Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

At a very very conservative estimate there are a billion billion planets in the universe the likely hood of getting a planet in the same goldilocks zone as earth with the same make up is far less than a billion to one but if we say it is a billion to one that means there are a billion planets out there that have the same potential of earth

What about scientific journals that document papers that have passed peer review

You sound a lot like some one that has disappeared recently , but back to the point you have to prove there was a god to send them

She's on a time out

That’s not even an argument from scripture it’s just a quote , I have read the bible cover to cover it is not convincing

You can not choose to believe , you either believe or you do not,

If your trying to describe evolution you are not

Riiight, well I believe your wrong about that statement.

If you want to go in that direction then let's go there.
What is the difference between your journals by definition you have given, which document papers that have passed peer review...
...And the origional documented papers, written by the apostles, documents taken from the Cannons of the Kings, documents recording the words of the prophets of God, which have passed peer review and were compiled into a book which is now called the "Holy Bible". There is much more documentation than what is contained in this book. Peers only chose to insert some of them.
What about the books of Thomas, the Apocrapha and so many others? Even the recently found Dead Sea Scrolls, which are transcriptions of testimony.

If your documents are your proof for non-existant God, and the Bible and other books are other's proof for God's existance, how can either writing be true? How are they measured one against the other? A measurement from the minds of men which are subject to change or the scales can be tipped from side to side. It can not be weighted to the burden of Proof. It can only be judged by the preponderance of the evidence which would mean, WHO IS THE MOST BELIEVABLE? It is for each individual to decide.

The paper documents prove nothing. You can not measure the invisible or the Supernatural. You do not know this realm. We are dealing with another realm here, another consciousness.

Thank you for being nice.

crotalus, are you bored?

That is simply not true the bible goes no where near describing anything to do with evolution (neither of the two accounts )



That was the only part of your post worth replying to ,

Look in the mirror not choose to believe you are white , do you believe it ??

A slight bit usually, some one comes up with at least a semi decent (but flawed) argument

HL you don’t know/understand how peer review work’s

I do know that a peer group was used to compile the writings of the Bible.


I am not saying that I believe it all. Just that those in the peer group, who believed, thought to put them together, the collected writings.


I still say that proof is not found through writings, but from ones own inward experience.

I have no interest in converting you from or to anything. A belief or faith in anything external, as opposed to supposed written fact or theory has to come from within. I have taken graduate classes in horticulture, botany and zoology and virtually every day that I go out into the woods, work in the fields and just observe what takes place. I see things that I cannot entirely explain scientifically. I am constantly amazed at the world around me and my opinion is that there has to be something other than science that enters into the equation. Even in scientific experimentation that goes beyond what is known or challenges what is known, there has to be faith of some kind that drives the one doing that research.
Reach deep within to determine what you believe in, don't let someone else's agrument convince you, but do what you are comfortable with.

Okay crotalus.. I don't really have an argument, but it's difficult for me to believe that certain things could be left up to science or be exactly scientifically explained.

Such as.. the human body. Such a complex and beautiful thing.. For the most part, just the fact that all of the organisms in the body work together so flawlessly to exist and to contain intelligence as well... dont' you find it difficult to believe that all of that is by chance? How does one explain such a perfect beautiful thing? What reason would such a thing have to exist?

And then, when the human body fails to work flawlessly, and needs attention, what exactly about science would cause such things as empathy and sympathy, and desire to give that attention in order to make the human well again? If it's all science, what about science could explain human nature and emotion?

I dunno.. these are the things that make me believe that we are no cosmic accident.

It depends on the mirror now doesn't it, and I would still have to decide whether to believe what it showed me.

That has nothing to do with the peer review process , as I said you do not understand the peer review process

The body does not work flawlessly , not by along shot , there are a huge amount of examples in the human body of “unintelligent design”



Who said it happened by chance ??? Certainly not the theory of evolution

Evolution threw the process of natural selection .


Who said there was a reason ???

All the emotions you described benefit us in the evolutionary process , it is also worth noting that these feeling are exhibited threw out the natural world it is especially evident in our fellow primates