Biblical Miracles

the_eman

Take a look, it takes about 4 minutes to get to some science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeSJw3Qzls

I am interested in knowing your opinions, which I respect. It is 58 minutes in total I hope some of you can make it to the end. Those who do watch it all, I am especially interested in your opinions.

To synopsize, this video tries to prove, creation, the great flood, the shroud of turin, and other interesting miracles, with some very good evidence, really worth a watch.

Regards.

lazygal

Em no thanks. The real miracle is how people still fall for this book's claims.

King Mob

the_eman wrote: »

Take a look, it takes about 4 minutes to get to some science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeSJw3Qzls

I am interested in knowing your opinions, which I respect. It is 58 minutes in total I hope some of you can make it to the end. Those who do watch it all, I am especially interested in your opinions.

To synopsize, this video tries to prove, creation, the great flood, the shroud of turin, and other interesting miracles, with some very good evidence, really worth a watch.

Regards.

There is no science at the 4 minute mark.
And at the 5 minute mark it starts lying that evolution leads to communism and that evolution is essential to atheism.
I don't think anyone would be arsed trying to make it to the end if they are going to be that wrong and that dishonest so early.

What good evidence do they present that would be worth putting up with listening to sure tripe for any length of time?

Delirium

I'd love to know how the great flood, which is essentially an act of genocide by a deity, could ever be considered a miracle?

And I won't be wasting an hour watching a creationist video.

im invisible

does it do the loaves and the fishes? could come in handy in these recessionary times

krudler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZPWsVNTqo

Gbear

Drive-by bull****?

Bit tricky first fitting the bull in the car and then shoving it's arse out a window while driving.

Gordon

And here comes the science bit:

Teenage kid in black clothes and dog collar @4:39 - "There's no scientific proof for [evolution] whatsoever."

The day a throwaway superlative from a spotty teenage kid endears me to empathise and take on board that spotty kid's argument is the day I *am* that spotty teenage superlativing kid.

Michael Nugent

Skip to the sequence from 8:25 to 8:45.

Seriously, it's the funniest argument I have ever seen.

pauldla

I can't get youtube here so I'll have to ask for a synopsis. Is it like Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed? I love that show.

Gordon

@9:07 "People ask why the stars are so far away. Very simple, god put the stars far away, that doesn't prove evolution whatsoever!"

/clap

nagirrac

In fairness to the guy he did say that at the beginning his presentation was not about science and went on to prove himself right:)

Fundamentalist religions like RC will eventually die off. The purpose of religion is supposedly to draw people closer to the concept of God and they just seem to do the opposite and make God (their God at least) seem silly.

To a person who seeks God there is one very reasonable position to take. It is that if nothing once existed (before the big bang) then nothing would still exist as something cannot come from nothing. The fact that anything at all exists means that something had to always exist and until we have a better understanding of it, we may as well call it God.

In many ways atheists believe in the biggest miracle of all which is that something as splendid as our universe with its wonderful set of natural laws and order resulting in something as incredible as the human mind came from nothing.

Dave!

Typical theist argument goes in, standard atheist rebuttal comes out

Didn't God "come from nothing"? So why can't the universe?

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

I can't get youtube here so I'll have to ask for a synopsis. Is it like Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed? I love that show.

Well, that particular bit that Michael Nugent recommended was of a fella looking at the skeleton of a certain fish, and when you turn it over - hey presto! the other side looks like jesus on the cross. And obviously, evolution couldn't have done that.....:pac::pac::pac:

Sycopat

There is no science at all in that video from what I've seen. There is a teenager reading off an argument which makes baseless assertions then moves directly on to the next baseless assertion. He presents no data to support his arguments in anything I've seen, and mostly seems to completely lack understanding of what he's talking about. He makes assumptions than extrapolates corollary assumptions to reach his conclusions.

It is complete drivel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpmIBJ_MKas

Delirium

Obliq wrote: »

Well, that particular bit that Michael Nugent recommended was of a fella looking at the skeleton of a certain fish, and when you turn it over - hey presto! the other side looks like jesus on the cross. And obviously, evolution couldn't have done that.....:pac::pac::pac:

It raises quite a big problem for the creationist as it suggests that God knew Jesus would be crucified before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. So much for free will. :rolleyes:

kylith

I can't believe that people are still trying to peddle this nonsense.

Da Vinci disproved the flood back in the 15th century, but people are still banging on about it. It didn't happen. There is no way it could have happened. Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? Why weren't all the salt water animals killed by the dilution of the oceans? It's almost like someone exaggerated a local flood, isn't it?

Also, Creation is bunk and the shroud of Turin is a fraud.

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

In many ways atheists believe in the biggest miracle of all which is that something as splendid as our universe with its wonderful set of natural laws and order resulting in something as incredible as the human mind came from nothing.

Please don't misrepresent people like this.

I'm atheist in relation to any deity anyone cares to name. I have no idea how the universe came to be, and certainly wouldn't embarrass myself by saying something so trite as "it came from nothing".

yeppydeppy

Didn't the finding of the Higgs Boson have something to do with showing that matther could come from nothing?

Genghiz Cohen

yeppydeppy wrote: »

Didn't the finding of the Higgs Boson have something to do with showing that matther could come from nothing?

Pretty sure we knew that could happen at the Planck scale anyway.

Doctor DooM

yeppydeppy wrote: »

Didn't the finding of the Higgs Boson have something to do with showing that matther could come from nothing?

As far as I understand, it's been known for quite some time it's technically possible for something to come from nothing, but this doesn't mean much for the A+A forum as there's not a standard position on the origin of the universe

It's always a theist who starts off that debate with the Kalam cosmological argument. Which is a silly argument anyway for A god, not THE god, and could be the FSM or a particle or Optimus Prime or the one true pizza anyway.

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

To a person who seeks God there is one very reasonable position to take. It is that if nothing once existed (before the big bang) then nothing would still exist as something cannot come from nothing. The fact that anything at all exists means that something had to always exist and until we have a better understanding of it, we may as well call it God.

I would suggest that the opposite is true.

Until we have a better understanding of it, it is important to avoid calling it God, because that word has so many built-in connotations about supernaturalism and personal agency that it cannot be used as a neutral label.

nagirrac wrote: »

In many ways atheists believe in the biggest miracle of all which is that something as splendid as our universe with its wonderful set of natural laws and order resulting in something as incredible as the human mind came from nothing.

Actually, it is religious people who believe that.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely "out of nothing"."

But it is more likely that there was (or, more accurately, is) always something, possibly in the form of energy, and there is no need to posit a god to explain how that something evolved into what is today.

Michael Nugent

yeppydeppy wrote: »

Didn't the finding of the Higgs Boson have something to do with showing that matter could come from nothing?

At risk of opening a whole new debate, it depends on how you define nothing.

robindch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It's always a theist who starts off that debate with the Kalam cosmological argument.

The Arabic word Kalam means religious disputation, so using the word "argument" together with "kalam" is tautologous.

Referring to it as the "Kaboom Cosmological Argument" isn't.

MagicMarker

OP, stop watching youtube are start reading actual science books.

Here's a clue, the Bible isn't one of them.

yeppydeppy

Michael Nugent wrote: »

At risk of opening a whole new debate, it depends on how you define nothing.

...and we've gone past my limited knowledge of physcis.

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

The Arabic word Kalam means religious disputation, so using the word "argument" together with "kalam" is tautologous.

Referring to it as the "Kaboom Cosmological Argument" isn't.

Couldn't we just shorten it to "bollocks"? We're a busy lot and the fewer syllables we have to use the better.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Couldn't we just shorten it to "bollocks"?

Not a bad idea, but that would make it hard to distinguish the Kaboom Cosmological Argument from other creationist bollocks.

The word "bollocks", btw, is quite interesting, as it's one of the few words in English which exists, natively, in the dual number, notwithstanding the improper back-formation 'bollock' to mean a single testicle, and the suspicious plural 'bollockses' which refers to a countable group of arseholes.

yeppydeppy

robindch wrote: »

Not a bad idea, but that would make it hard to distinguish the Kaboom Cosmological Argument from other creationist bollocks.

The word "bollocks", btw, is quite interesting, as it's one of the few words in English which exists, natively, in the dual number, notwithstanding the improper back-formation 'bollock' to mean a single testicle, and the suspicious plural 'bollockses' which refers to a countable group of arseholes.

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Doctor DooM

robindch wrote: »

Not a bad idea, but that would make it hard to distinguish the Kaboom Cosmological Argument from other creationist bollocks.

The word "bollocks", btw, is quite interesting, as it's one of the few words in English which exists, natively, in the dual number, notwithstanding the improper back-formation 'bollock' to mean a single testicle, and the suspicious plural 'bollockses' which refers to a countable group of arseholes.

I heard an old wives tail that a footballer got off being fined for shouting "Bollocks!" at a referees decision because the word apparently has a legit use as a way to register ones suprise, much like they way Irish go "Jaysis Christ", only in the dictionary (I have no idea if Jesus is in the dictionary).

I must look that up and see if it's true or not.

Doctor DooM

Oh, the truth is actually far funnier:

Perhaps the best-known use of the term is in the title of the 1977 punk rock album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Testimony in a resulting prosecution over the term demonstrated that in Old English, the word referred to a priest, and could also be used to mean "nonsense". Defence barrister John Mortimer QC and Virgin Records won the case: the court ruled that the word was not obscene

It turns out priests are bollockses!