MarkNigro

It would help if you were more specific. But in a scientific context, neither one adds anything to our understanding. That's why science doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about God. But atheistic origin science reasons as if God has done nothing in the last 6000 years which would be miraculous. So it does have an opinion about God. That is why it violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

The great fall in the last day is because of evolution teaching, not creationism. The issue is one of salvation not because someone is "Christian." As the Holy Bible predicted: 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

As I understand it none of the universes existed prior to the Big Bang, they are all interconnected and branch from one another, and possibly even depend on one another for stability if, as is currently thought, their are particles that operate accross multiple universes. I have an inkling that quantum entanglement might shed light here too, but I digress. If time and space both came into existence at that point then dimensions would not have existed either. This is a super neat blog that may interest you; http://cosmos-staruniverse.blogspot.ca/2011/06/parallel-universes-and-before-big-bang_13.html Now here is the problem. If the universe came into being from nothing then that violates cause and effect, common sense, and some conservation laws. But if it came from something before, then the origin of the universe is not really answered by pushed back in time to something else. So this fundamental conundrum still remains, because we can always ask and where did that come from. For atheistic origin science this is a disaster. For theistic origin science it is not a disaster. For example, God created the universe is the origin of the universe. Now one can always ask where did God come from. But at least those that hold this belief they honestly admit that God always existed. So in the end there is always at root a fundamentally religious belief (atheism is a religious belief too) and the discussion must move to that realm. Except that this entire argument depends on the false premise that science claims to have all the answers, or even tries to have all the answers. Science is comfortable with questions. Science depends on questions! More answers always lead to more questions. The theory of gravity wasn't completed with an apple falling on someone's head. The theory of gravity STILL isn't complete. Yet the things we don't understand about gravity do not disprove gravity. This is an example of how having unanswered questions about a theory, or even having a theory that leads to more questions, does not disprove a theory. Stating that if we cannot describe the nature of the expanse or the catalyst for creation prior to the Big Bang then the Big Bang theory does not work, is as relevant as saying that if we cannot measure the vocal intonations of the voice of God at the beginning of creation then He does not exist. The argument does not stand up to the test of logic. Logic is used to find errors in reasoning, it identifies misuse of facts. The misuse of facts using faulty logic may or may not accidentally lead to a true conclusion, but that conclusion is not correctly drawn from those facts. That is a truly an astounding revelation. Here is the problem. Not all scientists ignore being correct. For example scientists and engineers have a great deal of confidence that a certain jet liner will fly and not just fall apart. Those that do not value high confidence in this regard would kill many people and be legally held accountable. Architects, who base designs on real operational science, have a great deal of confidence that a certain will not just collapse. Those that do not value high confidence in this regard would kill many people and be legally held accountable. Even a stockbroker would go to prison if they confidently claim that a stock price would go higher and it does not. This is only a money issue and not a life nand death issue. But when it comes to the origin of all things, some “scientists” do not even care if they are right or not. But they teach it as if it is almost proven in the public schools and other public venues. But it actually constitutes fraud. Why not disclose that there are no answers or facts to support their story and frankly we do not care if it is even true. It further violates the establishment clause of the US constitution. The issue in the end is more serious than money or even physical life and death. The issue is everlasting life versus everlasting damnation. Thus these “scientists” have revealed that they do not care about the truth or are even honest in their dealings. The odds against their theories are so astounding; it is amazing to think that anyone could be under such delusion. Atheistic origin science claims it just uses science and not miracles. Yet its own theories require many trillions of miracles several each day for billions of years. One after another but not even random miracles but miracles designed with a purpose. Thus it violates its own assumption and is thus proven false. However the Holy Bible predicts this. This is another great proof that the Holy Bible is true. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

As I understand it none of the universes existed prior to the Big Bang, they are all interconnected and branch from one another, and possibly even depend on one another for stability if, as is currently thought, their are particles that operate accross multiple universes. I have an inkling that quantum entanglement might shed light here too, but I digress. If time and space both came into existence at that point then dimensions would not have existed either. This is a super neat blog that may interest you; http://cosmos-staruniverse.blogspot.ca/2011/06/parallel-universes-and-before-big-bang_13.html Now here is the problem. If the universe came into being from nothing then that violates cause and effect, common sense, and some conservation laws. But if it came from something before, then the origin of the universe is not really answered by pushed back in time to something else. So this fundamental conundrum still remains, because we can always ask and where did that come from. For atheistic origin science this is a disaster. For theistic origin science it is not a disaster. For example, God created the universe is the origin of the universe. Now one can always ask where did God come from. But at least those that hold this belief they honestly admit that God always existed. So in the end there is always at root a fundamentally religious belief (atheism is a religious belief too) and the discussion must move to that realm.

As I understand it God is omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent. He is vast and eternal and full of mysteries. He is to be held in awe. So I suspect there's little chance that any mortal knows and understands everything there is to know and understand about Him. So if I were to ask you a question about God that you could not answer, do you suppose that would disprove the existence of God? I think that it would not. Neither can the Big Bang theory be disproved that way. What difference should it make to Faith in Jesus Christ, whether God said 'let there be light' (queue gentle ambience), or God said 'let their be LIGHT!!' (BANG)? I don't think anyone here is quite old enough to have personally witnessed creation. Could I answer all questions about God? Probably not. But I could answer very many questions about God. The Holy Bible reveals who God is and what God is like. There is a difference in whether the universe is 15 billion years old or 6000 years old. The Holy Bible clearly says 6 day creation about 6,000 years ago. Since the teaching of atheistic origin science is pubic schools there has been a great falling away in the percentage of people who actually believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and are saved. So you can't answer all the questions about God, yet that doesn't disprove his existence. It follows that not being able to answer all the questions about the Big Bang does not disprove the Big Bang. That is a very silly comparison. I have listed a number of questions for atheistic origin science to answer. These are fundamental questions, not silly questions, like can God make Himself not God. But if as you imply that the 2 are the same, remove the theory of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages from all public schools and all public places as it violates the establish clause of the US constitution. DEBATE RULE 101 - When the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

The Holy Bible is a complete book. It is God's revelation to mankind. It is how God speaks to us today. Jesus Christ, who is the Lord God Almighty, proclaimed the following. John 3:14-16 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Do you believe that? Paul declared the gospel of salvation (the good news of Jesus Christ) in the following passage. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Do you believe that?

As I understand it God is omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent. He is vast and eternal and full of mysteries. He is to be held in awe. So I suspect there's little chance that any mortal knows and understands everything there is to know and understand about Him. So if I were to ask you a question about God that you could not answer, do you suppose that would disprove the existence of God? I think that it would not. Neither can the Big Bang theory be disproved that way. What difference should it make to Faith in Jesus Christ, whether God said 'let there be light' (queue gentle ambience), or God said 'let their be LIGHT!!' (BANG)? I don't think anyone here is quite old enough to have personally witnessed creation. Could I answer all questions about God? Probably not. But I could answer very many questions about God. The Holy Bible reveals who God is and what God is like. There is a difference in whether the universe is 15 billion years old or 6000 years old. The Holy Bible clearly says 6 day creation about 6,000 years ago. Since the teaching of atheistic origin science is pubic schools there has been a great falling away in the percentage of people who actually believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and are saved.

My question to you this time, if you won't mind, is this; What to you is the Lord Jesus, is the He (Lord Jesus) the bible? The Lord Jesus Christ is God from the Holy Bible. He is not the Bible. He is described in the Bible. He created al things. Jesus Christ is the only Saviour.

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you. With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement. It's like this; 'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!' My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists. However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda. You see? Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science. The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse. I termed it . It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science. It is just one more con job. Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science. As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder. Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion. They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice. The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about. If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about. I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion. When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together. We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God. I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory. Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories. The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic. Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory. At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based. Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work. This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science. It is simple logic. For origin science there are 2 mutually exclusive kinds: atheistic and theistic. Then theistic breaks down into various kinds. Of course creation is a science. Science is knowledge. It looks for truth. The truth is God created all things. Science is theories and experimentation, it is exploration. Philosophy looks for truth. (btw, I feel like we're digging down to our more basic premises now, this is pretty cool!) But nothing from origin science was observed. Nor has any of it been recreated.

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you. With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement. It's like this; 'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!' My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists. However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda. You see? Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science. The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse. I termed it . It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science. It is just one more con job. Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science. As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder. Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion. They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice. The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about. If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about. I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion. When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together. We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God. I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory. Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories. The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic. Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory. At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based. Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work. This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science. It is simple logic. For origin science there are 2 mutually exclusive kinds: atheistic and theistic. Then theistic breaks down into various kinds. Of course creation is a science. Science is knowledge. It looks for truth. The truth is God created all things.

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you. With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement. It's like this; 'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!' My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists. However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda. You see? Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science. The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse. I termed it . It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science. It is just one more con job. Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science. As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder. Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion. They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice. The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about. If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about. I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion. When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together. We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you. With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement. It's like this; 'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!' My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists. However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda. You see? Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science. The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse. I termed it . It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science. It is just one more con job. Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science. As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder. Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion. They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

Please answer the topic at hand.

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion. What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science. In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away. The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! Name a fallacy that I am practicing. I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does. There are plenty of theistic evolution scientists. That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion. What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science. In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away. The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! Name a fallacy that I am practicing. I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does. Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[13] Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[14][15] Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise. (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position[66] Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says[49] (in this case, you point to specific negative behaviour by unspecified individualize and generalize it to all people who believe in Evolution, then apply it as evidence against the idea itself) Also, none of the things that you just listed as proofs against Evolution have anything to do with the theory of Evolution, they have everything to do with the debate etiquettes of the individuals in question! Being rude to someone doesn't prove that a theory is untrue, it proves that someone is being rude! The use of the term atheistic origin science although there are Christian Biologists who work with Evolution could be considered an example of; Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment. By mischaracterising the theory of evolution as 'atheistic origin science' you purposefully deny all of the evolution scientists who are also theistic. If you read and consider all of the fallacies you will be better equipped to make more bulletproof arguments for your case, AND you'll be able to accurately point out when people who believe in Evolution are using the same fallacies against you! Win/win! But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools. The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution. So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever. In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first. Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science. As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate, In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else. Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false. You should watch Inherit the Wind. It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion. What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science. In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away. The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! Name a fallacy that I am practicing. I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it. The last post was for step 1. You use no logic, you make leaps that have no connection. You make fact claims that you refuse to support. You ignore questions asked of you. "because I said so" does not make something true. These things make it increasingly difficult to have any discussions with you Here are just a few of the questions I have for those that support evolution from atoms to mankind and old ages of things. What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists? Was just comprised of proteins and other atoms? If so how many amino acids were in each protein? What was the sequence of the amino acids? Or Was it composed of RNA and proteins? For the proteins, how many amino acids were in each protein? What was the sequence of the amino acids? For the RNA, How many nucleotides total was there? What was the sequence of nucleotides? Or did it have DNA and all the other things needed to be DNA based? How many nucleotides total was there? What was the sequence of nucleotides? For those that believe in the Big Bang, what was there before? What kind of God would have used evolution over billions of years? Can any evolutionist provide a single fact, not based on an assumption, of anything older than 5000 years? Can evolutionist give dates (years ago) for when a single transitional creature (missing link) lived. Also provide the same for the ancestor and the descendant? Is it possible that man descended from some apelike creature in 5 million years? No answer to any of these questions. Just an attempt to evade the issues. I have many many more questions that evolutionists cannot answer.

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it. The last post was for step 1. You use no logic, you make leaps that have no connection. You make fact claims that you refuse to support. You ignore questions asked of you. "because I said so" does not make something true. These things make it increasingly difficult to have any discussions with you I never said "because I said so" It seems impossible to discuss the theories of atheistic origin science since they actually give no answers I ignore some questions because they are really an attempt to evade the questions I asked. Like the name of this very topic.

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it. The last post was for step 1.

God spoke the universe and all things into existence. But the Holy Bible is quite clear that God created all things in 6 days, about 6000 years ago.. The Big Bang theory has the universe created about 12 billion years ago with the earth forming about 4.5 billion years ago. So God did not use the Big Bang. He just spoke things into existence as recorded in Genesis 1 The big bang is about the first part of the first second. The big bang isn't about dating the universe of how the remainder of creation worked out. If God speaking the universe into existence is the Big Bang, then it happened about 6,000 years ago

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion. What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science. In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades. Again a great proof against atheistic origin science. Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. Again, disproving one does not prove the other. it is not an either or. each must stand in their own merit. Going with your logic one could say since evolution is false then that proves everything came from Tiamat Disproving without God origin science does prove with God origin sciecne

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things.

God spoke the universe and all things into existence. But the Holy Bible is quite clear that God created all things in 6 days, about 6000 years ago.. The Big Bang theory has the universe created about 12 billion years ago with the earth forming about 4.5 billion years ago. So God did not use the Big Bang. He just spoke things into existence as recorded in Genesis 1

1. The question is how shall we believe today in/on/into Jesus, how shall we do that in our actual life? 2. Where or from whom did you learn that if a person is given an eternal life, same is never to be damned anymore and is always saved, did Jesus teach that to the apostles as recorded in the bible? 1. To believe in/on Jesus Christ or to believe in/on the name of Jesus Christ is defined in the Holy Bible. First, you must believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. That makes Jesus Christ the Creator. John 8:24, 58 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. John 20:28-29 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Second, you must believe what Jesus Christ did. The Lord Jesus Christ took on flesh. Jesus completely paid for our sins when He shed His holy blood on the cross. He then was buried and rose again the third day. Romans 1:16-17 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Romans 3:22-26 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Finally you must believe what Jesus has promised: everlasting life simple through faith in Him. The following passages also answer your second question. Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved is Absolutely True. The Holy Bible has many verses or passages that prove this. Here is just a few. There are many more. If someone has everlasting life, then they could never be damned. If not they did not have everlasting life but potentially everlasting life. Jesus Christ, who is God, would not lie especially with the double verily. John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Verse 15 and 16 again say the same thing and by the same logic have eternal security. Both also emphatically claim, “should not perish” also. Verse 18 Jesus Christ says that they are not condemned. John 3:14-18 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. In verse 26, Jesus Christ said that they shall never die. Surely you believe God. John 11:25-26 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? If your sealed till the day of redemption, you could not be damned. Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Jesus says He is with the saved and will never leave them. How could they ever go to hell. Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. If someone has eternal life, then they could never be damned. If not they did not have eternal life but potentially eternal life. Jesus Christ, who is God, would not lie. Again Jesus Christ is emphatic that “they shall never perish.” Obviously no man can pluck them out of Jesus’ hand or His Father’s hand. John 10:28-30 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one. How can you know that you have eternal life if is only a maybe? 1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. The next passage says “are saved” not might be saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Potentially damned could not be salvation. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The only belief that does not count is a false belief. So you must believe who Jesus really is, what He has done, and what Jesus has promised. Also you trust in works FOR salvation or your own merit to earn salvation. Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. The above sampling absolutely proves that eternal security (once saved always saved) is absolutely true. They are emphatic and quite clear. Since the Holy Bible has no contradictions, anything that you think shows otherwise is just your mistaken interpretation. In love, in Christ, in meekness, Mark

Jesus Christ, who is the Lord God Almighty, proclaimed the following. John 3:14-16 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Since belief is the only thing mentioned, it must be the only thing necessary for salvation. It cannot be belief plus anything else. If it were, then the statement would not be true. But Jesus said this, so it must be true. If someone does not believe these words spoken by Jesus Christ, then that person does not believe what Jesus Christ said. Therefore that person has not believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. John 3:14-15 and 16 are faith alone statements. These verses also are eternal security (once saved, always saved) statements, else they would say might have everlasting life. If a person has everlasting life, they could never be damned. The same logic applies to the very many passages, which show that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ gives everlasting life. From the above, we are assured by God Almighty the Saviour that if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you are saved forever. Those that are saved through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood have all their sins paid for by that blood. They have all their sins forgiven by faith in His atoning blood. God will not remember their sins. Therefore, no passage of damnation or condemnation applies to those saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those that have not believed by faith alone are not saved. None of their sins are paid for, forgiven, or forgotten. Every passage of damnation or condemnation applies to them. Many people quote the very passages that condemn them. Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13). He got the gospel by direct revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). Jesus Christ ordained that the Gentiles should hear the gospel of salvation from Paul (see Romans 15:16 and 2 Timothy 4:17). Paul and Silas were asked a very direct question. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the following, which he got from the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:30-31 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. If anything else were needed for salvation besides believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul would surely have said so. Faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood for our sins saves. Paul declared the gospel of salvation (the good news of Jesus Christ) in the following passage. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Paul also wrote that all those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ are saved forever. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek Do you believe Jesus Christ who said: John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. In love, in Christ, in meekness, Mark