"mama, I don't care what you say, everyone is the debil, football is not the debil, football is fun, and I'm gonna play cause I like it... and and.. vickey valencourt isn't the debil either, and she showed me her boobies... and I liked them too."

Either way, this is very interesting science.

Just because bacteria changes and adapts it does not mean it is going to turn into a human being someday.

Evolution is not simply descriptive of the Theory of Macro evolution.

Evoultion means something different in itself. There is an objective definition of evolution and a subjective definition of evolution.

Some poeple fail to distinguish the two and like to have fun continuing to believe their biases.

Also north, the Bible does speak of mutation. Mutation of moral and intellectual nature.

Wrong Ness.

Read the post in context my friend. I am making the case that all those who were saying that this is not kosher with the Bible crowd were making a false case. The argument being countered was that any mention of the word evolution is a no no someone who professes to follow Christ.

I was clarifying that evolution is not defined by the Theory, the theory is described by the word, not defining of the word.

You did not read the article, or jumped to conclusion on your assumption.

In the event that we are all not simply illusions to self with falsely percieved senses, something had to exist from the beginning of time.

There are two choices
1. Something that was not alive, therefore not personal
2. a being that was alive in the sense that it is personal and capable of thought.

So far the jury is out on which of the two are the cause of what we have here.

One of them had to be ever existing.

In terms of the BBT, the little tiny might of matter could not have been ever existing because for time, space and matter to be created, it would have to be created outside of time space and matter, therefore no comprised of either criteria before inception.

If there is a God, or originator, that originator would have to be ever present

If there is no God or originator, then something else had to be ever present that would start of the creation that is not matter, space or time.

Our subjective understaning is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. However that is within our universal time space matter bounds.

The theory of special relativity is not observable and therefore not something that is a completely verified fact (objective) but rather a subjective fact in terms of assumption.

The universe is here, it got her somehow
either:
1. A non personal eternal existince of some non substance
2. a personal entitiy of originator that does not have to be misconstrued as any diety of any current religion, but rather a simple intellegent agent outside of the confines of time, space and matter.

God does not have to originate if he is the originator.

But something had to exist before this current time, space and matter reality.

There are two options.

You ask cutesy questions in order to seem sly. There is not an infinite progression of matter creating matter. The universe has been found to have a beginning.

It began, and you must decide whether it was a personal beginning or an apersonal beginning.

I didn't dismiss it. I answered your question, you refuse to accept that answer.

Those are the choices.

The theory of special relativity is not completely verified because the constant nature of the speed of light is not something that we can observe. We have to assume that the speed of light is a constant.

Therefore, my suggestion of subjective fact on part of assumption.

You cannot analyze the special theory of relativity with science due to the contancy of the speed of light, we have to assume the constancy of the speed of light to come up with the special theory.

You have to admit that both:
1. a non personal beginning
and
2. a personal beginning from a personal beginner
are possible.

That which is responsible for the origination has to always be there, otherwise, infinite progression of causes.

I like your suggestion better.

And I would charge you with already showing that you are presuppatory and assuming based on the fact that I was not laying any trap. You are already on the defensive for some reason.

I offered the relativity aspect in regard to you question as to believing things that we are not sure about and I have given you a plausable response as to where God came from, and why it might be that way.

Yes I still question your defensive nature, as Danforth was proposing that his logical capabilities were far superior than others in the conversation.

However I was proving to him that he could not figure out something so simply as my age, with the given criteria

1. My age is in question
2. He could easily deduce my age from Post # 23
3. He was looking for a numerical value to my age.

Inside post number 23 there were no other numerical values. The only numerical value present was the # 23 and he failed to see this.

He had been deflecting arguements for some time, attempting to claim that others were "bearing false witness", when he himself can be no authority on others subjective (personal) thoughts or motives, nor their objective (intrinsically (sic) true) thoughts or motives. He had to assume, and that assumption came based on his predisposed bias.

Now you seem to have shown me that you do not seek to understand context or background to issues discussed befor presupposing or assuming upon them.

This does not bode well to you.

I was dealing with Danforth goatman, who berides those when they make a point. so I had to make the point abundantly clear.

I had showed him previous things twice or more, but they were discounted.

If you want to base what you see and think you understand over the explanation from the one who said and thought those things and put them into action for a purpose, then go ahead. Which is a more logical position and which a more reasonable source?

I had nothing to debate. I simply posed and asnwer to your question dealing with the existence (eternal) of God.

I am not talking about myself and Danforth, Jackass.

I am speaking about words that can be easily misunderstood, or a personal, primary source, i.e, the person who thought and stated those words knowing (or more closely knowing) the objective motivations for those words rathar than the appearing, and person subjective evaluation of those words.

Redshifts are not important to me. I do not need to explain them away. The scripture has plenty of information that makes a case for a longer period of creation.

I should have clarified it better, but I was in the middle of something during that process. Maybe this helps a little bit.

Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, science is permeated with unprovable assumptions like: the special theory of relativity.
The whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points, but that strictly cannot be proven, we have to assume that in order to hold to the theory of relativity.

Sorry Kliff, that is a false analogy.

The scripture is always under archeaological studies to find different sites and locations. It is always under cultural studies to see if what cultural context was correct, it is always under textual criticism to see if the words are accurate, genuine, or counfounded and fraudulant, recent or older.

That assumption cannot be scientifically verified, nor observed, nor repeated. It canot fall under the scope of science. Just face it. You can get conclusions that lead you as more likely to believe that assumption, but you cannot study that assumption directly.

Your dislike towards theism takes you directly to the Bible, when no one is mentioning the Bible in the original context.

To talk about a theos, or a creator a being outside of our physical, and temporal norms which began the universe (cannot be a flying spaghetti monster, because that which creates the universe must be outside space and matter (last time I checked spaghetti is matter that takes up space).

Automatically though to dispute theism in general people jump to the scriptures, or other religions and harp on that when that is not even the argument.

I watched tony flew do it in a debate. The debate was about the existence of a creating agent and he went into things about hell and free will etc, when it wasnt about the "christian" god, just the concept of god in general.

You commit the same fallacy.

It is still due to assumption. You claim it is not. Tell me where it is intricically true without assumption?

Also, if a beginner is there it must be changeless. It cannot change into whatever you want it to.

You can't simply admit that the flying spaghetti monster is a poor and failed analogy?

There is more evidence that Jesus existed than the Flying spaghetti monster.

Also, this is not about Christianity, but rather the concept of God.

The creator does not have to be
1. omnipotent
2. omniscient
3. omnipresent
4. omnibenevolent

It is only in the event that Jesus the claimed Christ is truly resurrected that "Christianity" can be attributed as true.

I looked at the site. That is all well and good, however all I was asserting is that the speed of light must be assumed. That is all.

I can under stand yout analogy.

However, we know that Jesus existed, we do not have any proof whatsoever that the flying spaghetti monster has ever existed. We have never seen spaghetti fly, nor have we seen meatballs fuse with spaghetti and create an animated creature. We have no proof of spaghetti monster in creation. How can you verify the unique qualities of a spaghetti monster by what you see in the world?

You are attibuting properties to the creator that do no have to be attributed to a creative being. As I said, we are not discussing "christianity" as the true religion here, nor the specific qualities of a God, that is a different arguement in itself. You have to first extablish if there is a beginning agent that is personal in the first place.

Only personal in the sense that it can create something other than itself.

You are trying to divert the arguement to tertiary issues so that it makes the initial issue seem like a nonsensical issue. This is also why people over simplify and claim, "sky daddy, cannibal zombie God, sky fairy, magic rain maker, et al."

These are diversionary descriptions that show a complete lack of understanding of the claims (regardless of whether those claims are true or false). You are misrepresenting what is being said or believed by what you are trying to disprove. Thus ad hominum attacks to make it look more foolish.

This is evolution of discussion in 124 posts.