On the logic of a Christian God, your stance on how we got here is what?

 

I could ask you, "What's your stance on where this supreme creator came from" and you would probably use a cop out such as "There is no way we could know." or "We are not to question such things." or the always charming "He always was."

 

Because I dont believe in cop outs about as much as I dont believe in the Christian God...I'll tell you exactly what my stance is. The Earth, like everything else in our solar system, was created when the "Big Band" occured in Space. In the very infant stages of the Earth's history, cells were created from chemical reactions. A chemical reacation, of course, needs to no "hand to guide it" or a devine architect to lay out plans for it. For example, mold grows on foods through chemical functions that do not have to be controled by anyone. Science is an ever going process that needs noone pulling its strings. Over time, these cells became larger beings. As the history of our planet by millions of years at a time (by the way, the idea that the planet is only 6000 years old is my favorite thing I have heard in a church) these beings EVOLVED. Humans, as they are today, originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa.

 

You may want to ask "Why is there life only on Earth?" My answer to that is simple. Because we havent found life on other planets. Basic science will tell us that any planet capable of providing water and allowing for oxygen could support life. As of yet, we have not found such a place that we can explore or even find out enough about to know more about its capability of harboring life.

 

 

 

It makes more LOGICAL SENSE that there just happened to be a puddle of chemicals with the EXACT NEEDED combination with the EXACT NEEDED quantities at the EXACT MOMENT that the EXACT electrical charge just HAPPENED to hit the EXACT spot of the puddle, to produce life.

 

:thumb:Agreed.

 

 

 

 

THAT is more logical than a Christian God that create life.

 

That theory is MUCH MORE farfetched than a Christian God.

 

Not to mention how did the puddle of chemicals even get there?

 

Think really hard about what you are saying. Science, something has been proven to be reliable and is actually proveable and testable, says that we were created simply by the scientific formation of cells and through evolution.

 

You are trying to say that the idea of a big man that sits on a throne in a magical place where you go after you die created you in his image and then left you here to do as you please. Oh, but as a stipulation - he'll curse you with free will but then expect you to honor and obey him. He then gives you no logical reasoning to believe he is there. He makes no communication with you but expects you to "have faith" in him. Though if you do not - he will cast you into a firey hell where you will be tormented for all eternity. Does that really sound at all logical to you?

 

Think outside the box with me. If you had not been born in America (and by your presence on BGP - I am assuming in the Bible Belt) and you had not heard of Christianity before and I told you the above is what they believed what would you think?

I could ask you, "What's your stance on where this supreme creator came from" and you would probably use a cop out such as "There is no way we could know." or "We are not to question such things." or the always charming "He always was."

 

Because I dont believe in cop outs about as much as I dont believe in the Christian God...I'll tell you exactly what my stance is. The Earth, like everything else in our solar system, was created when the "Big Band" occured in Space. In the very infant stages of the Earth's history, cells were created from chemical reactions. A chemical reacation, of course, needs to no "hand to guide it" or a devine architect to lay out plans for it. For example, mold grows on foods through chemical functions that do not have to be controled by anyone. Science is an ever going process that needs noone pulling its strings. Over time, these cells became larger beings. As the history of our planet by millions of years at a time (by the way, the idea that the planet is only 6000 years old is my favorite thing I have heard in a church) these beings EVOLVED. Humans, as they are today, originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa.

 

You may want to ask "Why is there life only on Earth?" My answer to that is simple. Because we havent found life on other planets. Basic science will tell us that any planet capable of providing water and allowing for oxygen could support life. As of yet, we have not found such a place that we can explore or even find out enough about to know more about its capability of harboring life.

 

 

 

[/Quote]

 

Curious on what science believes the substance that the Big Bang came from, was? The explosion had to come from something. What was it?

 

On your first question, don't know the answer to that question.

 

On the bolded, the chemicals need to be created before there can be a chemical reaction.

 

 

 

 

 

Think really hard about what you are saying. Science, something has been proven to be reliable and is actually proveable and testable, says that we were created simply by the scientific formation of cells and through evolution.

 

 

Think outside the box with me. If you had not been born in America (and by your presence on BGP - I am assuming in the Bible Belt) and you had not heard of Christianity before and I told you the above is what they believed what would you think?

 

Is this the same science that said the Earth was flat? The same science that at one time said the universe revolved around the Earth? The same science that consistently finds it was wrong on issues and then offers different views when they find out they were wrong? Is this the same science that cannot agree who is causing global warming? Science has not proven itself, in the least to be reliable. What they know now, could be disproven in 25, 50 years. Science who this week in research being done in England thinks they have found the gene that makes men more funny than women?

 

And on your science being able to prove things? They cannot prove what you believe is how everything began. Although, I do think it was the Big Bang and not Big Band. Is Tommy Dorsey the Creator?

 

They cannot prove evolution theory or the Big Bang theory.

 

 

You are trying to say that the idea of a big man that sits on a throne in a magical place where you go after you die created you in his image and then left you here to do as you please. Oh, but as a stipulation - he'll curse you with free will but then expect you to honor and obey him. He then gives you no logical reasoning to believe he is there. He makes no communication with you but expects you to "have faith" in him. Though if you do not - he will cast you into a firey hell where you will be tormented for all eternity. Does that really sound at all logical to you?

 

I believe the magical place that you mention will be right here on Earth when God restores this Earth back to it's original design of Garden of Eden.

 

He cursed no one. Man chooses his own path. He gives me every logical reasoning to believe in Him. I don't look at either of my children and think that they are some accident. That the perfect heart that they have came by chance. That the exact lungs they need are a consequence. That their other organs are just happenstance to work the exact way they need to work to live. That is logical reasoning.

 

For each person that ends up in a hell, they will have chosen to be there.

 

God communicates to me through my readings of Scripture. Through Christian songs and sermons I hear. Through the devotions I read. Through the people I meet and know. Through my kids. Through my noticing the beauty of this planet and the wonderful things on it. And yeah, through BGP. I firmly believe that those Christians on here have been vehicles to make me think about my views on issues, strengthen or weakening them. I believe you are a vehicle that God is using to communicate to me.

 

When you look at a house, you assume there was a carpenter, right? Do you need proof that there was a carpenter that built that house?

 

When you look at a painting, you assume there as an artist, right? Do you need proof that there was an artist that painted the picture.

 

If I looked at you, a wonderful creature that the Lord made and numbered the hairs on your head, I would not need proof of a Creator.

I throwing my support to Barack Obama, but if he loses I'm supporting what ever democrat wins the nomination for the White House.

 

Ditto here.

 

 

Think really hard about what you are saying. Science, something has been proven to be reliable and is actually proveable and testable, says that we were created simply by the scientific formation of cells and through evolution.

 

 

Hollllllllllllllllllddddddddddddd up, chief. Science has never been reliable or provable (this coming from someone with a pretty strong background in biochem). Heck, go take physics class. Then go take a modern physics class. Tell me how concrete science your science is then.

 

If LBBC wants to believe in a god, let him.

Hollllllllllllllllllddddddddddddd up, chief. Science has never been reliable or provable (this coming from someone with a pretty strong background in biochem). Heck, go take physics class. Then go take a modern physics class. Tell me how concrete science your science is then.

 

If LBBC wants to believe in a god, let him.

 

GunRunner,

 

I have no problem with LBBC believing in whatever God LBBC wishes to believe in. The problem is, LBBC wishes to discuss LBBC's religion on a discuss forum. I am simply discussing it.

 

Oh and by the way, I have taken physics, chem, bio, biochem, organic chem, quantam, and a whole assortment of sci classes. Science isn't proveable? Tell that to Newton and Boyle. Science is reliable? Tell that to Darwin and Einstein. It would be fair to say that science "is not ALWAYS" reliable - simply because it can be tested and proven or disproven. Religion (and faith more specifically) can not.

GunRunner,

 

I have no problem with LBBC believing in whatever God LBBC wishes to believe in. The problem is, LBBC wishes to discuss LBBC's religion on a discuss forum. I am simply discussing it.

 

Oh and by the way, I have taken physics, chem, bio, biochem, organic chem, quantam, and a whole assortment of sci classes. Science isn't proveable? Tell that to Newton and Boyle. Science is reliable? Tell that to Darwin and Einstein. It would be fair to say that science "is not ALWAYS" reliable - simply because it can be tested and proven or disproven. Religion (and faith more specifically) can not.

It's quite interesting that Einstein, arguably the greatest theoretical physicist in the history of the world, was not an atheist - and he is not alone among the great scientific minds of mankind's history. Is it just possible that Einstein was correct in his belief in God?

 

Does being "heavily" pro-choice include agreeing with Barack Hussein Obama's defense of a woman's right to allow a live born child die without medical treatment in the event of an "unsuccessful" abortion?

Who has the most legit energy bill that will bring gas down? Personally if its not down to 2.50 or below in 4 years I don't think there coming back.

My "endorsement" goes to Mitt Romney. No other candidate can match his demonstrated leadership in both business and government. Romney earned accolades for his part in salvaging the Salt Lake Winter Olympics and winning elected office in Massachusetts is further evidence of his leadership skills. Of course, most of us will have no say in who wins the nominations but Romney gets my vote if I get the opportunity to cast it for him.

 

I also like Huckabee and his success in the polls despite spending relatively little money on his campaign and organization is a great testament to his communication skills. I am hoping for a Romney/Huckabee ticket.

 

On the Democratic side, I seriously hope that Hillary wins the nomination. The Clintons' use of the IRS and other federal employees to retaliate against their critics scares me, but not as much as the other Democratic frontrunners.

 

Whatever moral high ground this nation has would be lost if we elect Barack Obama, who has defended not only unlimited access abortion but also infanticide in the event that doctors botch the job.

 

As for Edwards, he may be the scariest candidate in either party. Not only does he advocate direct direct negotiations with the Islamo-fascists who control Iran with no preconditions, he demonizes businesses that employee millions of American citizens. Edwards make Jimmy Carter look like a wise man in comparison.

GunRunner,

 

 

 

Oh and by the way, I have taken physics, chem, bio, biochem, organic chem, quantam, and a whole assortment of sci classes.

 

 

 

Haha, I bet you're also 6-5 / 250lbs, right? The internet is a great place...

:dancingpa:dancingpa

 

 

You come across as someone who consults Wikipedia for internet arguments.

GunRunner,

 

I have no problem with LBBC believing in whatever God LBBC wishes to believe in. The problem is, LBBC wishes to discuss LBBC's religion on a discuss forum. I am simply discussing it.

 

Oh and by the way, I have taken physics, chem, bio, biochem, organic chem, quantam, and a whole assortment of sci classes. Science isn't proveable? Tell that to Newton and Boyle. Science is reliable? Tell that to Darwin and Einstein. It would be fair to say that science "is not ALWAYS" reliable - simply because it can be tested and proven or disproven. Religion (and faith more specifically) can not.

 

I thought that in the limited number of science classes I had - nothing is ever "proven". It's all theory that holds up until someone can disprove it... There are scientific laws that scientists feel pretty confident in, but I don't think science proves things. It just encourages us to continue testing them. A test that does not disprove merely strengthens the theory.

I thought that in the limited number of science classes I had - nothing is ever "proven". It's all theory that holds up until someone can disprove it... There are scientific laws that scientists feel pretty confident in, but I don't think science proves things. It just encourages us to continue testing them. A test that does not disprove merely strengthens the theory.

 

So Gravity hasn't been proven?

GunRunner,

 

I have no problem with LBBC believing in whatever God LBBC wishes to believe in. The problem is, LBBC wishes to discuss LBBC's religion on a discuss forum. I am simply discussing it.

 

Oh and by the way, I have taken physics, chem, bio, biochem, organic chem, quantam, and a whole assortment of sci classes. Science isn't proveable? Tell that to Newton and Boyle. Science is reliable? Tell that to Darwin and Einstein. It would be fair to say that science "is not ALWAYS" reliable - simply because it can be tested and proven or disproven. Religion (and faith more specifically) can not.

 

To quote GunRunner,

Hhhhhhhhhhhoooooooooollllllllllllddddddddddd Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuppppppppppp Chief.

 

LBBC has NO RELIGION. If we are discussing MY RELIGION, you have a great claim that what I believe doesn't hold up.

 

My faith is in what God inspired men to write about some 2000 years or more ago.

 

That is NOT MY RELIGION. It is what I believe from what God had written in the Holy Bible.

 

And yeah, Faith can be proven, it is just that you don't agree with the proof. You dismiss it as warm fuzzy feelings.

So Gravity hasn't been proven?

 

The LAW of gravity... the scientific community feels pretty strong about its validity

 

The Big Bang THEORY, the THEORY of evolution... the scientific community doesn't feel nearly as strong about these issues.

 

My point is that science always leaves itself room to be questioned and corrected.

I voted McCain but I am officially changing my support to Huckabee. Congrats, LBBC.

So Gravity hasn't been proven?

 

I suppose if it were proven scientist wouldn't bother studying it any longer.