• Happy Earth Week! TBT is hosting a series of nature-based mini-events through April 28th. Breed flower hybrids by organizing your collectible lineup, enter our nature photography contest, purchase historically dated scenery collectibles, and earn bells around the site! Read more in the Earth Week and photography contest threads.

Your Beliefs!

Wait was all that Big Bang stuff directed at me? We were talking about evolution, are you going to reply to my answers or did you just not think of an argument so went on about the Big Bang instead?
I'll try answer about the coelacanth later but Ill admit I don't know much about that part of evolution
 
Will try to answer these but first do you have any remarks on how the Coelacanth and the platypus correlates with evolution?

- - - Post Merge - - -

Big Bang:
It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:

The steady-state model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe's rate of expansion.

The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. It doesn't conflict with the big bang theory completely, as after a certain amount of time it aligns with the events described in the big bang theory.

The big bounce theory suggests our universe is one of a series of universes that first expand, then contract again. The cycle repeats after several billion years.

Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. Plasma is an ionized gas, which means it's a gas with free roaming electrons that can conduct electricity.

do u even know wat ur talking about?

- - - Post Merge - - -

Ok, here are my rebuttals. If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
humans cannot naturally evolve anymore, we have reached a point where our interaction with technology has removed the need for evolution.

if natural selection is false as u claim, then explain y viruses can mutate? r u saying that fears that bird flu can mutate into an airborne pathogen capable of human-human transmission r completely unfounded because natural selection is false?

- - - Post Merge - - -

i thought ur posting was highly unusual for a 12 year old. turns out i was correct.

u really shudnt just copy paste ur drivel from

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
 
I believe I shall pick this apart one section at a time because wow.



Cool story bro, but how about we ignore the fact that the Big Bang is no longer a theory and has been scientifically proven as fact now along with the fact that there is insurmountable evidence of evolution. Oh i dunno, I guess that all that doesn't matter.



I took the liberty of correcting your spelling and grammatical mistakes. That is sinful in itself.

Okay, to my main point, and we'll take the bible aspect of this for your ease of mind.

"God" gave humans FREE WILL. Free will to make decisions for ourselves, to choose what we do and don't do. You answer is true to a point. It's actually... very scientific. With every decision people make, it affects others. Not just sin. Good choices, bad choices, no choice at all affects everyone. The point of a self aware mind is balance any decisions you make so that others are not affected. This is human nature. Be it your sin, abiding by a law or choosing to date someone you like. So while this statement is true, it's a life given. No need to be so harsh.



They were hypothetical. All of them. That means they didn't need an answer.



While some people actually believe blindly, there are people who need proof, and there are people who need more than a blood stained book to guide them. That's a harsh thing to say about the bible, I know, but even the english version you read was incorrectly translated for the expressed purpose by King James to burn "witches" at the stake and persecute homosexuals.

History lesson time, in the time the old testament was written, there was no hebrew words for "Homosexual" nor "witch" nor a few other things that are mysteriously in the King James Version of the bible. Why is this. King James is QUOTED saying that he wanted these things added in for HIS agenda. Seriously, look it up. So today we people who are persecuted for being homosexual are accused as such because of a few words in a book over 40 thousand years old that was purposely mistranslated by a british king.



Now excuse the **** outta me when I pause to rip you a new one for this comment. I have lost three people in my family to cancer, my grandmother and mother have both fought and won against cancer and how dare you say something so ignorant, self serving and utter bull****.

My Great Grandmother was the most pious woman you could have ever know. She had considered being a nun, but fell in love with my great grandfather and decided that was the path god wanted her to walk on. She died on lung cancer.

My Grandmother has fought cancer on and off her whole life. She goes to church every week, she runs church functions, she travels the world to help youth and impoverished people in the name of the lord and have given countless hours to helping people in need, hundreds if not thousands into different charities and youth organizations and has even spilt her own blood sweat and tears helping people in need hands on, going into dangerous places to spread good will in the name of the lord. And you DARE tell me her battle with her cancers are HER SIN?

My MOTHER has dedicated HER LIFE into saving the lives of CHILDREN from abuse, poverty and certain DEATH by the hands of their own parents. My mother has had a gun aimed at her, has had death threats thrown at her and has almost died TWICE trying to help abused children. Her efforts in her job has lead her to writing LAWS on the books to better protect children. And you DARE SAY MY MOTHER'S SIN cause her to have BREAST CANCER!?

This is a load of crap. Cancer is the body attacking itself through rapid cell division, a blip in DNA turned deadly. It has nothing to do with Sin or whatever the **** you fell you need to justify it to turn a blind eye to a problem that kills MILLIONS every year. "Oh they are sinners, obviously" No. They are people like you and me who just happen to have cells that are killing them. You can't just pray cancer away, you have to get treatment as well. If prayer worked that well, then why do we have full centers dedicated to it? Why is the bulk of medical research focused on it. Because pray alone won't stop it.

The ignorance of that statement is infuriating.



I just. wow. Murderers kill for enjoyment, at least that's what most murderers on death row will say. This is a cop out answer that would piss anyone who has had a murmur victim in their family or whom have lost a child. I've already torn into you once, I can't even start to even begin to say how ****ed up this is. I have lost a child, and your words just stab me. Why, WHY would I want to be a part of a faith that tells me my actions killed my child? Why would anyone want to be a part of that? I did nothing wrong, and I still lost him. How dare you. How DARE you.



You are right. You are 150% right. Faith in god is a CHOICE. Not a choice you can force onto anyone ever. You cannot make someone choose to follow you into a religion and you can choose to respect them or you can choose to be an utter jerk and thrust it down other's throats like a complete jerk.

The **** you said here makes me so mad, it makes me cry that people actually feel it's okay to say this stuff, it makes me ache that people don't see how insensitive they are and it makes me disappointed that there are humans who actually believe and say such things. It's like... this post... raped me spiritually, blaming the blameless and casting hate toward those that they don't understand. It's not okay, it's not okay.

You will not gain favours like this. Nor will anyone want to even consider converting.

I believe that he meant, but probably worded it wrong that things like cancer are because of sin. Not because of the person itself, but because of the sin of mankind. Because we're imperfect. Pretty much because of the curse mankind put upon itself when it first sinned.
Mostly cancer and other sicknesses aren't because of sin, however certain sicknesses, such as AIDS are much more common with homosexuals, and that's where I disagree with what you call mistranslated in the Bible. It's very clear that the Bible is against it, and the New Testament it mentions the part saying that homosexuals will get in themselves the reward of their actions. And I'm positive it's talking about AIDS.

And well even if every verse against homosexuality was taken out of the Bible, it'd still be obvious it's wrong, because the Bible ONLY talks about straight relationships. And God defined marriage in the beginning between a man and a woman. If homosexuality was ok for God I'm sure He would have added verses that talk about it in a good way, and would have mentioned that one man and one man, or one woman and one woman can become one flesh. However, He didn't. Nor did Jesus when He quoted that in the New Testament.

Now, before you judge me, I don't hate homosexuals. I also don't hate people who divorce&remarry(also a sin). I don't hate people who commit abortions, etc. But are these things sins? Absolutely. But everyone is a sinner, even Christians are. To hate someone because of their sin would be hypocritical and wrong. But we do hate the sin itself. As a Christian you have to, for if you don't hate your sin you cannot turn from it, as you should. But besides turning from our sin, we still need a God who is willing to forgive us. He doesn't have to but this is where he shows his love for us. He died Himself(for Jesus IS God) so to pay the price for our sins. So that people could be forgiven.

God did this out of love for us. Not because he accepts the sin we do. He hates it. And so if we love God we too will hate it, and turn from it and be forgiven. And I wish for every sinner to do the same. Not because I hate them, but because I wish them the best.
 
Last edited:
Will try to answer these but first do you have any remarks on how the Coelacanth and the platypus correlates with evolution?

Big Bang:
It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

Where did that point of energy, the centre of the universe come from? Maybe it was god. Maybe it was the other side of a black hole, maybe it a Stewie Griffin restarting his time machine (This is a joke by the way). That is the next big question that will probably never be solved. Some questions will never have answers.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:

The steady-state model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe's rate of expansion.

The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. It doesn't conflict with the big bang theory completely, as after a certain amount of time it aligns with the events described in the big bang theory.

The big bounce theory suggests our universe is one of a series of universes that first expand, then contract again. The cycle repeats after several billion years.

Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. Plasma is an ionized gas, which means it's a gas with free roaming electrons that can conduct electricity.

First off, Congrats. You don't understand the Big Bang at all.

Laws were written after the big bang, there was chaos and insanity after the fact, and ignoring the fact that the Big Bang was PROVEN FACT this year. But I won't pick apart this post. It's to early to *****. HOWEVER

I love how your entire argument is COMPLETELY plagiarized from HERE

Maybe come up with your own arguments, honey.
 
Last edited:
I think if you're a good person overall you'll end up ok no matter what you believe in.
 
If you guys don't stop fighting, I swear I will turn this thread around.

Turn it right around and make it be about Bj?rk. Then you'll just have to deal.
 
I think if you're a good person overall you'll end up ok no matter what you believe in.

By what standard of goodness though? I would make sense that it would be God's standards, and we definitely fall short on that sooooo...

I know it sounds nice and easy when you say it the way you are, but I honestly don't think it will save you :/
 
Atheist.

Living in the bible belt sure is interesting haha.
 
By what standard of goodness though? I would make sense that it would be God's standards, and we definitely fall short on that sooooo...

I know it sounds nice and easy when you say it the way you are, but I honestly don't think it will save you :/
Why does it have to be the standards of any god? I don't believe in anything, and I still don't act like a ****. I don't need some belief in a deity to be a good person.

And if that's going to be your argument, what about the people in the world that do believe in a god yet will go around acting like *******s because they believe they will get into paradise anyway? That's not really following the standards if you ask me.

It doesn't matter if you're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. If you're gonna act like a **** then your personal morals are what's wrong, not your (lack of) faith.
 
By what standard of goodness though? I would make sense that it would be God's standards, and we definitely fall short on that sooooo...

I know it sounds nice and easy when you say it the way you are, but I honestly don't think it will save you :/

Why can't people realise their own standards of goodness? This is a thing that worries me about some religious people, that they think they couldn't be good without a freaking book telling them how to be. I can be a good person without God's standards, thanks!

And if God will send me to hell for being an atheist, or for having casual sex, and ignore the fact that I'm working hard for 5 years to become a doctor to help other people, then he should just get his priorities right. And like HELL I would worship someone with those kindof standards anyway.
 
Socrates asked a similar question: What is pious? I forget the name of the man, but Socrates went to this man because he was supposed to be the most pious (holy) man in the realm. Socrates was being executed for impiety (unholiness) and wanted to know exactly what was holy. The man could not answer without using circular reasoning. Socrates ended up being executed for something no none truly understood.
 
i am a very spiritual atheist witch. i do not believe in a god or goddess or deity, but i do believe in the loveliness in the earth and positive vibes and spells and potions. i am happiest when putting my belief in myself and my abilities, and also in celebrating life through many different mediums. i grew up in a roman catholic household who are not very accepting of my beliefs, which is okay. i am happy!
 
I don't believe in God, and I prefer to think that the big bang and evolution and the science side of the world is real instead of the religious side.
 
I don't believe in God, and I prefer to think that the big bang and evolution and the science side of the world is real instead of the religious side.

And that is fine. What you believe in is what is important to you. Do not let anyone tell you what you believe in is right or wrong.
 
By what standard of goodness though? I would make sense that it would be God's standards, and we definitely fall short on that sooooo...

I know it sounds nice and easy when you say it the way you are, but I honestly don't think it will save you :/

??? if you need a book to tell you how to be a good person then I don't know what to say to you.
don't be an ******* in life and I'm sure whatever happens after death you'll end up fine? that's what I believe anyways. like other people have said I don't think salvation depends on what religion you believe in.
 
Last edited:
Christian.

However strongly supportive of:

-Homosexuality
-Masturbation
-Abortion(to some extent)
-Evolution

I believe that if you have good morality, you get what you want in the end, no matter the religion, coming from my acceptance in belief in coexisting.
 
Back
Top