdiction. oh so explaining things that already happened lol... thats silly

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Obvious.

I disagree. I'm not impressed by what I've seen. I won't waste an argument on you, though.

Nothing is special about it. People wonder what nothing is, did you know that? Nothing isn't a creation, though? Only to a creator, but...one day you'll see.

You are no longer needed here. Go "troll" elsewhere

So, you believe that God is nothing?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
oh so explaining things that already happened lol... thats silly

Do you know what postdiction is. Please look it up.

disprove something or be quiet about it.. its as simple as that...or science says nothing.. because its a opinion we can not prove

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know what postdiction is. Please look it up. i did bible predicted stuff thousands of years ago

Originally posted by Shabazz916
disprove something or be quiet about it.. its as simple as that...or science says nothing.. because its a opinion we can not prove

I'm sorry, are you saying the scientific method can't prove things?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
i did bible predicted stuff thousands of years ago

Name some please.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sorry, are you saying the scientific method can't prove things? science proves lil things.. but proving and observing are two different things

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you believe that God is nothing?

Of course not. That is foolish. It's probably hard to accept but The Creator is beyond definition and questioning, IMO

Originally posted by Shabazz916
disprove something or be quiet about it..

Disprove what? The bible? Okay one part first. Adam and Eve. Two things about the story of Adam and Eve that make it fiction and not fact are:

1. The human race could not have come from just two people. Their children would have had to merry each other, and inbreeding would have killed off the human race long ago.

2. Snake do not talk. The talking snake is a personification, and that proves the story as fiction and not real.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
its as simple as that...or science says nothing.. because its a opinion we can not prove

Why do you try to bring science into this? It is funny, like if I tryed to bring tables into the conversation.

Well, table don't say anything... so there...

Originally posted by Shabazz916
i did bible predicted stuff thousands of years ago

It didn't.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Of course not. That is foolish. It's probably hard to accept but The Creator is beyond definition and questioning, IMO

Then why do you try to define a creator?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Disprove what? The bible? Okay one part first. Adam and Eve. Two things about the story of Adam and Eve that make it fiction and not fact are:

1. The human race could not have come from just two people. Their children would have had to merry each other, and inbreeding would have killed off the human race long ago.

2. Snake do not talk. The talking snake is a personification, and that proves the story as fiction and not real.



how else would things start... adam and eve were not family they were the starting point...

the snake was the devil

I don't, I just accept him. Other people go out of their way to make people think otherwise, I see. I don't see why people go out of their way personally

Originally posted by Shabazz916
how else would things start... adam and eve were not family they were the starting point...

the snake was the devil

I don't know how things got started, and nether do you.

The devil is just mythology.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know how things got started, and nether do you.

The devil is just mythology.


I heard in the beginning there was a word or something. You know what I'm talking about?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I don't, I just accept him. Other people go out of their way to make people think otherwise, I see. I don't see why people go out of their way personally

The only person going out of their way to make people think something is you. You started the thread. I just answered your question.

Believe as you wish, but if you ask other people how they believe, don't try to blame them for the question.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I heard in the beginning there was a word or something. You know what I'm talking about?

Bu the bible is just a book written by humans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know how things got started, and nether do you.

The devil is just mythology.

the bible tell's us how things started but if you dnt wanna believe it.. there a place for you to go when you die... then you will feel that mythology

Originally posted by Shabazz916
the bible tell's us how things started but if you dnt wanna believe it.. there a place for you to go when you die... then you will feel that mythology

Why should I believe the bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The only person going out of their way to make people think something is you. You started the thread. I just answered your question.

Believe as you wish, but if you ask other people how they believe, don't try to blame them for the question.

I'm not going out of my way trying to make others think anything. I am curious as to what is so fictional about the bible. Is there a problem with that? Should I not make threads, or ask questions significant to something that effects people in the world I live in?

I'm not blaming people, I want to know if there is any documents in existence that makes the bible nothing more than a story.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why should I believe the bible? thats the thing you dnt have too its called free will... but if you see no lies flaws in it.. thats the reason

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I'm not going out of my way trying to make others think anything. I am curious as to what is so fictional about the bible. Is there a problem with that? Should I not make threads, or ask questions significant to something that effects people in the world I live in?

I'm not blaming people, I want to know if there is any documents in existence that makes the bible nothing more than a story.

We have already talked about this. You know why. Why do you keep asking?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
thats the thing you dnt have too its called free will... but if you see no lies flaws in it.. thats the reason

Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me why I should believe the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me why I should believe the bible.

what reason do you not

Originally posted by Shabazz916
what reason do you not

What reason do I not what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We have already talked about this. You know why. Why do you keep asking?

I've told you as well. Your reasoning makes no sense. At least, in any way to satisfy the purpose of this thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What reason do I not what? believe in everything that you are... believe in the truth

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I've told you as well. Your reasoning makes no sense. At least, in any way to satisfy the purpose of this thread.

Do you believe that snakes talk?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
believe in everything that you are... believe in the truth

Stop talking cryptic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you believe that snakes talk?

No.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
No.

Then the story of Adam and Eve must be a story and not a historical account.

Please close thread/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then the story of Adam and Eve must be a story and not a historical account.

Please close thread/

Is that the only interpretation that you accept? The snake couldn't have been a person? A group of people?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Is that the only interpretation that you accept? The snake couldn't have been a person? A group of people?

Now we are talking about interpretive fiction. It very well could have been, but we can only go down the road after establishing that the story is not literal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stop talking cryptic. the bible tells us how you came to be.. why dnt you accept that

Originally posted by Shabazz916
the bible tells us how you came to be.. why dnt you accept that

Why should I believe the bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why should I believe the bible? because its th only thing that tells how things came to be

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now we are talking about interpretive fiction. It very well could have been, but we can only go down the road after establishing that the story is not literal.

I'm sorry that you can't establish that the story is not literal.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
because its th only thing that tells how things came to be

That's not true. There are many creation stories in many different religions and cultures. Now why should I believe one over the other?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I'm sorry that you can't establish that the story is not literal.

Sure I can. It has talking snakes, therefore it is not literal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure I can. It has talking snakes, therefore it is not literal.

Can mice have human ears coming out of their back?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure I can. It has talking snakes, therefore it is not literal.

now he is trolling

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Can mice have human ears coming out of their back?

Are you saying that Adam and Eve performed surgery on a snake and made him talk? Now that is fiction.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
now he is trolling

Not at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. if you point to talking snakes your trolling

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you saying that Adam and Eve performed surgery on a snake and made him talk? Now that is fiction.

I'm not saying Adam and Eve did anything. Is your brain opening up to alternatives?

Says who? You insist on trying to get me to say that the Bible is fiction.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
if you point to talking snakes your trolling

What? That is just silly. The topic is "What's so fictional about The Bible?". Well, the first thing that comes to mind about what is fiction about the bible is talking snakes. Are you going to claim that everything fictional about the bible is off limits in a thread about what is fictional about the bible?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
I'm not saying Adam and Eve did anything. Is your brain opening up to alternatives?

Says who? You insist on trying to get me to say that the Bible is fiction.

Again you are the one asking the question. Stop trying to blame the person who is answering your question with the question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? That is just silly. The topic is "What's so fictional about The Bible?". Well, the first thing that comes to mind about what is fiction about the bible is talking snakes. Are you going to claim that everything fictional about the bible is off limits in a thread about what is fictional about the bible? if u can imply god and everything he created are fictional... hey thats you

Originally posted by Shabazz916
if u can imply god and everything he created are fictional... hey thats you

The bible has nothing to do with God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again you are the one asking the question. Stop trying to blame the person who is answering your question with the question.

Your responses indicate that your stance on the Bible is somehow absolute. You want answers to questions that cannot be answered, unless we think the same way. I am trying to leave you room to present something, and I won't resort to insults. I'll dismiss you as having nothing to provide but a false perspective, if nothing more.

Maybe you should present some of these documents in an effort to impress me. We both have access to the Bible apparently. Maybe what you have read somehow discounts creation entirely, who knows.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible has nothing to do with God. smh

Originally posted by Shabazz916
smh

It's a book written by humans. It is about their god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a book written by humans. It is about their god. so you believe in evolution ???

Originally posted by Shabazz916
so you believe in evolution ???

I understand evolution. Its not a point of belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand evolution. Its not a point of belief. meaning ???

Originally posted by Shabazz916
meaning ???

Do you believe in math?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you believe in math? no

Originally posted by Shabazz916
no

So, 1 + 1 does not = 2?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, 1 + 1 does not = 2? you said believe in... and i said no.. you poorly worded your question

Originally posted by Shabazz916
you said believe in... and i said no.. you poorly worded your question

I see, math is not something you believe in? It just is, is that right? Evolution is the same way. The controversy is what is the underlying mechanism of evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see, math is not something you believe in? It just is, is that right? Evolution is the same way. The controversy is what is the underlying mechanism of evolution. nope your math was created...... the talk to evolution was created by non believers

Originally posted by Shabazz916
nope your math was created...... the talk to evolution was created by non believers

Math was created? How? Evolution was created by humans? I thought humans couldn't create?

You are just wrong. You believe in unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Math and evolution was discovered.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Math was created? How? Evolution was created by humans? I thought humans couldn't create?

You are just wrong. You believe in unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Math and evolution was discovered.

no math was created... the number tree was created... numbers and the symbols were not found they were created

Originally posted by Shabazz916
no math was created... the number tree was created... numbers and the symbols were not found they were created

The number tree.

Math is not the symbols. Meth is something basic in the universe. What is your educational level?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The number tree.

Math is not the symbols. Meth is something basic in the universe. What is your educational level?

http://www.ventrella.com/numbertree/

meth ?

math is number or symbols and numbers or they is no way to keep track

Originally posted by Shabazz916
nope your math was created...... the talk to evolution was created by non believers

If you don't believe in evolution, I guess you don't believe in DNA, heredity, or forensic evidence. I guess DNA evidence is also a trick by non-believers, right?

Originally posted by Shabazz916

meth ?

math is number or symbols and numbers or they is no way to keep track

I'm not going to look at a video.

IF you want to know more about pure math, this is an easy place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

But I don't care if you read it. I have already shown that at least one small part of the bible is fiction.

Originally posted by Lestov16
If you don't believe in evolution, I guess you don't believe in DNA, heredity, or forensic evidence. I guess DNA evidence is also a trick by non-believers, right?

what does that have to do with it

Originally posted by Shabazz916
what does that have to do with it

The discovery of DNA has done a lot to prove that evolution by natural selection is correct.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The discovery of DNA has done a lot to prove that evolution by natural selection is correct. how

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Obvious.

I disagree. I'm not impressed by what I've seen. I won't waste an argument on you, though.

Nothing is special about it. People wonder what nothing is, did you know that? Nothing isn't a creation, though? Only to a creator, but...one day you'll see.

You are no longer needed here. Go "troll" elsewhere That's nice. You're still wrong though.

Well now this is just nonsensical.

Calm down.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
how

What does that have to do with the topic.

Start a thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What does that have to do with the topic.

how does DNA prove evolution ?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What does that have to do with the topic.

how does DNA prove evolution ?

That would make a good topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would make a good topic. you said it does so thats why im askn u

Originally posted by Shabazz916
you said it does so thats why im askn u

Its off topic far enough to derail the thread. IF you want to get in trouble for that... fine with me.

Originally posted by NemeBro


Calm down.


I don't see much evidence for Shabazz being inordinately excited.



Originally posted by NemeBro

Well now this is just nonsensical.



Most of what is taking place here is not nonsensical.
However, it requires some background knowledge to understand.

For starters, there is something called the Fallacy of Equivocation being used by both sides here. And they probably don't know it.

What that means is they are using words that have multiple definitions, "evolve" and "math" for starters, and using DIFFERENT definitions from what their opponent is using. So they're actually talking about different subjects. The conversation cannot really develop with any significant meaning until they agree on one thing, and exactly one thing as their topic, and choose the SAME topic and discuss that.

They can move on to other topics after that, and NEED to in order to have a conversation that actually goes somewhere in this thread, but they need to start on exactly ONE subject first, and it has to be the SAME thing they're talking about.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't see much evidence for Shabazz being inordinately excited.






Most of what is taking place here is not nonsensical.
However, it requires some background knowledge to understand.

For starters, there is something called the Fallacy of Equivocation being used by both sides here. And they probably don't know it.

What that means is they are using words that have multiple definitions, "evolve" and "math" for starters, and using DIFFERENT definitions from what their opponent is using. So they're actually talking about different subjects. The conversation cannot really develop with any significant meaning until they agree on one thing, and exactly one thing as their topic, and choose the SAME topic and discuss that.

They can move on to other topics after that, and NEED to in order to have a conversation that actually goes somewhere in this thread, but they need to start on exactly ONE subject first, and it has to be the SAME thing they're talking about.

That is why I gave a definition.

this man believes the bible is fiction like star wars... i believe its not

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't see much evidence for Shabazz being inordinately excited.

I don't see much evidence for me talking to Shabazz.



How does that apply to me or the post I was responding to?

Originally posted by NemeBro

I don't see much evidence for me talking to Shabazz.


I don't see much evidence for Jynocidus being inordinately excited, either.

In fact, he even made it a point to say that he, unlike Shake, wouldn't be resorting to insults.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't see much evidence for Jynocidus being inordinately excited, either.

In fact, he even made it a point to say that he, unlike Shake, wouldn't be resorting to insults.

I haven't insulted anyone. Why are you baring false witness against me.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't see much evidence for Jynocidus being inordinately excited, either.

In fact, he even made it a point to say that he, unlike Shake, wouldn't be resorting to insults.

I think that bluewaterrider is a liar. That is not an insult or personal attack. I've seen him lei about me before. He lied, telling people that I had JIA banned, even after the person who reported JIA came forward and took credit (blame). I wouldn't believe him.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
this man believes the bible is fiction like star wars... i believe its not

No, I said the bible was a collection of stories mixed with Hebrew governmental documents.

That is not Star Wars. It could be like a collection of books with an abridged version of Star Wars in the collection.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that bluewaterrider is a liar. That is not an insult or personal attack. I've seen him lei about me before. He lied, telling people that I had JIA banned, even after the person who reported JIA came forward and took credit (blame). I wouldn't believe him.


If I told people that you had JIA reported and banned, you should have very little trouble quoting exactly where I said that.


Then again, if you can type that you think I am a liar and say that is NOT an insult or a personal attack, you may well wrongly believe it is impossible for you TO insult or personally attack a person.