On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[fredd bear]

What makes you think I care what Schweitzer claims or thinks? She has no definitive explanation, either.

I'm getting my descriptions from the Bible, not dictionary.com.

Not necessarily. Besides, I never said these were definitely referring to dinosaurs, just that they could be. Perhaps you should read the descriptions in the Bible.

Again, you're just speaking ignorantly here. The Scripture referenced here has nothing to do with some silly mythical sea-battle. It's once again a metaphorical reference, this time to the destruction of Pharoah in the Red Sea in the book of Exodus.

1) no explanation does not mean a default faith position is therefore true.
2) How do you determine what is metaphorical and what is not, I'm happy with the claim that metaphor is used in the bible, but where is your personal cut-off ?

Is this supposed to be an argument? Complaining about something you have absolutely no understanding of? (actually miles it was a question I asked, hence the ?

Actually miles it was a question not an argument, so no it's not meant to be an argument at all, but i would love an answer. People who ask questions learn more, wouldn't you agree ?

You say idiotic things like "look at the consensus of all of these smart people." It's really a consensus of people with the same agenda, who are not only fully invested intellectually in their theories and thus ensnared by their pride (which won't allow them to admit they're wrong), but often they are also financially invested in their theories because they receive funding for research based upon them.

Well actually i say accredited and peer reviewed, smart people can believe stupid things which is why we have peer review. If I should come up with a theory there are many more scientists looking at it trying to look through it, find a flaw in it.

Why should I trust "accredited scientific institutions" when I have evidence (I cited Climategate as just one example) that men from such institutions are untrustworthy?

You don't have to trust the institutions themselves, but trust the system of peer review, it's the best we have. Wether or not someone works at, or is accredited by a trusted university or body just means that more people will try and pull it apart, which is great for discovery

As regards climategate..

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/so...egate.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R...ontroversy
https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-clima...ming-75749
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...mary-cause
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-myths-...ate-change
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-kn...ate-change

Again, who are you to determine that they're not leaders or at the very least credible? Who's to say those claiming to be leaders are? You take these people at their word, on faith? Not very wise, at least if you're going to out of hand dismiss everything from men who have the same kinds of degrees from the same institutions.

Having a degree from an institution is not the same as producing good peer-reviewed work, even if it's exactly the same degree.
Let's just say for instance we went and got exactly the same mathematics degree, later I join a religion that believes that 2+2 make 6, and that 4 is simply a lie. Do you think people would take me as seriously as the consensus of mathematicians ?

The same is happening with people who say that any science that does not match my religious beliefs, is wrong because i believe god told me different. Put simply to have a standard outside of science that your findings must fit within is simply not science.

No. In fact, it makes me wonder why men with doctorates from prestigious institutions are so readily dismissed while others are listened to unquestioningly.

Because of peer review, and 'science' that has to fit some claim outside of the remit, having a doctorate does not mean of itself your science is good if you abandon all you have learnt to make it fit with religious beliefs, it's simply not science if I am defining my findings in a religious context.

And this from people who the vast majority of the time know next to nothing of the discipline in question, such as yourself. This is why I ask you and basically everyone else here why you think you're qualified to judge the veracity of your side's claims while dismissing out of hand the other side. It's actually totally ridiculous that you do so.

Very true, and exactly my point. If you haven't done so yet, then how are you currently qualified to judge anything at all? How are any of you?

No i'm not qualified to judge most scientific findings, as indeed you are not but what i do is open myself up to discovery, to go where the evidence suggests rather than dismiss clearly demonstrated things on the basis of a religion.

How do you judge the truth of the websites you favour for instance, If it agree's with the bible and what you pre-believe ?

Sounds to me like we've well established that you have no business calling anything about YEC nonsense until you're qualified to judge the science for yourself, which by your own admission you're not.

You might say the same thing of me. How am I qualified? I'm not qualified, either, at least to judge the science itself. I believe the Word of God. The difference between us is that you put your faith in men, who are corrupt. I put my faith in the righteous and perfect Almighty God.

By the same measure you are not qualified to attest to it's truth, the only reason you do is not because you are read on the matter, but because it agree's with your religious beliefs, that simply is not scientific enquiry or discovery  at all.

And really, many of the scientific arguments I cite as proof, such as the astronomical implausibility of evolution, aren't even contradicted by your side.

Honestly I've not seen that argument from you, I've heard assertions. If you believe you have a valid case then that is very important to the whole of humanity, why not start a thread an d present it ?

But if there IS a contradiction, it virtually always boils down to who you're going to believe.

Oh I'll go with the science everyday, but let's see what your argument is first perhaps.. maybe take me up on my suggestion and start a new thread.

Of course, that's for the scientific arguments. Logical arguments are a different story altogether.

Bring either a good argument is a good argument  

I never said "hanging flesh." I said "attached." So I was a bit incorrect, who cares? You're splitting hairs and ignoring the point I was making, which is that no one knows how the tissues have survived. The ages not being revised merely means they're choosing to ignore the problem, from what I can tell. Can you prove otherwise?

What problem do you believe it presents, and why ?

You still changed your argument, regardless of what I said. You made an assertion, then claimed you were saying assertions shouldn't be made concerning the thing you originally asserted.

Naw, i simply presented it badly in the first place, like I have already said 'my bad'

I'm not doing the work for you on this one. Find it yourself.

You could simply say 'yes' or 'no' or perhaps clarify, if you are not willing to stand by your claim, that's fine. Instead you wrote a whole sentence when a 'yes' would suffice and say you are not doing my work for me.

1. According to natural laws, existence is impossible.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore, the source of existence is supernatural (God).

Someone else is already dealing with this nonsense.


Mike seriously dude believing the bible takes precedence above good scientific discovery simply is not science. You claim not to trust men or their findings, yet benefit every day from what science has discovered. Science is not something to fear.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 

Mate, this Abbot peanut is a wilfully ignorant fool. He only opens his mouth to change feet.

Man caused climate change is established science; not something I will even argue any more. YES, there are dissenters, just as there remain dissenters about evolution. Climate change deniers have about the same level of credibility, IE none.

Not quite as sure  with this bit; 

Second Law of thermodynamics;  My understanding is that the law applies only to a closed system. Pretty sure the Big Bang*  was THE mother of all open systems. Apologists seem very fond of quoting it in such a way that it seems obvious that they have not bothered to read it, same goes for Evolution and Climate Change.

The First Law states energy cannot be created or destroyed.

*"The Big Bang" is actually a bit misleading, used as a short hand by scientists. It was actually a continuous expansion of everything, including the universe itself, rather than a sudden explosion.


I didn't know the bible( the Torah?) mentions unicorns. I know it mentions giants. Unfortunately , the bible is neither a history nor a science book. Apologist have us at a disadvantage.  They are immune to reason or  facts, and generally anti science , unless science confirms dogma. Or can be {deliberately?} misunderstood ; EG  The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Climate Change and the Second Law of thermodynamics. They have a  powerful third option of simply declaring that science is wrong because the bible says otherwise. The fourth option is the great convenience of a continuous bun fight over interpretation of scripture  between Christian sects. Even arguing about which translation. The differences  are not trivial, especially between the Catholics and the rest.

The above is based on my understanding. I think I'm right. However, I may be wrong. I will happily accept correction from a members or member whose opinion I respect. This automatically excludes all of the Christian apologist here, who I consider merely comic relief, not to be taken seriously



 (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 " The Big Bang is science's best explanation for how the universe began. According to the theory, the universe started out much hotter and much denser than it is today, and expanded and cooled over time.
Though the term may sound like the universe began with a giant explosion, many scientists say that's not part of the theory. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. In fact, the Big Bang theory suggests that space itself expanded.
"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an expansion of the universe  The Big Bang is science's best explanation for how the universe began. According to the theory, the universe started out much hotter and much denser than it is today, and expanded and cooled over time.

Though the term may sound like the universe began with a giant explosion, many scientists say that's not part of the theory. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. In fact, the Big Bang theory suggests that space itself expanded.
"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an "


https://www.livescience.com/32278-was-th...osion.html