Scientific method image - Science!

Well, what are you waiting for then?

That's not even remotely close to the though procedure in my post. However there is a major issue with your theory. Where did he first universe come from? And why haven't we gotten thermodynamic death yet? PHYSICAL matter cannot last forever you know.

okay so what you just said is the multiverse had no beginning what so ever? sounds an awful lot like a GOD. and then you went on saying that since it existed for ever thermodynamic death hasn't come to pass yet because it hasn't lived long enough yet. but didnt you say that it was infinite so that means that it cannot get older then it is? Infinity is a very long time, so why hasnt it ended yet? and surely it must have had a beginning otherwise you believe in a GOD, since gods are infinite.

Oh god, the fundamentalists have arrived. Gentlemen, prepare for war...

I said "Experiment: since God made us we should trust his word, and it is possible to prove his word so his word is true. there have been many finding CONFIRMING the Bible" I even put my main idea in CAPS so how did you not see that part of my coment? Really be more respectful too. Arguments are junk when all that happens is people insulting each other. What you said had no evidence like what I said, fact I cannot prove that God created this world the way he said it was, but I can prove a bunch of other stuff like the red sea parting. Or Jesus being alive, or a global flood, I can even prove that there had to be a creator…but you deleted that news article.

Just for speculation, can you please tell us how exactly you proved the red sea parting, or Jesus being alive, or a global flood?

Red sea parting can be proven by finding the Egyptian Chariots at the bottom of the red sea. (how else do you think they got there? Jesus being alive has been proven by several people. The case for christ is an amazing book/movie about that. (Watch on YouTube) as for a flood I beleive I got an entire list of sources written by me on the Christian site:D still not a single Athiest is debating me about it:(

I'm starting to find it increasingly obvious you simply don't understand the scientific method. Saying that the "Red sea parting can be proven by finding the Egyptian Chariots at the bottom of the red sea. (how else do you think they got there?" is about as viable by the scientific method as me saying "Well, because I found a 17th-century galleon at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, it was OBVIOUSLY slammed by a thermonuclear missile fired by Russian aliens through a time portal from an alternate parallel oscillating multiverse. As nothing suggests otherwise, I declare this proven fact." There is literally no difference. As for Jesus having lived, the sources for that are sketchy at best; I've actually researched this quite a bit, it's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove Jesus' existance (personally I do think he existed, though I definitely don't claim this as fact). As for the flood sources, I'm not an atheist but an agnostic but I'll still debate you over it; I checked out those sites, they are essentially all biased, pseudoscience pro-Christian websites, which I find very hard to believe are reliable :/

Alright, so I really like science but would you be using science to prove leonardo da vinci's existance? No you would clearly look at his paintings and see his signature, along with historical documents. So there is a fine line where using a scientific method is illogical, because it takes too much time, or/and too much resources, and/or the answer is right infront of you!

As for Jesus's existence check the case for Christ on YouTube. Great movie!! Done by an Athiest.

"So there is a fine line where using a scientific method is illogical, because it takes too much time, or/and too much resources, and/or the answer is right infront of you!" ? So you're supposed to just assume that something is true because you don't have the time or resources to actually find out the truth? That's ridiculous; I think I'll stick to using the scientific method rather than declaring theories to be facts because I'm too lazy to actually prove anything.

Okay so by the use of scientific method only prove to me that the Eiffel Tower was made by Eiffel. scientifically you would have to go: question who made this tower? {ignoring the fact the the builders name is in the title[and yeah he probably had help but that's not the point]} background research, well here's where you hit the first issue since both historical documents, and the towers name indicate who made it, so you have to skip this step....maybe check what year it was in. Hypothsis, since everything points to Eiffel it must have been him, but we still need the expiriment, {note this is very much like what I do with the bible, I use it as the background research and base my hypothsis on it} anyways, and expiriment might include testing to see if Eiffle lived in the correct time period, if he lived in that area. {if you got other ideas share them} conclusion, the hypothesis is correct! So the documents and towers name were not lieing:) isn't that basicly what I do with the bible?

The main difference here is that you consider the bible to be fact, while me and most everyone else on this page considers it to be a work of fiction. It's like saying that because the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe states that there's a magical land called Narnia, Narnia is proven to exist.

Okay, I get the skepticism, and if you trully want to know the truth, then search it up, see if what the bible claims can be possible. Lets use narnia as the example this time:) so question: is narnia real? Research: try locating a magical wardrobe, or magical dirt that could be formed into rings. Now if no leads come up, what do we do? Do we make a hypothisis like: narnia is not true since the background research doesn't locate anything that could help you to get to narnia. And then there's not much of an expiriment without the special dirt, or wardrobe:( so right here is where it's possible to disprove narnia. I would consider the bible as non-fiction because most events have a location that is possible, (nothing like far, far away and long, long ago like most fictions) a relatively accurate timeline, and possible characters. Now that's all you need to start an expiriment, let's use the biblical story of the red sea parting, so question did the red sea actually part? Background info includes: location: red sea(the more specific the better, but I don't have the time to search it to the nearest millimeter, feel free to do your own reasearch!!) time about 4000 years ago(plus or minus 500) event: red sea parted, Israelites walked through, but when the egyptians pursued them the red sea fell on them. Hypothesis: (lets consider that it didnt happen.) red sea parting was a fairy tale. Expiriment: look for broken chariots at the bottom of the sea, check to see if Egypt even existed at that time, consider and explain why someone would make up such an event(what was their goal) and last but not least, consider if such an event could have been possible(does God really have that power? Or is he just comanding his creation like a programmer can command a program?) conclusion: that's up to you:) let me know if I missed something and have mercy on my spelling and grammar, it's my iPhone's fault.

But IF a scientist made life doesn't that prove that it takes intelegence to make life which proves my point about nothing making itself by random chance. Also if a scientist actully made life then I find the lack of a link to some evidence, disturbing. By the way there's a lot of laws that disprove the theory that non-living stuff can become living.

So why is there no link to an article about it yet? By the way did they really use the correct theoretical atmoshpere that the early earth had? And what did they make a Bactria? Or a dog. Or did they just make the building blokes for life?

sorry there, i didnt see you, so go ahead be my guest a proving the bible wrong, and good luck. as for my experimentation there is countless proof that a lot of the events that happened in the bible were in fact a proven event.

How do sediment layers prove that a flood didnt happen? My hypothsis is that dirt gets shorted into those fine layers during a global flood. My way of testing this would be to get a bunch of dirt from several layers. Dump it into a bucket/jar (anything seethrough) and then try replicating flood like conditions. I can't test it since I don't have sediment layers with me.
God is all powerful he is not bound to the laws that he creates. For example the makers of a operating system are not bound to living inside the operating system. They continue living outside the computer entirely. So please don't try limiting God because you yourself are limited. Therefore an all-powerful God that is not bound to the world/laws he created can make anything in a blink of an eye. Except that he is done with creation until the new heaven and the new earth.
The bible says its flat? Noway I'm sure that the bible mentions that the earth is round. As for life not being the same as when it was created. Well that's obvious! It was perfect at creation. (no defective genes, which means no autoimmune diseases, no cancer{or the cancer was destroyed by the body} no birth defects, etc)

I disagree. I actually think that they formed during the flood, since there are trees going through several layers of sediment. And by your reasoning the trees would have decayed before they would get buried, even if they were buried they would still decay if they were near the earth's surface. So a fast burial answers why they were not decayed, if the layers are even several years old, it causes a major problem.
A way to test this would be to get dirt from several layers and see what happens when flood like conditions are applied to it.

If its really in the bible then I'd like to see a biblegateway link:D

Yikes that's a lot of reading:( I read a bit of it. And I already have to debate your first point. Two people are enough to sustain a gene pool. And even though it could be impossible today because of all the mutations that have happened to our DNA over the past 6000 years. It was possible when Adam and Eve were made perfectly. Also that is a minor problem compared to evolution. Evolution teaches that long long ago, life magically appeared from non living stuff and somehow that life found someone to reproduce with. oh sorry it was asexual but then how did sex "evolve" by the way just because something is a better system doesnt answer of HOW did it evolve

@ElfFriend:

"Evolution teaches that long long ago, life magically appeared from non living stuff and somehow that life found someone to reproduce with."

I think that you're about half right: Evolution does say that life came from non-living material. But there's no magic to it; in fact, I'd say that the theory is actually quite realistic.

In order to understand a theory on the origin of life, you must first define life. My on-the-spot, sub-scientific definition of life is: a quality describing a body composed of a potentially complex organization of many elements (primarily oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen) in which systems of chemical reaction allow energy to be stored within the body, and controllably released, granting the body, as a whole, the ability to actively influence the universe. (That was wordy as Hell but I'd rather give you a definition based on my own understanding than one that I've just looked up.)

Based on this definition, the main difference between a living body and a non-living body is that a living body has the ability to influence its environment entirely from within itself, whereas the non-living body can only influence its environment if acted on externally.

Another way of looking at it is: a human being is alive, and can pick up a rock and throw it, not because he is acted on by some force, but because he contains a certain amount of energy and because his body is made up of many systems that can controllably exert that energy a certain way. The rock however, which is not alive, cannot influence anything unless something else exerts a force unto it. And even then, the rock will only continue to have influence until that energy is fully released; then the rock will become inanimate again.
(I suppose that you could consider the rock to be "alive" while in motion as it does contain energy that it is using to influence the world, though that is much more a philosophical outlook than a scientific one.)

Okay, so now that we've looked at what life is, I think that I can at least try to explain how it might have arisen from non-life...

If you consider that before life would have begun based on the theory, that the state of the planet would have been influenced solely by natural law, and that natural law would have formed many natural cycles (think water cycle, plate tectonics, etc.), then it would make sense that a large number of different materials would have MANY chances to combine and react with each other over a long period of time.

Now, there are many theories on how exactly life began, but put broadly: the right materials found their way to the right place for the right amount of time, and the resulting reactions eventually formed primitive, very simplistic life. And of course, this sounds like a lot of requirements to be met by the sheer, unconscious forces of nature - as it is - but if you consider the amount of time involved, then it is still a realistic theory.

As for reproduction, I don't know if it would be more likely that the organisms had some form of very primitive asexual reproductive system from the get go, or if the environment in which they were created would have been prominent enough to yield a huge number of them.

Finally, as the rest of the theory goes, these organisms would have been refined and made increasingly complex over time, eventually evolving into the creatures that exist today. But of course, this is just a theory and this is just my understanding of it. And now that I've explained it to you in more detail than I care to consider, I can finally go to bed; good night Z_Z

*This has been another fine TL;DR by B7BLUE Co.
Remember: if it ain't long, and it ain't hard - it ain't Blue.*
XD

Okay. So strange enoungh I was debating an Athiest here and when I asked how did we get complex life, isn't it thanks to imporvememt? No that can't be right theres more flaws then improvements, which explains why he kept saying that changing is not for good or bad, it's just change. Either way evolution cannot have happened based on the fact that there are more mutations then improvements. By the way a saying oh this is billions of years old does not sound like science to me, since we have only observed and have fairly well documented documents (not counting the bible) begin slightly before 0ac, which means we have certainty that the roman empire existed. We also know that the earth is older then 2000 years. Mhh if the earth is billions, well we could only prove less than 1 percent of that time frame. The rest evolutionists claim is in the ground. Well they never found the entire geological column in one part anywhere on earth, it was always in segments. Life, well life in my mind is something that has cells(Is made up of them) also life would mean anything that can be placed in a vacuum/extreme temps and it will die. Become changed due to such an event. Also I need to go to sleep too, I can hardly see straight.

You know what, your right. At least the way I tested it you are:D the earth would have only moved away 171 450km in 4.5 billion years. Unless I used a bad "constant" rate of the earth loosing the moon, I used 1.5 inches/per year. I'll redo the test with different measurements some time later.

Just because something lives under a certain condition for awhile doesn't mean that it can live like that for a long time. People can survive under water for awhile too:) until they run out of breath. If the moon was formed from a bunch of rocks, then why is there no sign of "cracks"? why didn't NASA look for those when they had astronauts there?

How did they date the rock? What method did they use?

Okay, but if the moon was made from lava, then why are there "hills" on it? The moon doesn't have plate tectonics, does it? Apod.nasa.gov note the near perfect hills.

Not all dating works. carbon dating doesn't work for example. There are flaws with dating methods, and so before claiming "this is X amount of years old" they should date something that they know when it died before saying it works and dating stuff that they don't know the date of.

I'll watch the video later. Also carbon dating doesn't work, I heard that living snails have been dated to several million years. (I haven't confirmed it yet) also if creatures are older then 80000 years then we should see creatures without carbon 14. Right? So it there are any then give me a link:)

Okay but that still doesnt explain things like.
Contenderministries.org
Answersingenesis.org
Lastly watch the questions and answers bit on www.drdino.com

I did

Then if there are any then you should link to them.

Okay, however this fails to recognize that if there was more plants, and creatures then carbon 14 would not have been absorbed at the same rate that it is absorbed at today:)