4 big myths of Book of Revelation

[pop3corn]

Yung details na lang ng pagkagawa sa atin at sa mundo. Hindi pwede putok lang tayo kung saan. Dito na lang sa mundo meron tayo concept ng hari, presidente, leader.......Sigurado meron creator. Gaya na lang ng nanay na nanganganak para magcreate ng panibago human.

Sabi nung iba galing daw tayo sa unggoy. Kung galing tayo sa unggoy bakit meron tao mukhang hipopotamus. Meron din mukhang baboy. So basag na yung argumento galing tayo sa unggoy.

yan ang isa talaga nakakapagtaka sa mga scientists, imagine training/studying/educating/achieving the highest IQ that they can possibly get over us common people. kasi talaga naman cream of the crop sila with their gift of intelligence eh, pero they would rather accept the fact they owe their intelligence to the lowly monkeys rather than accepting their talents as a gift from God.

the irony ...

parang let's say may anak ka na 12 yrs. old whiz kid tipong accelerated from Grade 2 to Grade 6 kagad, tapos kausapin ko anak mo. "wow! you're so smart! I envy you bec. God gave you a special gift." tapos sasagutin lang ako: Excuse me, there is no God!! I came from a monkey. --- yun ang basaag!

[ghosthunter]

yan ang isa talaga nakakapagtaka sa mga scientists, imagine training/studying/educating/achieving the highest IQ that they can possibly get over us common people. kasi talaga naman cream of the crop sila with their gift of intelligence eh, pero they would rather accept the fact they owe their intelligence to the lowly monkeys rather than accepting their talents as a gift from God.

the irony ...

parang let's say may anak ka na 12 yrs. old whiz kid tipong accelerated from Grade 2 to Grade 6 kagad, tapos kausapin ko anak mo. "wow! you're so smart! I envy you bec. God gave you a special gift." tapos sasagutin lang ako: Excuse me, there is no God!! I came from a monkey. --- yun ang basaag!

Ridicule about how intelligent scientists through long hard work and thorough research have concluded that man's origin is through his primate ancestors yet you cling to an outdated belief in an ancient fairy tale with not a shred of proof as if it was truth.

The irony...

Here's something you might want to update your beliefs on:

The Pope, Church and origin of man:

The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

[uls]

yan ang isa talaga nakakapagtaka sa mga scientists, imagine training/studying/educating/achieving the highest IQ that they can possibly get over us common people. kasi talaga naman cream of the crop sila with their gift of intelligence eh, pero they would rather accept the fact they owe their intelligence to the lowly monkeys rather than accepting their talents as a gift from God.

humans diverged from chimps millions of years ago

humans evolved separately kaya malayo intelligence ng humans sa chimps

yan ang sinasabi ko -- believers lack knowledge re evolution tapos makikipag argue with their limited knowledge

akala nila evolution is a straight line

evolution is not a straight line

[pop3corn]

Ridicule about how intelligent scientists through long hard work and thorough research have concluded that man's origin is through his primate ancestors yet you cling to an outdated belief in an ancient fairy tale with not a shred of proof as if it was truth.

Here's something you might want to update your beliefs on:

The Pope, Church and origin of man:

that is true IF humans evolved here in this planet.

The book of Genesis also describes the Big Bang. it describes the creation of Adam and Eve and the setting of which is place similar to ours. But the question is .. is it planet Earth?

the Old Testament also talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. what if it's not a place on earth but in fact 1 or 2 planet far away or nearer like Mars?

did our scientists even consider this? yan lang pinagtataka ko so mga scientists natin, they toil/observe almost everyday watching space looking for other signs of life in other solar systems, but they wouldn't let their imagination run wild na baka nga we too are visitors in this planet / solar system. o baka nga lang naman takot din sila i-admit ito bec. they would practically destroy their careers if they align themselves with UFO fanatics. But they can't deny that they are curious about signs of life in the solar system coz they're ready to waste their lifetime working on it.

so what do they do? cge, sabihin na lang natin sa masses na tama si Darwin - an 18th century man who had this idea: hey we came from monkeys - no DNA testing, no expensive labs equipments basta observation lang lol. or are they just buying time, tutal madali naman i-retract ang Darwin theory eh, it's a theory anyway. malas nga lang ng mga atheists, they're relying their beliefs on a theory, it's not even an absolute fact.

----

now given that we have proven we were indeed survivors of Mars or another green planet in another solar system? and the few who survived crashed here billions of years ago. in time, all the resources / tech they have in whatever they have brought in, nag-expire na din siguro. and suddenly, the survivors made use of what's available here like stone and wood. will that explain the cavemen? the cavemen being their descendants, and our ancestors.

but the question still remains. who created our ancestor survivors? what was their religion or was there any? andun pa din ang question ng God. but of course, it is much more convenient yata to believe a 200 year old theory rather than a 2000 year old religion hehe

[Harangody]

OT: Para san yung kamay ng T-Rex?

[ghosthunter]

that is true IF humans evolved here in this planet.

The book of Genesis also describes the Big Bang. it describes the creation of Adam and Eve and the setting of which is place similar to ours. But the question is .. is it planet Earth?

the Old Testament also talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. what if it's not a place on earth but in fact 1 or 2 planet far away or nearer like Mars?

did our scientists even consider this? yan lang pinagtataka ko so mga scientists natin, they toil/observe almost everyday watching space looking for other signs of life in other solar systems, but they wouldn't let their imagination run wild na baka nga we too are visitors in this planet / solar system. o baka nga lang naman takot din sila i-admit ito bec. they would practically destroy their careers if they align themselves with UFO fanatics. But they can't deny that they are curious about signs of life in the solar system coz they're ready to waste their lifetime working on it.

so what do they do? cge, sabihin na lang natin sa masses na tama si Darwin - an 18th century man who had this idea: hey we came from monkeys - no DNA testing, no expensive labs equipments basta observation lang lol. or are they just buying time, tutal madali naman i-retract ang Darwin theory eh, it's a theory anyway. malas nga lang ng mga atheists, they're relying their beliefs on a theory, it's not even an absolute fact.

----

now given that we have proven we were indeed survivors of Mars or another green planet in another solar system? and the few who survived crashed here billions of years ago. in time, all the resources / tech they have in whatever they have brought in, nag-expire na din siguro. and suddenly, the survivors made use of what's available here like stone and wood. will that explain the cavemen? the cavemen being their descendants, and our ancestors.

but the question still remains. who created our ancestor survivors? what was their religion or was there any? andun pa din ang question ng God. but of course, it is much more convenient yata to believe a 200 year old theory rather than a 2000 year old religion hehe

[pop3corn]

humans diverged from chimps millions of years ago

humans evolved separately kaya malayo intelligence ng humans sa chimps

yan ang sinasabi ko -- believers lack knowledge re evolution tapos makikipag argue with their limited knowledge

akala nila evolution is a straight line

evolution is not a straight line

if you say that we have limited knowledge on evolution, then you must be admitting that you are very knowledgeable in evolution. ito lang naman ang question ko sa mga experts ng evolution, evolution requires time. it's like a 24 hour bldg. surveillance camera. if you went on a three day boracay vacation, when you get home, you will need to spend the same 72 hours (3 days) to playback everything, or you can choose 4x, 8x, 16x fast forward speed. depende kung gano kabilis ang cognitive abilities mo.

let's say the first fossil of man was dated 2 million years ago, I doubt even if you play it at 16x speed, your allowable 60 - 80 yrs lifetime will be enough to confidently say that you have watched / observed the entire evolution process.

let's talk about oil na lang kasi favorite topic mo yan eh. pinagkakakitaan yan lol. fossil fuel also dates back say 2 millions years ago. if indeed you and our scientists are expert of evolution, baka naman pwede apply nila expertise sa evolution ng fossil fuel, baka ma-recreate ang process, para mas dumami gasolina at magmura heheh

[ghosthunter]

OT: Para san yung kamay ng T-Rex?

From wiki:

When Tyrannosaurus rex was first discovered, the humerus was the only element of the forelimb known.[56] For the initial mounted skeleton as seen by the public in 1915, Osborn substituted longer, three-fingered forelimbs like those of Allosaurus.[40] However, a year earlier, Lawrence Lambe described the short, two-fingered forelimbs of the closely related Gorgosaurus.[57] This strongly suggested that Tyrannosaurus rex had similar forelimbs, but this hypothesis was not confirmed until the first complete Tyrannosaurus rex forelimbs were identified in 1989, belonging to MOR 555 (the "Wankel rex").[58] The remains of "Sue" also include complete forelimbs.[14] Tyrannosaurus rex arms are very small relative to overall body size, measuring only 1 metre (3.3 ft) long. However, they are not vestigial but instead show large areas for muscle attachment, indicating considerable strength. This was recognized as early as 1906 by Osborn, who speculated that the forelimbs may have been used to grasp a mate during copulation.[59] It has also been suggested that the forelimbs were used to assist the animal in rising from a prone position.[54] Another possibility is that the forelimbs held struggling prey while it was killed by the tyrannosaur's enormous jaws. This hypothesis may be supported by biomechanical analysis.

Tyrannosaurus rex forelimb bones exhibit extremely thick cortical bone, indicating that they were developed to withstand heavy loads. The biceps brachii muscle of a full-grown Tyrannosaurus rex was capable of lifting 199 kilograms (439 lb) by itself; other muscles such as the brachialis would work along with the biceps to make elbow flexion even more powerful. The M. biceps muscle of T. rex was 3.5 times as powerful as the human equivalent. A Tyrannosaurus rex forearm also had a reduced range of motion, with the shoulder and elbow joints allowing only 40 and 45 degrees of motion, respectively. In contrast, the same two joints in Deinonychus allow up to 88 and 130 degrees of motion, respectively, while a human arm can rotate 360 degrees at the shoulder and move through 165 degrees at the elbow. The heavy build of the arm bones, extreme strength of the muscles, and limited range of motion may indicate a system evolved to hold fast despite the stresses of a struggling prey animal. Carpenter and Smith dismissed notions that the forelimbs were useless or that Tyrannosaurus rex was an obligate scavenger.[60]

source; Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ghosthunter]

let's say the first fossil of man was dated 2 million years ago, I doubt even if you play it at 16x speed, your allowable 60 - 80 yrs lifetime will be enough to confidently say that you have watched / observed the entire evolution process.

Even if you cannot see the entire process, you can see points in time. With enough points through time, you can see development and evolution happen. Much like a flipbook animation bringing ordinary drawings into moving pictures.

[uls]

ancient people came up with myths to explain things

they attribute unexplainable things to supernatural beings

myths became religions

science explains a lot of things making religion irrelevant

but many modern humans still hang on to ancient myths

[shadow]

WTF!? Gising pa kayo?

[uls]

if you say that we have limited knowledge on evolution, then you must be admitting that you are very knowledgeable in evolution. ito lang naman ang question ko sa mga experts ng evolution, evolution requires time. it's like a 24 hour bldg. surveillance camera. if you went on a three day boracay vacation, when you get home, you will need to spend the same 72 hours (3 days) to playback everything, or you can choose 4x, 8x, 16x fast forward speed. depende kung gano kabilis ang cognitive abilities mo.

let's say the first fossil of man was dated 2 million years ago, I doubt even if you play it at 16x speed, your allowable 60 - 80 yrs lifetime will be enough to confidently say that you have watched / observed the entire evolution process.

let's talk about oil na lang kasi favorite topic mo yan eh. pinagkakakitaan yan lol. fossil fuel also dates back say 2 millions years ago. if indeed you and our scientists are expert of evolution, baka naman pwede apply nila expertise sa evolution ng fossil fuel, baka ma-recreate ang process, para mas dumami gasolina at magmura heheh

2 million years? haha

see? lack of knowledge. fossil fuel is only 2 million years old?

crude oil was formed in sedimentary basins

layer upon layer of sediment which are remains of dead animals, plants, algae, plankton, bacteria (in other words: organic matter)

most of the crude oil we burn today comes from buried organic matter deposited during the Cenozoic era which goes back 50-60 million years

[uls]

WTF!? Gising pa kayo?

too much caffeine hehe

[shadow]

Naku popcorn yari ka hinde makatulog si uls

[uls]

pero kailangan matulog

good night

[tomboy]

source: Is there any conclusive proof of God?

Question: "Is there any conclusive proof of God?"

Answer: The answer to this question depends greatly on what is meant by “conclusive” proof. Can we reach out and touch God or see Him in the same way that we touch and see people? No. But there are countless ways one can know assuredly that God does exist, that He is real, and He is who He says He is. We will look briefly at three ways of proving His existence using both science and the Bible.

1. The Law of Cause and Effect. This law of science states that every cause has its effect and every effect has its cause. This law is the basis of all science. As such, this law bears a relationship to the origin of the heavens and the earth. In fact, scientists agree that the universe has not existed forever, that it had a beginning at some point in time.

The theory of relativity which is almost universally accepted among scientists has certain implications for this Law of Cause and Effect. One is that the universe, defined as time, space, matter, and physical energy had a beginning, that it is not eternal. And it is through Einstein’s equations that scientists can trace the development of the universe back to its very origin, back to what is called the “singularity event” when it actually came into being. Science has proven that the universe really did have a beginning. This obviously means that if the universe had a starting point in history, then it obviously began to exist, and it must have a cause for its existence.

Therefore, if the universe needs a cause for its coming into being, then that cause must be beyond the universe—which is time, space, matter, and physical energy. That cause must be something similar to what Christians call “God.” Even Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent proponent for atheism of our modern times, admitted in a “Time” magazine article that “there could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.” Yes, and that is God!

We can best summarize this cosmological evidence with the following statements:
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause for its existence.
4. The attributes of the cause of the universe (being timeless, existing outside of space, and so on) are the attributes of God.
5. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be God (Genesis 1:1).

2. The Law of Teleology is the study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. This law of science essentially means that when an object reflects a purpose, goal or design, it must have had a designer. Simply put, things do not design themselves. This holds true for the things in the universe which proves that it had to have a Designer.

For example, the earth in orbiting the sun departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every 18 miles—a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, it would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we would be incinerated. The sun is burning at approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior. If the earth was moved 10% further away, we would soon freeze to death. If it was moved 10% closer, we would be reduced to ashes. Are we to believe that such precision “just happened”? Think about it: the sun is poised at 93 million miles from earth, which happens to be just right. Did this happen by chance or by design? It’s no small wonder that the Psalmist alludes to God as the grand designer when he declared: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other” (Psalm 19:1, 6).

3. The Laws of Probability and Fulfilled Prophecy. There are 1,093 prophecies in the Bible that refer to Jesus and His Church, and each one of those prophecies was fulfilled! The Old Testament contains 48 prophecies that pertain to the crucifixion of Jesus. When applying the laws of probability to calculate the likelihood of several events taking place at or near the same time, all probabilities have to be multiplied together. For example, if the probability of a single even occurring randomly is 1 chance in 5 and the probability of a separate event occurring is 1 chance in 10, then the probability that both events will occur together or in sequence is 1 in 5 multiplied by 1 in 10 which yields 1 in 50.

In considering the fact that several different prophets who lived in separate communities over a span of a 1,000 years made predictions of Christ 500 years before His birth, the odds against these prophecies coming true are simply beyond our wildest comprehension. For example, the chances of one man (Jesus) fulfilling just 8 of the prophecies attributed to Him are one in 10 to the 17th power (that’s a number with 17 zeroes).

Consider this: imagine covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars to a level of two feet deep. The number of silver dollars needed to cover the whole state would be 10 to the 17th power. Drop one of those silver dollars marked with an “X” from an airplane and thoroughly stir all the silver dollars all over the state. Then blindfold a man and tell him he can travel wherever he wishes in the state of Texas. Then somewhere along the way, stop and reach down into the two feet of silver dollars and pull up the one silver dollar that has been marked. What are the chances of his doing this? The same chance the prophets had of eight of their prophecies being fulfilled in any one man in the future.

The Bible with all its fulfilled prophecies proves the existence of God. Through the law of probability and the mathematical odds of prophecy being fulfilled we can know assuredly that there was a divine Designer and Author of the Bible. The same One who brought into existence the universe. “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

Finally, God, the Creator of the universe and author of our salvation tells us: “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient
times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

[tomboy]

source: Is God imaginary?

Question: "Is God imaginary?"

Answer: Godisimaginary.com is not the first to claim that God is imaginary. In an article entitled “Theology and Falsification” written many years ago, Anthony Flew, one of the twentieth century’s most outspoken atheists wrote,

Two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. . . . Yet still the believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, who comes secretly to look after the garden he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs. “But what remains of the original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

Following Flew’s thoughts from decades ago, the web site godisimaginary.com provides what it believes are 50 “proofs” that God does not exist – that He is nothing more than an imaginary gardener, a superstition, a myth. The site claims, “Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's 'God,' nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists.”

Actually, when a person thinks as a rational person and tosses away any preconceived bias and baggage that’s held, one must disagree with the site’s assertions and instead reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist.

Addressing each of the 50 points is unnecessary as it doesn’t matter if the site had 50,000 “proof” points against God; all one needs to do is use a logical, rational, and reasonable argument to show that God does indeed exist and every point becomes irrelevant. It is telling and interesting that godisimaginary.com focuses so much of its time on red herrings of issues with prayer and why God won’t do tricks upon request, and ignores the primary question of philosophy and religion: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” In other words, like Flew, the site concentrates on issues with a gardener they believe to be imaginary and ignores the question of why a garden exists in the first place.

The only place on the site where a possible answer to this question is offered is “proof” point 47. Complexity, says the site, could only arise from either Nature itself or a Creator. “Proof” point 47 then states, “The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.”

This assertion and conclusion is flawed as they have proposed two explanations and then bundle a third option into the solution they like – spontaneous generation with an eternal universe. An eternal universe is, initially, a logical option but not spontaneous generation, which is a scientific term for something coming from nothing or self-creation, which is an analytically false statement – that is, a statement that shows itself to be false by definition. A fundamental law of science is ex nihilo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing comes. And as Aristotle said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” The web site derides Christians for believing in magic, yet it embraces greater magic than anything found in the Bible – life just appearing out of nothing from non-life with no cause.

[tomboy]

source: Is God imaginary?

.....continuation

Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause. How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t. Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth, which of course, begs the question of who engineered that superior alien race. Godisimaginary.com claims, “No intelligence is required to encode DNA,” but refuting this statement is the very co-discoverer of DNA himself – Francis Crick – who admits there is no way for DNA to have arisen apart from intelligence.

But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence. This one piece of evidence alone began to turn Anthony Flew away from atheism.

These facts being evident, it then becomes quite easy to offer a simple, reasonable, logical proof for God in the following way:

1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

The only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Any fanciful assertions of collapsing universes, imaginary time, and the like are just that – fanciful – and require more faith to than to believe in God. The two choices are simple – matter before mind or mind before matter – and it is interesting that this web site claims it is their intelligence that causes them to choose the former over the latter.

“But who created God?” the site asks. Why not ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” or “What does the color blue taste like?” It’s a category mistake – you don’t make the unmade. Further, why sit back comfortably and believe in an unmade universe and yet angrily bristle at the notion of an unmade Creator? Could it be because mindless matter cannot call human beings into moral account whereas a personal God can? Finally, is it more reasonable to embrace a cause that contains none of the characteristics of its effect (personality, love, meaning, purpose, etc.) or a cause that embodies them all (a personal God)? The site claims, “In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary,” but in reality, logic, reason, and evidence disprove their position and point in the absolute other direction.

The conclusion is that a personal Creator exists. Moreover, this Being who created everything mirrors the God described in the Bible quite well as evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile. At this point, all 50 “proofs” on the web site become irrelevant – God exists; therefore, all points offered on the site are incorrect in the final conclusion that they collectively try to reach. Wondering why God won’t cure all the cancer in the world because a group of Christians prayed for it, pointing out the divorce rate among Christians, scoffing because God doesn’t create money for churches out of thin air, wondering why Jesus never moved a physical mountain, asserting a false dichotomy that says a person must be a person of facts or of faith (many brilliant scientists believe in God), making unprovable claims that Jesus never did a concrete miracle, and erroneously stating that the Bible “advocates” senseless murder, slavery, and oppression of women - all end up being impotent in light of the conclusion that a creator God exists.

Answering such objections – if they are genuine and not extended in a way that refuses to believe even if reasoned responses are given – requires only the disciplined study of Scripture alongside the Spirit of God who inspired it. Arguments with those who possess a hardened skeptical spirit are to be avoided as 1 Timothy 6:20 says, “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge.'” But even still, God is fully capable of using His powerful general revelation (the creation) to witness to those who appear completely lost due to a skeptical and hardened heart.

[B]In stark contrast to the article he'd written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.” This being the case, one thing is certain – the 50 frail attempts on godisimaginary.com to prove that God is imaginary fall far short of even causing a nick on the armor of evidence that opposes them.[/B

[Monseratto]

Hehehe...kulang na lang pagusapan ang middle earth ni OB. Same irrational monologue...

Also why do people, despite BILLION years of random change in the universe, only look at few thousand years and conclude intellegent design?

MODs: paki tingin naman yung quote rule ng board ^^

[chua_riwap]

Hehehe...kulang na lang pagusapan ang middle earth ni OB. Same irrational monologue...

si OB nga ata yang si pop3corn eh.......