Only one girl survived the Yemenia airplane crash!

[Bear_Claw]

“Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made.” (Romans 1:20)

“For what can be known about God is evident to them because God made it evident to them…” (Rom 1:19)
“As a result, they have no excuse, for although they knew God, they did not accord Him glory as God, or give Him thanks…instead, they became vain in their reasoning and their senseless minds were darkened…” (Rom 1:22)

“While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man…” (Rom 1:23)

“Reason’s last step, is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it.” (Blaise Pascal)

My heartfelt prayers for your understanding and peace, dear friend.

My understanding is just fine…but how are you going to quote scripture verses to an atheist though? I’m sorry to say that it means nothing to me.

Have a good day though

 

[josie_L]

So, in the face of scientific evidence you still side with unproven word of mouth hearsay? Yeah, then we are truly speaking past each other and I truly don’t think you did research, or it was Christian based “research”

It’s not a theory in the sense that you use the word. It’s a fact. Ever heard of the theory of gravity? Same thing.
Again, your answers don’t show me any research done, due to your level of understanding of scientific theory vs. Fact.

As above: “It’s not a theory in the sense that you use the word. It’s a fact. Ever heard of the theory of gravity? Same thing.
Again, your answers don’t show me any research done, due to your level of understanding of scientific theory vs. Fact.”

And I have to repeat: “in the face of scientific evidence you still side with unproven word of mouth hearsay?”

Before we can even begin to try to quantify god we have to know that he even exists in the first place. And the only proof that this thread alleged to was the survival of a small child.

I think rather you need to do some solid research, find out the facts of evolution, and carbon dating, etc and then we will continue speaking. Then we’ll be comparing apples with apples. Now we are comparing apples with invisible, bright neon orange peanuts.

Talk to you later

I’m very curious Bear Claw but what is factual about abiogenesis? I mean what truths have we established from this “theory”?

 

[Bear_Claw]

I’m very curious Bear Claw but what is factual about abiogenesis? I mean what truths have we established from this “theory”?

Did I say abiogenesis was a fact? Nope. Go and actully read my post and try again, Mmmmkay?

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

So, in the face of scientific evidence you still side with unproven word of mouth hearsay? Yeah, then we are truly speaking past each other and I truly don’t think you did research, or it was Christian based “research”

It’s not a theory in the sense that you use the word. It’s a fact. Ever heard of the theory of gravity? Same thing.
Again, your answers don’t show me any research done, due to your level of understanding of scientific theory vs. Fact.

As above: “It’s not a theory in the sense that you use the word. It’s a fact. Ever heard of the theory of gravity? Same thing.
Again, your answers don’t show me any research done, due to your level of understanding of scientific theory vs. Fact.”

Evolution is a theory by someone( Mr. Darwin) who was angry with God because his daughter died when she was ten years old. His “theory” was an attempt to exclude any and all possibility of the existence of God, in his despair.
On the other hand, “gravity” is understood as a natural* law*, and just as the moral law, is*** absolute***.
But keep asking, seeking, and knocking-the Truth isn’t far off. God bless you.

 

[josie_L]

Did I say abiogenesis was a fact? Nope. Go and actully read my post and try again, Mmmmkay?

So if no truths have been established by way of this theory why did you bring it up?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Evolution is a theory by someone( Mr. Darwin) who was angry with God because his daughter died when she was ten years old. His “theory” was an attempt to exclude any and all possibility of the existence of God, in his despair.

Wow…if that is what you believe, then you have it all wrong. I’m not even going to ask how you base a scientific rebuttal on a person’s state of mind. Let’s compare apples with apples, shall we?

Do some scientific research on it, see how his “theory” has been proven right countless times since it’s inception and then we’ll chat some more.

 

[Bear_Claw]

So if no truths have been established by way of this theory why did you bring it up?

Are you even reading this thread?
It honestly comes across like you are just trying to pick a fight.
Read the thread, get your facts straight and then ask relevant questions.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Wow…if that is what you believe, then you have it all wrong. I’m not even going to ask how you base a scientific rebuttal on a person’s state of mind. Let’s compare apples with apples, shall we?

Do some scientific research on it, see how his “theory” has been proven right countless times since it’s inception and then we’ll chat some more.

I’m afraid that your “apples” and my* “apples” * are grown in different orchards, my friend. There’s*** no*** comparing the two. But the scientific “theory”
cannot exclude God’s intelligent design by*** any*** stretch… and it’s** inception** is rather a* novel idea since God created the universe, wouldn’t you say?
But keep your heart and mind open, you are getting warmer*… Nice chatting with ya.

 

[Bear_Claw]

I’m afraid that your “apples” and my “apples” are grown in different orchards, my friend.

Ain’t that the truth!

There’s no comparing the two.

See this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
It explains how the word theory is used for scientific principles. It’ll help understanding that it is a fact, and it’s unbiased

But the scientific “theory”

see explanation above

cannot exclude God’s intelligent design by any stretch

Evolution by itself does not exclude ID, no. but debunking first cause is another debate all together

…and it’s inception is rather a novel idea since God created the universe, wouldn’t you say?

Inception of what? Can you clarify? Thanks

But keep your heart and mind open, you are getting warmer… Nice chatting with ya.

First read the Wiki page and then we’ll see if you are getting warmer or not.

 

[josie_L]

Are you even reading this thread?
It honestly comes across like you are just trying to pick a fight.
Read the thread, get your facts straight and then ask relevant questions.

Isn’t the “theory” of abiogenesis about how life came from inanimate matter? How have we come closer to establishing this as truth (the idea of abiogenesis has been around for along time now)?

**One of the great myths of our time is the idea that undirected process could somehow be responsible for turning dead chemicals into all the complexity of living things. The current state of abiogenesis is summarised by Klause Dose:

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

Klause Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998), 348.**

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/abiogen.htm

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

?

Do some scientific research on it, see how his*** “theory” ***has been proven right countless times since it’s inception and then we’ll chat some more.

How long has the “theory” been around…and how long God’s revelation to man?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Isn’t the “theory” of abiogenesis about how life came from inanimate matter? How have we come closer to establishing this as truth (the idea of abiogenesis has been around for along time now)?

I’m sorry josie, but the question is totally off topic and irrelevant.

You miss-read my post on the fact of evolution, and applied it to Abiogenesis. Now you are trying to perpetuate that irrelevant question. Sorry.

 

[Bear_Claw]

How long has the “theory” been around…and how long God’s revelation to man?

Did you read the web page on Theory vs. Fact?

I started posting when it got to proof of god. God’s revelation to man is not remotely proven. It could just have been a guy wandering around in the desert hearing voices for all I know.

How can you compare scientific evidence with that?

 

[4everjustjesus]

Did you read the web page on Theory vs. Fact?

I started posting when it got to proof of god. God’s revelation to man is not remotely proven. It could just have been a guy wandering around in the desert hearing voices for all I know.

How can you compare scientific evidence with that?

How do you explain the various miracles that happen around the world at Catholic pilgrimage sights? I mean, miracles that we know actually happened? I know some other religions claim that there have been miracles at their holy places, but I haven’t found any that I can believe. However, I know [many] people who have been healed at Fatima and Lourdes. How do you explain the incorruptibles? How do you explain all of creation? Are you telling me that one “boom” created this all? Actually, let me ask you this, what proof do you have that God doesn’t exist?

God Bless,
4everjustjesus

 

[Bear_Claw]

How do you explain the various miracles that happen around the world at Catholic pilgrimage sights? I mean, miracles that we know actually happened? I know some other religions claim that there have been miracles at their holy places, but I haven’t found any that I can believe. However, I know [many] people who have been healed at Fatima and Lourdes.

First, when you say that we ”know” that the miracles actually happened, how do you know? Because someone told you? Has it been scientifically proven? My guess to that answer would be no, and if I’m wrong, please provide proof.

Second, how about the power of the mind. Have you seen someone under hypnosis getting burn scars when you touch a pen to their arm, telling them it’s a hot poker?

Third, you mention Lourdes and Fatima.
The whole Medical wing of Lourdes have only yielded 66 “cures”. And these cures are only labeled as such because science can’t explain it yet. Note I say yet. The power of the mind is a proven, very powerful thing.
And even if the miracles were real, what ration is that? Estimations show around 200 mil people visiting Lourdes since 1860. That’s a cure rate of 0.00000033% at the worlds “hottest hotspot” of miracle cures?
Are you willing to concede that the power of suggestion and the mind has nothing to do with this? No, wait don’t answer, I’m going to guess that you are willing to do that. Blind faith and all, and that’s ok.

How do you explain the incorruptibles?

Let’s take St. Bernadette, the best known case, als fitting because we are talking about Lourdes.
Even the doctors that were present at her first exhumation swore that there was partial mummification of the corpse. It was described as shriveled, the lower part was black, the nose was dilated and shrunken, and the body sounded like cardboard when struck.
At the third exhumation in 1925, the doctors spoke about the blackish face and the sunken eyes and nose that would make an unpleasant impression on the public, so the decision was made to display the corpse with a wax mask. Did you even know that?

The corpse of Catherine of Bologna is actually black and shriveled up as she is seated.

Saint Silvian is another incorruptible claimant. His body is actually in a box below the effigy, but there are no signs on the effigy to this effect, so the pilgrims think they see the actual body when they don’t.

Actually, let me ask you this, what proof do you have that God doesn’t exist?

It’s not my claim that he does exist, so I have no burden of proof.
I do not believe in god, that’s where I’m coming from.

 

[josie_L]

I’m sorry josie, but the question is totally off topic and irrelevant.

You miss-read my post on the fact of evolution, and applied it to Abiogenesis. Now you are trying to perpetuate that irrelevant question. Sorry.

I do believe in evolution.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Did you read the web page on Theory vs. Fact?

I started posting when it got to proof of god. God’s revelation to man is not remotely proven. It could just have been a guy wandering around in the desert hearing voices for all I know.

How can you compare scientific evidence with that?

Have you read the Bible? The Early Church Fathers? The Doctors of the Church? The Dogmatic Constitution? The Catechism of the Catholic Church? The Documents of the Vatican Councils??? Then how could you possibly compare* your* “theories” without all the information that*** supports ***God’s existence? (and you can’t just go to Wikipedia for all that, like you did with Lourdes and the “Incorruptibles”, nice try, though )

 

[Bear_Claw]

Have you read the Bible?

Yes

The Early Church Fathers?

Yes

The Doctors of the Church?

Yes

The Dogmatic Constitution?

Yes

The Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Yes

The Documents of the Vatican Councils???

Yes

Then how could you possibly compare your “theories” without all the information that supports God’s existence?

Do you mean to say that the above mentioned documents are proof of god’s existence? I can’t see how that is possible.

Early church fathers build their writings from the bible, and hearsay.
Doctors of the church based it on the bible and the early church fathers, and hearsay.
Dogmatic constitution was based on the above three and the CCC is a compendium of what the church now believes, based on all the above documents, and hearsay.
So essentially, it’s all based on the bible….whose authors are unknown and whose volumes are unconfirmed for factual evidence. The only thing to tell you that the bible is true is the bible. Not real proof you know.

And Wiki is just a real quick an easy place to start your research. It gives you a basic foundation of the idea on which to build proper research in the field.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Do you mean to say that the above mentioned documents are proof of god’s existence?

YES…They are, my friend. Yes they are.

Early church fathers build their writings from the bible

And the writers’ pens of all these works were guided by God’s hands.

And Wiki is just a real quick an easy place to start your research. It gives you a basic foundation of the idea on which to build proper research in the field.

Wiki is false because* anyone* can go in there and change info. Not all of it is valid and most of it can be quite misleading.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

.

Early church fathers build their writings from the bible, and hearsay.
Doctors of the church based it on the bible and the early church fathers, and hearsay.
Dogmatic constitution was based on the above three and the CCC is a compendium of what the church now believes, based on all the above documents, and hearsay.
So essentially, it’s all based on the bible….whose authors are unknown and whose volumes are unconfirmed for factual evidence. The only thing to tell you that the bible is true is the bible. Not real proof you know.

And Wiki is just a real quick an easy place to start your research. It gives you a basic foundation of the idea on which to build proper research in the field.

npatrol:If you had answered honestly you may have had some credibility in your argument…but sadly, you just lost what little you had, my friend. If you had given even a portion of your time reading the material you said you did by your “exhaustive” research on God’s existence, you could also be a Canon Lawyer by now.:yukonjoe:
But, by all means, keep at it…you’ll discover the Way, on your search for Truth….He’s only a* heartbeat* away. God bless you!