The Beginning

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i think i will manage to not lose any sleep over not being able to understand your "explanations". just barely, but i will survive.

not my explanations, but the Bibles clear and unambiguous portrayal of the creation and emergence of life, in all its wonderful diversity!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not my explanations, but the Bibles clear and unambiguous portrayal of the creation and emergence of life, in all its wonderful diversity!

yes, we have different definitions for "clear" "unambiguous" "logical".

not to mention that wonderful "explanation" you smacked my brain with was not the bible's story. It was me who only offered bible verses. you decided to give some doods insane explanations as to what those verses mean. and you didn't present them as "here: this could have happened". no, you presented them as proof, as "i can't believe you didn't thought of this before".

so i think i will still manage to get on with my life even if i am unworthy and incapable of understanding your wisdom.

Originally posted by josephw
Then just try to name one thing that doesn't have a beginning.

The Universe.
What relevance does your question have?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, we have different definitions for "clear" "unambiguous" "logical".

not to mention that wonderful "explanation" you smacked my brain with was not the bible's story. It was me who only offered bible verses. you decided to give some doods insane explanations as to what those verses mean. and you didn't present them as "here: this could have happened". n with my life even if i am unworthy and incapable of understanding your wisdom.

it has nothing to do with interpretations, of clear, unambiguous, logical, the fact of the matter remains that the book of Genesis, is scientifically sound, as explained, in detail, for the third time around! you cannot keep expecting us to deliver the readies again and again and for nothing to be stated with regard to the content, other than mere definitions about the interpretations of words, can you, therefore Zippy my friend, either make with the readies or the statement stands! and you are perfectly capable of understanding, you just dont want to, because it takes humility to have ones view point corrected, yes it may be painful as in setting a broken bone, but it shall heal and you shall be made sound in mind once again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it has nothing to do with interpretations, of clear, unambiguous, logical, the fact of the matter remains that the book of Genesis, is scientifically sound, as explained, in detail, for the third time around! you cannot keep expecting us to deliver the readies again and again and for nothing to be stated with regard to the content, other than mere d ...[text shortened]... l as in setting a broken bone, but it shall heal and you shall be made sound in mind once again.

the fact of the matter remains that the book of Genesis, is scientifically sound

Pure comedy gold Robbie!!!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]the fact of the matter remains that the book of Genesis, is scientifically sound

Pure comedy gold Robbie!!![/b]

oh Noobster, it it brought a smile to your face then you know it is enough for me, however, even the very first statement, 'in the beginning, God created,', is scientifically accurate, for it is now indeed acknowledged, that the universe did have a beginning, that it has not always existed. Secondly the events in themselves, in chronological order, are testified as being in complete harmony with science.


"If I, as a geologist, were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis." Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Universe.
What relevance does your question have?

Originally posted by zeger55
What i mean is, when there are only so many possibilities of how the world came in to being, how can people who try to explain everything by science explain the origin of the world? There has to have been a beginning, and i don't see any answer that atheism gives to where that beginning came from. Either you believe in an unexplainable bang, or an unexplainable God.

To which you replied, "there does not have to be a beginning".

Then I said name one thing that does not have a beginning.

You said, "the universe".

What is relevant is this. Everything we know of has a beginning. Everything.

Even evolution makes that claim.

Therefore there is no rational reason to believe the universe didn't have a beginning too.

Originally posted by josephw
Originally posted by zeger55
What i mean is, when there are only so many possibilities of how the world came in to being, how can people who try to explain everything by science explain the origin of the world? [b]There has to have been a beginning, and i don't see any answer that atheism gives to where that beginning came from. Either you believe in a ...[text shortened]... Therefore there is no rational reason to believe the universe didn't have a beginning too.[/b]

Do we know everything?
I would argue not - so arguing that a beginning must occur because everything we know at the moment had a beginning does not follow.

Originally posted by josephw
What is relevant is this. Everything we know of has a beginning. Everything.

That is blatantly untrue - and you know it because you fully admit that I answered your question with an example of something that is not known to have a beginning, even the argument itself admits one unknown thing.

Even evolution makes that claim.
No it doesn't. It makes no claims whatsoever regarding everything.

Therefore there is no rational reason to believe the universe didn't have a beginning too.
Nor is there a rational reason to believe that it did. Your argument is going nowhere.

I must point out that if your argument was valid then it would apply to God too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh Noobster, it it brought a smile to your face then you know it is enough for me, however, even the very first statement, 'in the beginning, God created,', is scientifically accurate, for it is now indeed acknowledged, that the universe did have a beginning, that it has not always existed. Secondly the events in themselves, in chronological order, ...[text shortened]... , quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

can you name just one person on this forum that doesn't think you are a complete nutjob?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
can you name just one person on this forum that doesn't think you are a complete nutjob?

yes, You, Fabians, Noobster, Badwater, Galvo, Conrau and black beetle.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, You, Fabians, Noobster, Badwater, Galvo, Conrau and black beetle.

Robbie without doubt i think you're the biggest nutjob on here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh Noobster, it it brought a smile to your face then you know it is enough for me, however, even the very first statement, 'in the beginning, God created,', is scientifically accurate, for it is now indeed acknowledged, that the universe did have a beginning, that it has not always existed. Secondly the events in themselves, in chronological order, , quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

Since when did science prove the existence of God??

Have i missed a meeting?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, You, Fabians, Noobster, Badwater, Galvo, Conrau and black beetle.

Don't include me until you deserve it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Don't include me until you deserve it.

deserve what? your approval ?, keep it Spanky, anyone who insists on filling the forum with his sexual fantasies, i distance myself from! i have my own mind and my own evaluations!