What Percent Out Of A 100 Are You Convinced That The God Of The Bible

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324020813' post='2352106']
Discrepancy in the order of creation?

[b]Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27[/b] Birds were created [b][i]before[/i][/b] Adam.
[b]Genesis 2:7 and 2:19[/b] Birds were created [b][i]after[/i][/b] Adam.

[b]Genesis 1:24-27[/b] Animals were created [b][i]before[/i][/b] Adam.
[b]Genesis 2:7 and 2:19[/b] Animals were created [b][i]after[/i][/b] Adam.

[b]Genesis 1:26-27[/b] Adam and Eve were created at the [b][i]same time[/i][/b].
[b]Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22[/b] Adam was created first, woman sometime [b][i]later[/i][/b].

[/quote]
Since no one has got me on the back foot at the moment or flaming me i got bored and for interest sakes I decided to look at some more of your references.
In the first & second it just says that the animals were brought to Adam to see what he would call them. It does not say they were made after him.

In the third it says that man and women were made in his image not that this was concurrent.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324205380' post='2353263']
ok, maybe i fell asleep in physics, but i missed the part where earth having a strong gravitational field proved the existence of God.

Well, that was simple. someone should message Dawkins.


[/quote]
Lol What? better give Language a miss and stick to maths.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+bullet"]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+bullet[/url]

[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=escape+velocity"]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=escape+velocity[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324192772' post='2353236']
Can you prove that it is physically impossible for life to exist without a god creator?
[/quote]
Yes.

The bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, and bacterial chemotaxis. Therefore, the King James Bible is absolute truth.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324209002' post='2353271']
[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+bullet"]http://www.wolframal...speed+of+bullet[/url]

[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=escape+velocity"]http://www.wolframal...escape+velocity[/url]
[/quote]

thanks for the double check, though im not sure why they used rimfire .22lr as a typical bullet, its about half as fast as most(many versions arent even supersonic), and weighs about 2-3 times less than most

Edited December 18, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324204767' post='2353260']
But you walk past a large tree in the park, you've never seen if it has a root. There are two possibilities. 1/The tree happens per chance to be balanced and happens per chance that it is in a position of null air flow. 2/ It has a large tap root that holds it upright. Which is more plausible? Do we need to dig the tree up to prove it has a root [/quote]
Yes, this is exactly what people did. They dug up trees and examined them, they came to an understanding on how they work by examining, observing and testing. Not by philisophical analysis alone.

[stevil]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324209497' post='2353273']
Yes.

The bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, and bacterial chemotaxis. Therefore, the King James Bible is absolute truth.
[/quote]
It seems you disagree with the incremental benefits of evolution. There are many theists that agree with evolution.
I understand that still much ground is to be made within this theory, but it has never been disproven. Trying to find gaps and fill them with god is not a method of discovery, it is a method of stubborn ignorance.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324237810' post='2353340']
Yes, this is exactly what people did. They dug up trees and examined them, they came to an understanding on how they work by examining, observing and testing. Not by philisophical analysis alone.
[/quote]
So to you every tree is an unknown unless you dig it up and prove it has a root. I think it is common practice even in solid science to project conclusions from data or it's absence. Do scientists regard the Higgs Boson exists or not?
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324238056' post='2353342']
It seems you disagree with the incremental benefits of evolution. There are many theists that agree with evolution.
I understand that still much ground is to be made within this theory, but it has never been disproven. Trying to find gaps and fill them with god is not a method of discovery, it is a method of stubborn ignorance.
[/quote]
I believe in evolution... to an extent. I use it to fill in the gaps where I can't explain things by God alone. Lets call it the gap evolution, where I have stubborn ignorance of the existence of God and need something to replace it.

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324240881' post='2353357']
So to you every tree is an unknown unless you dig it up and prove it has a root. I think it is common practice even in solid science to project conclusions from data or it's absence. Do scientists regard the Higgs Boson exists or not?
[/quote]
In terms of trees, we categorise them. Each varity, we then define what we believe to be common amongst trees of each variety. When then test these definitions by examining further trees of the same variety, we then expect the same definition holds for all trees of the variety. If someone proves with evidence that the definition does not hold true in all cases, we then redefine. This is the process of discover in order to find out the truth about reality. We don't start with the answers, we observe and also come up with theories but endevour to prove them before regarding them as fact.

With regards to Higgs Boson, this is a theory which hasn't been proven yet, although I have heard that the recent development is that they are close to proving HB. Regardless of proof, I'm am sure there are likely to be some scientists whom belive in Higgs Boson.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324240881' post='2353357']
I believe in evolution... to an extent. I use it to fill in the gaps where I can't explain things by God alone. Lets call it the gap evolution, where I have stubborn ignorance of the existence of God and need something to replace it.
[/quote]
Here you are employing the age old argument of "Burdon of proof".
I call the information we have on gods a god theory, and I would put the burdon of proof onto the theory rather than against the theory.

[MarysLittleFlower]

100%

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324238056' post='2353342']
It seems you disagree with the incremental benefits of evolution. There are many theists that agree with evolution.
I understand that still much ground is to be made within this theory, but it has never been disproven. Trying to find gaps and fill them with god is not a method of discovery, it is a method of stubborn ignorance.
[/quote]
Lol.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324256561' post='2353416']
Lol.
[/quote]
+ Lol.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324245490' post='2353376']
Regardless of proof, I'm am sure there are likely to be some scientists whom belive in Higgs Boson.
[/quote]
Thank you! They have faith in their theory for which they have sound reason, but no proof.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324245490' post='2353376']
Here you are employing the age old argument of "Burdon of proof".

[/quote]
No, I was just showing the flip side of your argument!

[MithLuin]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324168542' post='2352946']
I don't subscribe to a god of the gaps.
How many stars and planets are there estimated to be in our universe?
How many universes could there be in all of existence?
[/quote]

There is no estimation on planets, because we've only just figured out how to 'see' them and thus have just begun looking for them over the past few years. So, yes, we have found some, but do not yet have a way to determine how 'likely' they are to be around particular stars. The data is just too limited. But as we explore the existence of planets around more and more stars, we will be able to start making some crude estimates. As an example of what limited evidence does...we've taken the structure of our solar system as the 'standard' (because what else is there to go by??), thus assuming that rocky planets are closer to stars and gas giants are further away. The first planet we found around another star? Larger than Jupiter and closer to its star than Mercury (which is why we were able to 'see' its gravitational effect on its star.)

Number of stars is very difficult to estimate. There are thought to be around 100 billion stars in our galaxy (the Milky Way). But...there are also estimated to be about 100 billion GALAXIES out there, and we of course have no idea how many stars are in each of them. Certainly quite a lot!

There is one universe. I am aware of multiverse theories, but they're pretty much cheating to try to make sense of quantum stuff (which isn't really supposed to make sense). But, by definition, 'all that is' is part of the universe. You can't go 'outside' the universe!

[stevil]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324261691' post='2353451']
There is one universe. I am aware of multiverse theories, but they're pretty much cheating to try to make sense of quantum stuff (which isn't really supposed to make sense). But, by definition, 'all that is' is part of the universe. You can't go 'outside' the universe!
[/quote]
It depends on your definition of a universe.
If you think of a universe as being the matter and energy that is expanding from a big bang event then you could consider that this binds them as a universe system.
For an Atheist it may seem quite odd to consider that in the vastness, (likely infinity) of space that there would only be one universe. This would mean that space would be for the most part empty.
For an Atheist (well, Ice_nine will probably tell me off for generalising here), how could we consider an event to be unique, never having happened before and never to happen again? Mostly we consider things to be autonomous, simply with conditions that allow events to just happen. For an Atheist it is unlikely that the event that cause our Universe to expand from a big bang are unique hence in the unbounded space (infinite) it is likely that there are an infinite universes. Of course this will likely never be proven and of course this sounds like a belief. But given an Atheist stance it seems this belief must be held by an Atheist, unless of course they simply want to shrug and say "I don't know" which is a valid option.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324203468' post='2353257']
speed of a 30 caliber bullet is gonna be around 2300 feet per second or 0.5 miles per second. faster ones can manage a mile per second.
escape velocity is V = square root of ((2 * Gravitational constant * Mass of planet) / distance from center of gravity/planet)

works out to about 11.2km per second(7 MilesPerSecond) is the necessary speed for a ballistic(non propelled) object to break free of earths orbit and come to a complete stop in space, past the pull of earths gravity. that speed plus a little bit aimed in the right direction would make it to the moon.

but that is about 14 times faster than an average long distance rifle bullet travels, and probably close to 30 times as fast as the average shotgun load.

so im not sure what the question was, but thats the answer for it.
[/quote]

For information on how to shoot the moon, read Jules Verne's [i]From the Earth to the Moon[/i]. He predates NASA, of course, and how the Baltimore Gun Club come up with a plan to get a cannonball shot at the moon because they're bored after the Civil War ends. Not having rocketfuel available, he relies on a ridiculous quantity of nitroglycerin to achieve escape velocity.