cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

Re: Creation vs. Evolution, Sam

I guess the question I would be left with is why can this all powerfull super natural god not be found except in people imagination.

You note that science 'is discovering' all these things so why has no one been able to come up with a shred of evidence of a god.

Solid evidence, not just imagination.

Old words written thousands (or hundreds) of years ago really mean nothing unless there is something to substantiate them.

SO the question still remains how can you prove there is a god, any god not how do you prove there is no god. Trying to prove something does not exist is impossible because you have nothing to look for let alone any evidence of it not being. You have to prove the affirmative, that there is a god and it has never been done so far.

Senior Contributor

The chicken or the egg

What came first Canuck, the blood or the clotting?

Advisor

Re: Creation vs. Evolution, Sam

If god exists, created matter, time, all the physical principals that no human can yet understand, a universe that ends but is endless, I do not have the mental capability to grasp how such a being could be proven or unproven.   What proof could anyone give that explains everything that exists and some stuff that exists only if noone ever notices it exists, cause as soon as it's observed it changes into something else, and some things that are two or more different things at the same time.   It's hubris to claim to know  what is unknowable.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution

Jim - after all the debate, as you say that has raged on here, you still haven't learnt a single thing.  Canuck is 100% correct.

The problem with this debate is no one is prepared to blink first.  3020 blathers about the universe was created by god but offers no proof.  There are thousands of these god theories on here but his supporters offer no facts but blind faith. That does not equate to proof.

Senior Contributor

The Bible, Canuck

I think those who say the Earth is 6,000 yrs old get that from first mistakenly believing Adam was the first human, he wasn`t, not by a long shot!!!!!!!!!!. Then taking Genesis 5 where it says who begat whom and telling their age, adding those years up plus 2011 for Jesus`s age and adding a week for the creation. Bada boom, bada bing they come up with 6,000 yrs. I Love folks who believe that, however it makes me cringe, because athetists, like you (No offense  Smiley Happy) use this misunderstanding against them. As I have said, the Bible is written just fine, but you see how we struggle to understand Shakespeare? Well now imagine writting a document that is to be understood by people +1,000 yrs ago to the present! When the Bible was written there were no words invented to describe what needed to be conveyed. Where would Canuck began in writing something that will be easily understood 2000 yrs from now?.....pretty tough huh? 

Senior Contributor

Re: Creation vs. Evolution

 Adam and Eve created for Jesus`s bloodline. This guy can explain it best.

http://www.shepherdschapel.com/

Advisor

Re: Creation vs. Evolution, Sam

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.
In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.  Bert Einstien

Advisor

Re: The Bible, Canuck

that's the first time I've ever heard that adam was not the first human.

Senior Advisor

Re: Creation vs. Evolution

Veteran Advisor

Re: The chicken or the egg

The age old question.

I suggest it really makes o difference BUT if there was no 'blood' there would be no clotting or need to clot.