The timeline has gaps. You've clearly never read the bible and are just regurgitating false reddit talking points.
so they just left gaps billion of years long and don't address it. LOL. seems legit
There's no billion year gaps. Cite them. You're making shit up.
exactly! so the earth is only a few thousand years old according to the bible. you cannot have it both ways
No, there's no billion year gaps in the bible if we take the scientific age of the earth into account. Where tf did you get this from?
It's not continuous at all. The bible never says that it's 6000 years old. It was retarded bible autists who tried to come up with that estimate before modern science. It bears no ground today where bible scholars can come up with alternative lineages that fit with scientific discoveries.Biblical literalist chronology - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
it seems pretty continuous from 4000bc. but then how can the earth be 4.5 billions years old
the order of magnitude is clearly way off. this is not a reconcilable error
These retarded Bible autists you speak of are Issac Newton, Martin Luther and an archbishop btw. The chronology is derived from established events that are dated and then using ages and numbers given in the Bible to work backeards. And it's not like it's a few hundred or thousands years off, it's billions of years off lmfao.
No they're not. It was James Ussher, a random bishop. Learn your history before you spew retarded shit like this. The bible clearly has room in the lineage. Using an estimate made hundreds of years ago as "evidence" doesn't mean shit.
No, they reject it because the bible wasn't meant to calculate the age of the Earth and there's room in the lineage to account for it.
That random bishop was effectively the head of the church of Ireland. And Isaac Newton and Martin luther arrived at similar estimates because like I said it's the obvious conclusion to anyone without an agenda living in the modern era.
Ok? He was a random bishop with no other scientific accomplishments and was the person known for it. Isaac Newton and Luther simply suggested it but had no science to base off it. It's a terrible argument to make.
no, he was head of the church of Ireland.
Ok? Head of the church of Ireland in an irrelevant timeframe with no scientific discoveries doesn't mean shit. He's still a random bishop.
Please tell me that you're joking. Religions are a bunch of tales.
Sure dude. "muh bible was made up brah" when every single value in there completely holds up today and you can see how society is falling apart without them. Surely it was primitive people living in straw houses who just made it all up bro
.
What? No.
God has foreseen everything that is happening in this modern world it’s all going to lead up to a bubble pop and everyone will be judged. Whether we are alive for it or not is the questionSure dude. "muh bible was made up brah" when every single value in there completely holds up today and you can see how society is falling apart without them. Surely it was primitive people living in straw houses who just made it all up bro
It's not semantics, you just typed whatevah, you need indications for a hypothesis, where's the indications that Santa exists
God is a tale. Just like Santa. If you believe it all came from a God where did your God come from? Why stop at tale no1.
Assuming you went to school
Assuming you went to school
An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens
Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our specieswww.smithsonianmag.com
Go search what came before that. You know they evolved. Monkeys, walking fish and single celled organisms. I'm not your teacher buddy.
religion is not a scientific hypothesis according to science therefore its not worth spending time on it
God is all powerful and had always existed.
The Universe always existed in different forms. I'm not using the multiverse at all. I corrected your wrong description of it.
Ok? The universe by all calculations had a beginning which is the current accepted scientific consensus. You can create and twist your hypotheses all you want to avoid God. muh multiverse brah. muh expansion brah.
No.
"as we know it". Ok? What came before that?
?"
don't bother this guy is retarded brainwashed christian
That's not an indication. Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean it points out to gods. JFL what dumb logic is that?"as we know it". Ok? What came before that?
Of course scientists don't believe in God. They're fucking autistic scientists whose entire profession is to evaluate things on nothing but what their textbook says.
"cAn u pROvIDe a rePUTaBLe sOUrCE fOr thAT
Of course there's indication. No scientific explanation for consciousness. No scientific explanation for the origin of life. No scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It's not even that it's not understood fully, they can't even come up with a sensible explanation for any of them.
muh primordial soup and muh multiverse brah
I love how you say "get over it" as if you've provided any level of proof. Typical depressed skinny fat teenager who browsed r/atheism once so he can have an excuse to his parents to avoid going to church so he can coom instead.
I didn't say that. I said that the certain thing is IMPOSSIBLE with the laws of our universe.
That's a terrible argument. There's no possible way to explain any of those things through a material viewpoint using any of the known properties of science.
I literally just listed all the indications of it. Of course there's no tangible proof. Any reasonable person can make the assumption that God exists based on the evidence. All the alternative explanations are cringe af. muh multiverse
. muh universe in another form .
The scientific method as we know it is literally at its infancy. Your entire logic is = "muh science didn't uncover all the secrets of existentialism and the universes and the origin of life in 2 thousand years (25 grandmas dying back to back), therefore it's useless, wrong and God is the answer!!""as we know it". Ok? What came before that?
Of course scientists don't believe in God. They're fucking autistic scientists whose entire profession is to evaluate things on nothing but what their textbook says.
"cAn u pROvIDe a rePUTaBLe sOUrCE fOr thAT
Of course there's indication. No scientific explanation for consciousness. No scientific explanation for the origin of life. No scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It's not even that it's not understood fully, they can't even come up with a sensible explanation for any of them.
muh primordial soup and muh multiverse brah
I love how you say "get over it" as if you've provided any level of proof. Typical depressed skinny fat teenager who browsed r/atheism once so he can have an excuse to his parents to avoid going to church so he can coom instead. Your arguments are shit and provide no proof, just generic redditor talking points that anyone educated can debunk.
That's not the point. We have a vast understanding of what's possible or not in the universe. We've examined millions of light years of the universe and have seen the exact same laws of physics applied everywhere. But yet when it comes to things like consciousness, origin of the universe, and life, we're completely stumped. How does matter turn into conscious life? How does the Universe come to existence. How does self replicating DNA arise from matter? Nobody can even begin to explain it with any kind of credibility and there's tons of science that goes AGAINST all of the main "explanations" for them.
Of course we do. Scientists have found that the universe's properties are finely tuned and extremely volatile. Changing any property would result in the universe imploding on itself or some other kind of tragedy. There's always "muh we just got lucky to have a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that it would happen brah" argument but any man of reason would say that's a terrible argument. That's why scientists use the multiverse hypothesis because it can account for the fine-tuning of the universe. It's basically just God but without admitting it - an all powerful process that has always existed but instead of deliberate creation it's randomness.
They're not arguments from futility. It's from pure reason. muh God of the gaps brah
.
All these words and yet 0 evidence for a deliberate intelligent sentient creator. Saying life is extremely rare and not fully understood in 20 different ways =/= they're arguments in favor of GodThat's not the point. We have a vast understanding of what's possible or not in the universe. We've examined millions of light years of the universe and have seen the exact same laws of physics applied everywhere. But yet when it comes to things like consciousness, origin of the universe, and life, we're completely stumped. How does matter turn into conscious life? How does the Universe come to existence. How does self replicating DNA arise from matter? Nobody can even begin to explain it with any kind of credibility and there's tons of science that goes AGAINST all of the main "explanations" for them.
Of course we do. Scientists have found that the universe's properties are finely tuned and extremely volatile. Changing any property would result in the universe imploding on itself or some other kind of tragedy. There's always "muh we just got lucky to have a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that it would happen brah" argument but any man of reason would say that's a terrible argument. That's why scientists use the multiverse hypothesis because it can account for the fine-tuning of the universe. It's basically just God but without admitting it - an all powerful process that has always existed but instead of deliberate creation it's randomness.
They're not arguments from futility. It's from pure reason. muh God of the gaps brah
There's no connection to a sentient God or creator, period lol. Literally all of his paragraphs = "we don't know how why or where therefore this and that!!!"
he poorly explained the cosmological argument iirc
It's only reasonable to assume there's was a deliberate creator. The suggested alternative is the multiverse which is just randomness and still has the same exact criticisms as God aka where did it come from, who created it, how does it generate energy, etc. Take your pick.
Yes, consciousness includes free will. Chemicals are governed by the laws of physics. Unless we're somehow conscious sentient beings who in reality have all of our decisions made by the concrete laws of physics, which is implausible.
" but when it comes to explaining consciousness, it's:"I love how you say "(they are not)" as if you have any standing to say that and are not just using the same atheist talking points from reddit. You've wrote nothing of value aside from overused red herrings in the Bible that every 14 year old atheist knows.
None of my paragraphs have said that. All of my paragraphs have explained why it's logical to come to the conclusion of a sentient creator and not randomness governed by the laws of physics.
JFL "poorly explained". Typical Twitter lefty atheist who uses witty remarks to disguise the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. And no, I haven't even used any of the main cosmological arguments.
I'm not an atheist lol
"cosmological arguments" - there is just the one, retard
