Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[arian]

Arian,

Not letting you off the hook just yet. I posed you a question which you didn't respond to.

We want to have free will, we want to hide from this All-seeing All-knowing God!

Perhaps you do. But I'm not hiding from anything. In fact, most atheists I know search for knowledge, and would welcome new information. This is counter to what most major religions desire.

Yes, search for knowledge that fit their pre-programmed education, and Bronze-aged books on 'talking donkeys' could never be considered to 'educate'. And as I said, I say again, .. religions demand blind-faith, so no, you will never get the answer from there either.

Arian, I can say with complete sincerity, and I challenge you to say the same thing, if what I believe to be true about the world (age, evolution, genetics, etc) were suddenly disproved by new science or religion, I would be fine with it. And I would adapt to whatever new truth was shown to be true.

Wait, .. Age, as in 13.75 billion years old starting from the Big-bang? That (call it what you please) but it's not a theory, and is NOT science either. That is a story started by a very religious Jesuit Priest who prayed to a goddess named Marry, the mother of all gods, and through a divination, he received a dream from some Devine being he called god, who resides in the supernatural realm.

Can't disprove a story that has never been proven scientifically.

Genetics
Genetics is the study of genes, heredity, and genetic variation in 'living' organisms. It is generally considered a field of biology, but it intersects frequently with many of the life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems.
If you take a monkey, genetics will prove it is a monkey, and may even tell you what species of monkey it is. If we observe a human, genetics will tell you it is a human, .. what 'other' science to claim something new are you talking about? I'm fine with genetics as it is, we are learning about Gods creation, not Darwin's creation.
I don't consider genetic study of one species of fossils changing into another species of fossils seriously. Is that the New Information you are talking about?

Evolution
Do you mean Darwin's story where he said man must have evolved from apes?
That has been disproven a long time ago, the New information to the story is that humans 'are apes', so I guess he was wrong about his original assumption, and that's all they were, assumptions. Apes are animals and they say human apes are animals, just a different type, I understand it as different as a German Shepherd is from a Poodle, different but still dog. Man is ape like apes are apes.
Why, is there something new to this story that I may have missed? That maybe there is some evidence of humans who were originally created in Gods image have been evolving into animal apes?

So please tell me what 'new information' are you talking about first? Or is it that we are aliens who arrived as bacteria on a meteor? That's nothing new!?

Can you say the same? Would you be willing to forgo what you think you know (the bible and god and Christianity) if proven not true?

It is the very driving force behind me staying here debating. You guys are smart, so I listen, and listen, learn as much as this dumb brain allows me to learn, and when I see fault, error or contradiction either in the Bible, or scientific claims, I debate it with you smarter then me people. I'm telling you that from the time I came here, to now I have learned a great deal, and I thank you (and Z, and McCulloch, JoeyK, and DI, and myth.com, and every Christian, Mormon, atheist or theist I debated with over the years, and may God bless every one of you. Of course that goes without saying that I appreciate Otseng too.

So by all means old friend, show me the things I believe to be true that are not true?

If not, then your accusation about blind faith applies to you and not me.

Well of course, if you can show me anything that I take on 'blind faith', and this includes our Creator the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind "I Am Who I Am" I will listen. The last thing I would want is that unawares I fall back to religion, right? We both know the power of religion, this is why we are to be constantly aware and active in the search for truth, discerning truth from the subtle lies religions try to morph into the truth.

Well, let's test who really has blind faith. Your answer please?

-All the best

Yes of course, let's!

[KenRU]

Arian,

Not letting you off the hook just yet. I posed you a question which you didn't respond to.

We want to have free will, we want to hide from this All-seeing All-knowing God!

Perhaps you do. But I'm not hiding from anything. In fact, most atheists I know search for knowledge, and would welcome new information. This is counter to what most major religions desire.

Yes, search for knowledge that fit their pre-programmed education, and Bronze-aged books on 'talking donkeys' could never be considered to 'educate'. And as I said, I say again, .. religions demand blind-faith, so no, you will never get the answer from there either.

Arian, I can say with complete sincerity, and I challenge you to say the same thing, if what I believe to be true about the world (age, evolution, genetics, etc) were suddenly disproved by new science or religion, I would be fine with it. And I would adapt to whatever new truth was shown to be true.

... So please tell me what 'new information' are you talking about first? Or is it that we are aliens who arrived as bacteria on a meteor? That's nothing new!?

That could very well have been the longest non-answer I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.

Can you say the same? Would you be willing to forgo what you think you know (the bible and god and Christianity) if proven not true?

... So by all means old friend, show me the things I believe to be true that are not true?

Did you even read my question? Do you understand what a hypothetical question is?

If not, then your accusation about blind faith applies to you and not me.

Well of course, if you can show me anything that I take on 'blind faith', and this includes our Creator the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind "I Am Who I Am" I will listen. The last thing I would want is that unawares I fall back to religion, right? We both know the power of religion, this is why we are to be constantly aware and active in the search for truth, discerning truth from the subtle lies religions try to morph into the truth.

That fact that you evaded my question kind of gives the answer, doesn't it?

Well, let's test who really has blind faith. Your answer please?

-All the best

Yes of course, let's!

Still awaiting your answer.

Ken: Arian, I can say with complete sincerity, and I challenge you to say the same thing, if what I believe to be true about the world (age, evolution, genetics, etc) were suddenly disproved by new science or religion, I would be fine with it. And I would adapt to whatever new truth was shown to be true.

Can you say the same?

Arian: What new information?

Conclusion? Arian is unwilling to ask himself this question. Why?

-all the best

[arian]

Still awaiting your answer.

Ken: Arian, I can say with complete sincerity, and I challenge you to say the same thing, if what I believe to be true about the world (age, evolution, genetics, etc) were suddenly disproved by new science or religion, I would be fine with it. And I would adapt to whatever new truth was shown to be true.

Can you say the same?

Arian: What new information?

Conclusion? Arian is unwilling to ask himself this question. Why?

-all the best

For Pete sakes KenRU, what is it you want me to say? Just tell me?

What you 'believe in' as I shown is false to begin with, so what the hell 'New Science' would there arise to disprove a fairytale?

Also, for someone to disprove my Creator God, yes the one mentioned in the Bible and the one I understand through science, one would have to first understand what I believe in, and how I see my God the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind "I Am Who I Am", but so far I haven't found even one human to even come close.

But may God open someone's eyes to understand what I see, and should they have a better explanation of what I see and how I understand, well of course I would accept it. But so far this is all I received, in summary: "arian, your invisible Spaghetti monster who lives in the supernatural realm, she doesn't exist, and science has proven that with the invention of the BB-Theory and the Evolution theory. Now we're not saying we believe in the BB theory or the evolution theory as the absolute explanation of our existence, and this is why we believe in the next best thing, .. as a back up plan, it is that "We Don't Know!" Also that "We may never know!" and to us these other options are far better than real scientific evidences of a Creator."

So why do you ask if; what I believe to be true about the world were suddenly disproved by new science or religion weather or not I would be fine with it when you have absolutely no idea what I believe about the world.

I don't see the universe expanding, or see the rationale in believing in infinite numbers, or the creation of time before time as a dimension, or something existing in, or popping out of nothing, .. but YES my dear friend KenRU, if someone was to invite me and show me how they had been able to pull something out of 'nothing', or "put something IN nothing", I would change my mind on the spot. I'd become a BB-believer in a heart beat. And for you, I would even put on an ape costume and wear it for a day to show my support for evolution too, OK?

Again (If I am beginning to understand what your getting at!?!?) if someone was to prove me wrong about my scientific observation of the universe and the world around me, and our Creator who created it, I'd be more than OK with that. Is that what you wanted to hear?

If yes, then I have a question for you; "Is that IT?"
Are you serious? Over and over again just to see if I would accept correction? Man, .. am I really that bad? But shouldn't it be you guys who should be trying to at least understand the basics of what I am explaining here?

So it's like you telling me: "I have no idea what the hell your talking about the mind being separate from the body, or this Infinite Eternal Creator of yours, or that 'nothing' could actually exist, but what if you're wrong and were proven wrong, would you accept it?" Maybe I just don't see the rationale behind your question?

So now what are you going to ask me next? That "Oh, so you do see a possibility that you may be wrong? Why else would you accept correction?" lol.

[KenRU]

[Replying to arian]

Ignoring all of your sarcasm, I was looking to see (obviously) how entrenched you are in your belief system.

In other words, how open you are to new ideas and data.

Given that it took you multiple paragraphs and even more qualifiers, I have my answer, thank you.

Oh, and I have no desire what-so-ever to see you in an ape costume.

-All the best

[arian]

[Replying to arian]

Ignoring all of your sarcasm, I was looking to see (obviously) how entrenched you are in your belief system.

Sorry my friend, it wasn't sarcasm as much as it was frustration.

Do you mean like a 'belief system', you know, like a religion about how I believe in God? Because it's not exactly like that, I am starving for something new all the time, and just when I see some advancement, I see that it leads to a dead end.
It's like I hear these scientists saying: "Let's see how high is the ceiling on this subject?" and even if it has no ceiling, they put one there, they limit things: Like the words: "We may never know, .. or cannot be known" etc.
I don't look into things, .. or I can't put effort into things that I already know has a ceiling, .. you know what I mean?
I don't want to climb the highest mountain, because of the fear of reaching the top. That would drive me crazy, the closer to the top I would get, the worst I would feel knowing that in a few more steps, that's it, .. I've climbed the highest mountain, .. and now what? This is why I am so excited in having defined God the Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind, because there is no 'ceiling', 'top', 'end' or 'limit' to ANYTHING with God. And I have already started to explore the infinite and eternal.

In other words, how open you are to new ideas and data.

I crave it. So now you can imagine how it disappoints me to hear people say something like; that there are different sizes of infinite, .. or hear a debate on subject like 'nothing' with this conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

Given that it took you multiple paragraphs and even more qualifiers, I have my answer, thank you.

You're welcome, sorry it took me so long, I thought too deep into a simple question.

Oh, and I have no desire what-so-ever to see you in an ape costume.

Ah, .. thank God.

Take care.

[KenRU]

[Replying to arian]

Ignoring all of your sarcasm, I was looking to see (obviously) how entrenched you are in your belief system.

Do you mean like a 'belief system', you know, like a religion about how I believe in God? Because it's not exactly like that,

If you believe in the god of the bible, that is religion - by any honest definition.

I am starving for something new all the time, and just when I see some advancement, I see that it leads to a dead end.
It's like I hear these scientists saying: "Let's see how high is the ceiling on this subject?" and even if it has no ceiling, they put one there, they limit things: Like the words: "We may never know, .. or cannot be known" etc.

That is not putting a limit on anything, that is acknowledging that at that moment, science does not have an answer. It doesn't mean science "can't" know. Your own sentence says "may". That's just being honest.

Admitting you don't know is better than making stuff up.

I don't look into things, .. or I can't put effort into things that I already know has a ceiling, .. you know what I mean?

But you don't know anything has a ceiling. Science certainly doesn't admit to that. Otherwise, how would you explain all of the advancements that have happened?

I don't want to climb the highest mountain, because of the fear of reaching the top. That would drive me crazy, the closer to the top I would get, the worst I would feel knowing that in a few more steps, that's it, .. I've climbed the highest mountain, .. and now what? This is why I am so excited in having defined God the Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind, because there is no 'ceiling', 'top', 'end' or 'limit' to ANYTHING with God. And I have already started to explore the infinite and eternal.

This sounds dangerously like you admitting you have all the answers so, why bother looking any more. And if true, it explains our very frustrating conversations, lol.

All I would say, Arian, is that it seems to me that your fear and mistrust of scientists and science is woefully misplaced. And that is a shame, because you immediately reject any new information that contradicts what you think you know. Therefore, you are only limiting yourself. Without new information, one remains stagnant. If you truly are open to new information, then I submit that your bias towards science and scientists is hindering that desire. Something to ponder.

-all the best

[arian]

[Replying to arian]

Ignoring all of your sarcasm, I was looking to see (obviously) how entrenched you are in your belief system.

Do you mean like a 'belief system', you know, like a religion about how I believe in God? Because it's not exactly like that,

If you believe in the god of the bible, that is religion - by any honest definition.

See, putting ceilings like that annoys me. we have debated that to Kingdom-come, but because of some religious influence that want to protect their gods created by each individual religion define God=religion, hey that's it, it's no longer what one does religiously or repeatedly as a habit, but God = religion. Yep, that's it, beyond that "we just don't know".

I am starving for something new all the time, and just when I see some advancement, I see that it leads to a dead end.
It's like I hear these scientists saying: "Let's see how high is the ceiling on this subject?" and even if it has no ceiling, they put one there, they limit things: Like the words: "We may never know, .. or cannot be known" etc.

That is not putting a limit on anything, that is acknowledging that at that moment, science does not have an answer. It doesn't mean science "can't" know. Your own sentence says "may". That's just being honest.

Being honest? Accepting a religious fanatics divined insight from the supernatural realm that the universe popped out of nothing with a Big-bang and evolved the entire known universe from a quantum speck of 'whatever' and building on this wild demonic lunacy and call it science is honest?

Admitting you don't know is better than making stuff up.

lol, .. exactly. So why did they accept such ludicrous 'made-up' concept as the Big-bang theory? Don't you think true scientists would have much-rather accepted the fact that they didn't know how the universe appeared or came into existence?

Science observes the world around us, they are NOT in the habit of "making stuff up"! But no, the religious folk created the theory to defend their gods that have been divining to them to kill and torture people for almost 2,000 years demanded that it be labeled as science, or else! Same with evolution;

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from the Jesuit army of paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Well no kidding, have your read of the tactics of the Jesuits? Yes, they can be very convincing, most people will give in less then ten minutes of horrendous torture, after that just a warning worked just as good. Today it's very much like it, only now we depend on our jobs for survival, especially if you want to feed your family?

Once Luther spread the Bible throughout the world, the Catholic religion knew they were screwed and that people will find out that they been lying to them in Latin all this time, so they needed a back-up plan, and who else, but the blood-drenched defenders of the Catholic religion, the Jesuits came up with a plan; "Ahh, .. we'll call it the Big-bang theory, just like the last thing our opposition hear before they get shot! That will bring back some memories, and who will dare oppose such powerful and loud 'scientific evidence as this BIG-BANG' ay?"

Sure it made absolutely no sense, but they knew if they made it confusing enough like they did the interpretation of the Bible to their sheep for all them years, they could in time, with the help of starving-scientists make it sound scientific, and should any scientist go against it, they will not be working in their field for long. So they forced scientists to accept and even further their religious agenda, and it is so obvious here on the forum, especially when one listens to debates on these subjects like on You Tube, or in documentaries. I can practically see these propagandists, or 'Big-bang Evolutionary scientists' holding back their laughter as they talk about these subjects.

I don't look into things, .. or I can't put effort into things that I already know has a ceiling, .. you know what I mean?

But you don't know anything has a ceiling. Science certainly doesn't admit to that. Otherwise, how would you explain all of the advancements that have happened?

You see you conflict science which learns from the things they observe around them and document their findings, and then the visionaries take that and create things from those documentations with the religious Big-bang Evolutionists, as if these two theories drove the technological advancement to these heights? Like splitting the atoms, or all those wonderful free-energy things my countryman Nicola Tesla revealed, it was all to help humanity to live better. But what did the religionist do? That's right, they took it ASAP and dropped it on two deemed sub-human (Asians, blacks, Jews, Arabs, Italians etc.) cities.

And what about all that energy/power Tesla shown them how to harvest? Well all one has to do is "look up" my friend, or hear/read the news of the catastrophic droughts in California and the deadly flooding's in the east like in Oklahoma and Texas. Even someone with a few years of formal education could figure that one out!

I don't want to climb the highest mountain, because of the fear of reaching the top. That would drive me crazy, the closer to the top I would get, the worst I would feel knowing that in a few more steps, that's it, .. I've climbed the highest mountain, .. and now what? This is why I am so excited in having defined God the Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind, because there is no 'ceiling', 'top', 'end' or 'limit' to ANYTHING with God. And I have already started to explore the infinite and eternal.

This sounds dangerously like you admitting you have all the answers so, why bother looking any more. And if true, it explains our very frustrating conversations, lol.

No, reaching the top of the mountain would be like 'having all the answers'.

I don't mind climbing, but not for those reasons. It is to enjoy the view and share it with others, .. you know, like Nikola Tesla, he didn't put a 'ceiling' to the possibilities out there, the greedy religionists did. Like they do now, "so you want solar power? Oh you do don't you? Well guess what? you will have to rent the sun from us. You want to have an electric car to cheat us on you buying our gasoline? We'll just grind down your tires every time you come in for a maintenance, and charge 3 times what you would have paid for gas with a regular gas engine car.

All I would say, Arian, is that it seems to me that your fear and mistrust of scientists and science is woefully misplaced.

See how you use science in place of religious fanaticism, and religion in place of science?
Look at all your posts, you and some others here, always referring to the wild and exaggerated un-observed BB and Evolution stories as science, and my actual observation and definition of the mind as 'religion', even after I show you that there is a huge rush out there for scientists to define, and capture the mind, or mans consciousness on a separate disk. lol.
But yes, this is now a common technique in the media, like the loop of the photo shopped planes flying into the Twin Towers, and Osama Bin Laden's name. The constant mention of 'evolution, evolution' in children stories, in every movie, in nature documentaries, even though they are showing nature as it is now, in the present, as lions and eagles hunt, but they have to put in a few "billions of years ago, .." to make sure people remain brainwashed and ready to be exterminated like animals. Don't you get tired of me revealing your malicious intent? Can you even try to debate honestly? Or is this your job?

And that is a shame, because you immediately reject any new information that contradicts what you think you know.

Look who is rejecting new information? "We don't know what you are talking about arian? .. this is all new to our ear? where did you get this information? We never heard this before, is this something new? Can you prove it? Oh you can? Well we can't accept it unless you can have one of the 'real scientists' affirm what you are saying here (and we know what you are referring to as science and scientists, more like if it doesn't contradict our religious beliefs, so please check in with one of our priests)

Therefore, you are only limiting yourself. Without new information, one remains stagnant. If you truly are open to new information, then I submit that your bias towards science and scientists is hindering that desire. Something to ponder.

-all the best

New Information (translated) newly made up Big bang and Evolutionary info.
Bias towards science (translated) unwilling to kneel before religious doctrines
Something to ponder (translated) beware of your attack on our religion, and yes you are an animal arian, of the Jewish species, .. lol. Nothing changed as far as that goes, only the technique is a lot more subtle.

Oh well, we both do our calling as best as we can, right KenRU?

Take care my friend, and remember I really and honestly pray for you and everyone here on this Forum. I love you as a human being, my attack is only on your ideologies, right?
God bless you and yours.

[KenRU]

[Replying to arian]

Ignoring all of your sarcasm, I was looking to see (obviously) how entrenched you are in your belief system.

Do you mean like a 'belief system', you know, like a religion about how I believe in God? Because it's not exactly like that,

If you believe in the god of the bible, that is religion - by any honest definition.

See, putting ceilings like that annoys me.

Using the standard English language definition of a word puts a ceiling on it? If so, that’s totally on you, and not me or the dictionary.

we have debated that to Kingdom-come, but because of some religious influence that want to protect their gods created by each individual religion define God=religion, hey that's it, it's no longer what one does religiously or repeatedly as a habit, but God = religion. Yep, that's it, beyond that "we just don't know".

I didn’t equate god and religion. You did when you say you believe in the god of the bible. Can’t have it both ways. If one believes in the god of the bible, one is a Christian. Christianity is a religion.

It really doesn’t matter whether you accept this or not. Or whether you believe it or not.

Until the dictionary says otherwise, you are flat out wrong.

I am starving for something new all the time, and just when I see some advancement, I see that it leads to a dead end.
It's like I hear these scientists saying: "Let's see how high is the ceiling on this subject?" and even if it has no ceiling, they put one there, they limit things: Like the words: "We may never know, .. or cannot be known" etc.

That is not putting a limit on anything, that is acknowledging that at that moment, science does not have an answer. It doesn't mean science "can't" know. Your own sentence says "may". That's just being honest.

Being honest? Accepting a religious fanatics divined insight from the supernatural realm that the universe popped out of nothing with a Big-bang and evolved the entire known universe from a quantum speck of 'whatever' and building on this wild demonic lunacy and call it science is honest?

I never said that. Actually, never even said anything to the sort. I’ll respond further on this when you make an honest attempt to have a dialogue.

Admitting you don't know is better than making stuff up.

lol, .. exactly. So why did they accept such ludicrous 'made-up' concept as the Big-bang theory?

Because a large amount of data (that you bafflingly deny exists) show it to be a possible explanation.

Don't you think true scientists would have much-rather accepted the fact that they didn't know how the universe appeared or came into existence?

Some do believe that.

Science observes the world around us, they are NOT in the habit of "making stuff up"!

I see no evidence of science making stuff up. I see theories, and speculation, none of which is accepted as fact by scientists. So, I have no idea what you are talking about here. And, quite frankly (and based upon these comments), I don’t think you do either.

But no, the religious folk…

Please provide an example of how scientists are religious.

… created the theory to defend their gods …

Please explain how scientists use gods in their field.

… that have been divining to them to kill and torture people for almost 2,000 years demanded that it be labeled as science, or else! Same with evolution;

Never mind. I didn’t realize you were on another senseless and wholly unrelated rant again. Your opinion on such is noted and given its proper and due consideration.

I don't look into things, .. or I can't put effort into things that I already know has a ceiling, .. you know what I mean?

But you don't know anything has a ceiling. Science certainly doesn't admit to that. Otherwise, how would you explain all of the advancements that have happened?

You see you conflict science which learns from the things they observe around them and document their findings, … Even someone with a few years of formal education could figure that one out!

Unresponsive rant promptly ignored. If you wish to continue this part of our discussion, please stick to the topic at hand.

I don't want to climb the highest mountain, because of the fear of reaching the top. That would drive me crazy, the closer to the top I would get, the worst I would feel knowing that in a few more steps, that's it, .. I've climbed the highest mountain, .. and now what? This is why I am so excited in having defined God the Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind, because there is no 'ceiling', 'top', 'end' or 'limit' to ANYTHING with God. And I have already started to explore the infinite and eternal.

This sounds dangerously like you admitting you have all the answers so, why bother looking any more. And if true, it explains our very frustrating conversations, lol.

No, reaching the top of the mountain would be like 'having all the answers'.

I don't mind climbing, but not for those reasons. It is to enjoy the view and share it with others, .. you know, like Nikola Tesla, he didn't put a 'ceiling' to the possibilities out there, the greedy religionists did. Like they do now, "so you want solar power? Oh you do don't you? Well guess what? you will have to rent the sun from us. You want to have an electric car to cheat us on you buying our gasoline? We'll just grind down your tires every time you come in for a maintenance, and charge 3 times what you would have paid for gas with a regular gas engine car.

Please stick to the topic at hand if you want to discuss this further with me. What little I can glean here sure does seem though that you do think you have all the answers and have indeed stopped looking.

All I would say, Arian, is that it seems to me that your fear and mistrust of scientists and science is woefully misplaced.

See how you use science in place of religious fanaticism, and religion in place of science?

Sigh. I defy you (once again) to show how anything I have said can be fairly called religious. Otherwise, please retract this nonsense.

Don't you get tired of me revealing your malicious intent?

Malicious intent? Please show evidence of anything I have said that is even remotely “malicious�. Don’t you ever get tired of personalizing these posts? Don’t you ever get tired of ignoring standard definitions of words and creating confusion? Don’t you ever get tired of people telling you how wrong you are on so many different topics?

Please retract your accusation that I have been “malicious�. I have been very civil to you, and expect the same in return.

Can you even try to debate honestly?

I believe I have been. You seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise.

Or is this your job?

It is not my job. Normally, I enjoy sharing ideas and debating their merits on religion and science. And being an English major in college has trained me, I guess, to try to communicate effectively. Which is why you and I seem to have many difficulties communicating, especially when you butcher definitions of words – intentionally.

And that is a shame, because you immediately reject any new information that contradicts what you think you know.

Look who is rejecting new information? "We don't know what you are talking about arian? .. this is all new to our ear? where did you get this information? We never heard this before, is this something new? Can you prove it? Oh you can? Well we can't accept it unless you can have one of the 'real scientists' affirm what you are saying here (and we know what you are referring to as science and scientists, more like if it doesn't contradict our religious beliefs, so please check in with one of our priests)

Nice try. Circuitous logic, loosely related analogies, changing definitions of words, opinions, guess work and conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence for me, and I dare say, for many others as well.

I will say, your mind/brain analogy is mildly interesting, though woefully backed up with any credible evidence. But I will keep it in thought and see how time bears out your theory. I do this because I am open to new ideas.

Can you say the same? Without a rant or disparaging comment? You haven’t so far.

Therefore, you are only limiting yourself. Without new information, one remains stagnant. If you truly are open to new information, then I submit that your bias towards science and scientists is hindering that desire. Something to ponder.

-all the best

New Information (translated) newly made up Big bang and Evolutionary info.
Bias towards science (translated) unwilling to kneel before religious doctrines
Something to ponder (translated) beware of your attack on our religion, and yes you are an animal arian, of the Jewish species, .. lol. Nothing changed as far as that goes, only the technique is a lot more subtle.

See? You do think you have all the answers and are not open to new ideas that challenge what you think you know.

Oh well, we both do our calling as best as we can, right KenRU?

I do not have a calling, other than to be a good husband and father. But apparently you do. Best of luck with it.

Take care my friend, and remember I really and honestly pray for you and everyone here on this Forum. I love you as a human being, my attack is only on your ideologies, right?
God bless you and yours.

Except when you say I have malicious intent right?

[arian]

[Replying to arian]

Ignoring all of your sarcasm, I was looking to see (obviously) how entrenched you are in your belief system.

Do you mean like a 'belief system', you know, like a religion about how I believe in God? Because it's not exactly like that,

If you believe in the god of the bible, that is religion - by any honest definition.

See, putting ceilings like that annoys me.

Using the standard English language definition of a word puts a ceiling on it? If so, that’s totally on you, and not me or the dictionary.

No, it is your unbending religious stand on the idea that: "If you believe in the god of the bible, that is religion"

Religion:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
sect, church, cult, denomination
"the freedom to practice their own religion"
•a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

According to the dictionaries definition believing and worshiping evolution or the BB is a religion because it was made up for religious purposes, or by very religious people. Atheism is a religion that denies the existence of gods, yet they can define and even tell you the origins of those gods they say they don't believe in!?
.. playing tennis every day is a religion, but believing in the God of the Bible is NOT religion, just as believing in the character Peter Pan created by J. M. Barrie wouldn't be considered a religion. It is when someone starts worshiping and doing all kinds of religious acts (like bowing towards Mecca and praying 5 times a day, or pasting Peter Pan pictures all over the wall, buying Peter Pan curtains, bed sheets, comforters, reupholstering their cars seats with Peter Pan pictures etc.) now that's religion.
Or like Richard Dawkins preaching's on evolution, now that's religion to a point of fanaticism.

we have debated that to Kingdom-come, but because of some religious influence that want to protect their gods created by each individual religion define God=religion, hey that's it, it's no longer what one does religiously or repeatedly as a habit, but God = religion. Yep, that's it, beyond that "we just don't know".

I didn’t equate god and religion. You did when you say you believe in the god of the bible. Can’t have it both ways. If one believes in the god of the bible, one is a Christian. Christianity is a religion.

It really doesn’t matter whether you accept this or not. Or whether you believe it or not.
Until the dictionary says otherwise, you are flat out wrong.

And as I have shown you over and over again, the dictionaries say otherwise, but it is next to impossible to make religious people see this. Once it goes into their evolving brain that God = religion, .. or Bible = religion, because religion does not allow for evidence with substance, its survival, .. any religions survival depends on blind faith alone.

The rest is your typical arguments defending your religion, I was here to debate my scientific evidence of our Creator.

Thanks KenRU

P.S.

The Evolution story becomes a religion, even a religious cult when acted upon, especially by an entire nation:

(Googled it)
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 488 by arian]

Dictionary.com: (bold added for my emphasis)
Religion: noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Bible: noun
1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.

I rest my case.


PS, I'm still waiting for you to address calling me (or specifically, my intent) "malicious". It wasn't very Christian of you.