The Biggest Bang that No one ever heard.

Gnickk Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - You mean literacy skills like the knowledge that "heathen" is already plural and you don't need to add an S? "Lol," as you say.

Gnickk Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - How can you criticise anyone for not being a Christian if election of the saints is unconditional and grace irresistible? What we do in life obviously doesn't matter.

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Gridlock: Heathen is not plural. "Heathens" is plural. Look it up and learn something. Looks like you're wrong.

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - You're right that non-Christians can't help it if they're not chosen. Some of us are just blessed while others remain in darkness.

Gnickk Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - On the off chance that you're not a poe: good. Then quit preaching.

Gnickk Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - From the base "heath." Modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive; that's why they include recently made-up plurals like yours.

TheScienceguy77 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - haha, you're in denial and you know it, you repeatedly comment on an athiest user's page in a patheic attempt to tell people they are going to "burn" for blasphemy against your imaginary friend; have a bad short meaningless life you ignorant piece of trash,

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Science Guy77, you're the one in denial of God, even though His creation is abundant evidence that He exists. Blashemy against Almighty God will not go unpunished. Repent and turn to Jesus Christ. No scientist can save your sorry ass from what lies ahead for you. Only Jesus can.

TheScienceguy77 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - haha, i feel sorry for you, i do deny the existence of a god because of lack of evidence, you've obviously been indoctrinated by your parents, have fun believing in fairy tales

tunawrangler1 Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - you're in denial actually, you don't want to believe science. You're using god so you don't have to believe in no after-life. All you're doing for yourself is comforting yourself to believe you can go to heaven. but there's nothing.

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I believe science when it's true. After all, science is nothing more than the observation of what God has created. God is the creator; man is the observer. The overwhelming majority of people believe there is a God, maybe not the Christian God, but at least some creator. Atheists continue to say that there is no "evidence" for a God. Well we say there is plenty of evidence. And atheists have absolutely NO evidence to prove that there is no God, other than we don't see Him. That's no proof!

HomelyCooking Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - In logic, you are never called upon to prove a negative. If I tell you that there is an infinitely small china teapot orbiting the earth, and that it is undetectable by humans, it is up to me to prove it to you, since I believe in its existence, and not for you to prove me wrong, since you can't do it. (This analogy is called Russell's Teapot, after philosopher Bertram Russell.) The same is true of God. God is undetectable by man, so it is incumbent upon his believers to prove his existence.

20324758 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - do you have any evidence that proof gods existance? if you do have show me i dear you!

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - I think there's ample arguments to be made against the existence of a divine being such as "God". Plenty of proof has been provided for the theory of evolution, which is a clear contradiction to what is written in the bible. Even if the bible were to interpreted figuratively, plenty of contradictions with currently known facts remain. Yet actual proof of the existence of a "God" is something I have yet to see - perhaps you can show me.

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - Name one argument for there being no God, other than the one that we can't see God. Not being able to see someone doesn't prove that they don't exist. Right now, I can't see the president of the United Statres but I'm pretty sure he exists. I can't prove it, I can't see him, but all of the evidence points to fact that the president is real. Name one argument that disproves there is a God. And even IF the Bible did have a contradiction or error, that doesn't prove God is not real.

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - You can't prove it? If all of the evidence points to that fact, you can. But you have not presented me with any evidence as to why a God would exist - you simply repeated the same old "well, you can't prove that he doesn't", which just isn't an argument at all. The bible has many contradictions, and the proof for cases like evolution and the existence of the earth for millions of years is solid. I don't see a reason as to why one would assume a God does exist and that these facts are false.

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - So, give me one piece of evidence, one reason to believe a God would exist. Saying one cannot prove that he doesn't is not evidence any more than saying you can't prove he does and is as such meaningless. The contradictions in the bible I mentioned aren't definitive proof at all, but I they do at least suggest that the whole concept of God and Christianity is based solely upon the ideas of humans, as a God would've known the difference between an ilness and a demon.

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - You're right that neither side has irrefutable proof and that saying the other side can't prove the other side wrong is no argument. The age of the Earth and evolution are two different issues. One has nothing to do with the other except that evolutionists like to use the time span as "proof" of evolution. While I have no concrete answer as to the age of the Earth or universe as I believe that no one knows for sure, not even close... but humans in our present form did not evolve.

pelvicthrusta Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - so did they find water er wut??

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Clearly we didn't evolve in our present form...for that is either a paradox, or I'm misunderstanding you. I didn't claim these two issues are proof for one another, they are simply remarkable contradictions with the bible, which claims the earth was created roughly 3000 years ago and that we were made from clay. No-one knows the age of our universe for sure. We do know for sure that fossils of organisms in between humans and apes dating back to way more than 3000 years ago have been found.

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - In other words, what is written is the bible is largely incorrect, based on what humans at the time could come up with (note that man believed in gods way earlier). Yet you are still to claim God exists, even though that belief is largely based upon the events discribed in the bible? Of course, you are free to believe what you want, and I do not disrespect you for your belief. But personally, I don't see any logic behind it. I wish it were true - death as the 'ultimate ending' is a sad thought..

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Let me better explain that. As we appear in this form, we did not evolve. WE are basically as we were created. There may be fossils similar to man or apes that are extinct, but they too did not evolve from a lower species. They were separate creations. The Bible may appear to have some contradictions to the casual reader or one who does not have sufficient understanding but there is no contradiction. According to scriptures, the Earth is more than 3,000 years old. Its been 2,000 since Christ.

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - So you are to say that the people who would nowadays be considered "ill" were actually possessed by demons? I am actually in a christian school, and our history teacher has said several times that the bible states the earth was created about 3000 years ago. I guess I got that wrong, then. What is strange though, is that the bible as far as I does not mention these "seperate creations". Although I do admit I haven't fully read it yet, and I will refrain from making further arguments until I have.

MegaVolcano Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - If the Earth/Universe is only a few thousand years old then explain why the light from most stars takes 4 to millions of years to reach Earth. Why can we see entire galaxies of stars with the Hubble telescope at such distances if that light can only travel 186,000 miles per second? By your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to see but a handful of stars, let alone millions of galaxies.

NewDirection4us Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Well, first off, I don't say that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Years are nothing more than the measurement of the Earth around the sun. One circle around the sun every year. Time exists only as a measurement. Who is to say that our planet has always gone around the sun? And if there is a God great enough to create a universe and all that is within, don't you think He is great enough to place the stars, galaxies, etc. wherever He wanted them at any time? Anything is possible.