Probality of God

[eatenbyagrue]

But, if(in your mind) God is able to create the universe, would it be only a seemingly fresh universe that takes millions or even billions of years to get to this point, or could he have created in with 'age' built in from the start? 

God set the stage. Infinite universe. Dinosaurs, Cro-magnon, Neanderthal, so the stage is set, along with a few huge asteroid hits and all the complex things that would make up  a case for evolution a possible thought.

In your mind, do you imagine that if there is that kind of intelligence that could create all this, wouldnt you say they did a pretty good job of it?

All im saying is, if you want to argue between creation time line and what science says of that time line, is it that hard to believe that if creation did happen, that it could have happened with all the ingredients that would include millions or billions of years of events including the big bang?

So the scientific timeline can be true either way, to scientists. If a stage is set, who is to say that it wasnt?

So what proof is there that says creation is impossible? 

Mags

This has been explained many times.  No one needs to furnish proof that creation is impossible.  Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


By your logic, maybe we are only 5 minutes old.  Who knows?  Maybe we were created with all our memories and so forth.  All of this is possible, though highly improbable.  This is a conversation-ender, as there is no way to tell, or do you have a way?


The creation story flies against existing scientific evidence as to age of the earth.  Do you have any evidence for why the creation scenario is more likely than a 4 billion old earth scenario?

[Qwert]

So what proof is there that says creation is impossible? 

Mags

I agree entirely with you. I never said that I negate possibility of God, even creation. I negate the Bible as the text straight from God. Thus, I negate religious notion of God. Also, see my previous post, just above yours.

[eatenbyagrue]

Next, let us take to them the evidence of BIBLE PROPHECY.  This they ignore, and glaze over, which tells me they REALLY are not interested in persuing truth, because the ramification of what they find they may not like.  This is not real science at all but pseudo science at best, trying to make science fit their own preconceptions of reality and anything that would challange that must be ridiculed and scorned.  If there were no TRUE God of the Bible, then not a SINGLE uttered prophecy would have been fulfilled, accurately, except by chance.  BUT again, since Bible Prophecy is ACCURATE 100% of the time, this presents a problem.  How could it possibly be accurate?  Time traveler?  Coincidence?  OR TRUE GOD!  But this brings them back to the paradox.  If they begin to examine this with unbiased thinking, they are likely to not like what they find because it does not fit their own preconceptions.  So their only option is to ignore and ridicule.  This is NOT the persuit of TRUTH (science in their venecular).

Hey Bruce, why doesn't the Bible actually have useful predictions in it.  How useful would it have been to know about viruses and bacteria?  What about the concept of zero?  Table of the elements?  Anything that would actually help humanity in a practical way.

[Magluvin]

This has been explained many times.  No one needs to furnish proof that creation is impossible.  Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


By your logic, maybe we are only 5 minutes old.  Who knows?  Maybe we were created with all our memories and so forth.  All of this is possible, though highly improbable.  This is a conversation-ender, as there is no way to tell, or do you have a way?


The creation story flies against existing scientific evidence as to age of the earth.  Do you have any evidence for why the creation scenario is more likely than a 4 billion old earth scenario?

Hey Eaten
Its not a conversation ender really.     Possible but improbable?  I and many many others find it possible but improbable of evolution.

So I stand on this side of the wall, and you on the other. I am happy with what I believe and know, and you are not happy with what I claim to believe and claim to know.  If you strictly dont believe or even want to know, then why bother me about it? Why the continuous argument? Especially if you have not even tried to really find out for your self. But for some reason you and others only trust and look for answers scientifically instead of going straight for the source.

Thats like trying to build a magnet motor with no magnets. 

Mags

[Magluvin]

I agree entirely with you. I never said that I negate possibility of God, even creation. I negate the Bible as the text straight from God. Thus, I negate religious notion of God. Also, see my previous post, just above yours.

Thats your choice. How ever you came to that conclusion. My conclusions are different.

Mags