MrDunday wrote:People die for what is important to them. So they will put their lives on the line for a lot of reasons. Religious belief is one of them.
I can see we're going to have to go right back to the start here.
You are correct here, the bible is actually from God, not man. What that God told Adam and Eve, and what they experienced themselves and their offspring, the knowledge of creation would be handed down. But in many instances, would get corrupted from many other people as the populations grew, and finally different groups of people. So the originality did not come before them , it came from corruptions later on.
I'm not even going to touch upon the mass presuppositions you're dropping into this argument. You cannot claim this kind of happening without substantial evidence to support it that doesn't
originate in the bible. Simply put, Adam and Eve as you imagine them didn't exist. If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm quite happy to look at your evidence that isn't biblical in origin. Using the bible to prove the bible is the worst kind of circular argument.
Here also God, was never created. He has always been. That is what the bible says. But so does science. The bible says that God is abundant in power. if you look at a dictionary power is also energy. The science tells us that energy can be converted to matter. The scientists also say they can go back as far as energy,but they do not of anything before that. So the science agrees with the bible to this point. They both say energy.
Now the scientists say they don't know what set off the'big bang'. But the bible says God set started creation. But I realize the scientist don't like that, but they can't say thing against either, because they have no other evidence. But they do agree something happened to set it off.
This is like asking where does space begin and end if there is no matter in space?
The big bang was never 'set off' and its origins are unknowable, even by theistic standards. If it was a god, then its done a fairly poor job since then. You say "...they have no other evidence..." - well neither do you. So your claim about god doing it is just as unfounded. Given a choice between two unprovable alternatives, one saying x and the other saying x+y, it's always more logical to go for the simplest. In this case that's a universal origin without supernatural intervention.
Prediction comes from planning and order. By definition, chance and random mistakes, , would not be predictable. Yet this is what the scientists base their hypotheses on. The reason things are predictable, is through creation.
You're making a classical creationist mistake in confusing chaos theory with chance and random events. The universe is predictable, it follows certain physical constants, but it's also subject to chaos. That doesn't mean random, it just means that tiny, unnoticed influences can have wider implications over time. This makes prediction impossible.
Now here are 3 facts that we know are true
1 life comes from life
2 humans comes from humans
3 there is design in life.
These are facts like gravity is a fact. No matter the knowledge learned in the future, my 3 facts and gravity, will still be used.
These 3 facts, support creation.
But the scientists are against all 3. So who really is following the science?
1 - True, to a given value of true. You need to define life. Are viruses alive? Prions? A DNA strand? Self-replicating long-chain organic molecules?
2 - Humans do come from humans, but evolved over time from ape-like ancestors.
3 - There is no design in life. At all. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy to examine your evidence.
Before we continue with this discussion, you need to decouple your arguments from theistic presuppositions:
You cannot use the presumed existence of a god to prove that we're created, as you've not proven the existence of said god.
You cannot use the bible as evidence without proving that the bible is accurate.
You cannot use the bible to prove the bible is accurate
You cannot use any statement without supporting said statement with evidence. Your claim that there is design in life is easy to say, but needs backing up.
This is a very subtle and ill-defined topic for discussion. Even the very fundamentals such as the definition of what counts as 'life' is still very grey, even in proper scientific terms.
At it's heart, at the very core of the whole purpose for existence of the BCSE, is that certain religious groups have make the massive assumption that the bible (or Koran, or whatever) has more importance than scientific evidence. This is unfounded, unprovable and unscientific, it's not even supported by the vast majority of theists (and we have a lot of them here!)