One Heartbeat Away by Mark Cahill

Every Second, two people die. What if this is YOUR second?

Request your FREE copy at:
www.Onehearbeataway.org

Music:
Cello Theme - Slowdive
Harmageddon - Apocalyptica

www.markcahill.org
www.ImpactApologetics.com ***(Does God Exist?? Does Absolute Truth Exist?? Can you Prove the existence of God without the Bible?? -Find out Turek and Geisler's book!)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Mark
• Cahill
• One
• Heartbeat
• Away
• Death
• After
• life
• Religion
• God
• Truth
• Book
• Atheism
• existence
• truth
• fallicies
• evidence
• die
• away

[Gorteenminogue]

"...logical, interesting and straightforward..." You have to be kidding. It is replete with contradictions and repetitions of the same events.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

..then surely it would be false. To sum up complex info, take a look at these:

1. Archaeological evidence supports the Bible. There have been over 25,000 arch. evidence that supports the Bible.

2. Historical Accuracy confirms the bible. No one has yet been able to identify I single historical mistake anywhere in the Bible. That in itself is amazing.

3. FULFILLED PROPHECIES validate the Bible. There are 100s of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible...

[flekhes]

@4EverLoveAmbassador Also, it is actually approximately 1.37 deaths every second. You rounded up incorrectly. :[ It would be more accurate to say that one person dies every second, but of course, that would not invoke the same emotional response. :O

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

flekhes; Perhaps there are different sources. Keep in mind also that this is an average; maybe Mark's source said it was 1.56 deaths every second. In that case, he would be rounding correctly.

Nevertheless, these are still strikingly similar and even if it was one person who died every second and not two, about 86,400 people would die in a day.

This is still a vast amount of people who die every 24 hours.

[flekhes]

@4EverLoveAmbassador There are obviously different sources, but he says another statistic that is over seven times the average number across all of the sources I found. Also, to round from 1.37 to 2 is quite a large leap, he should have said one and a half even if it were 1.56 (by the way, nice providing some irrelevant argument with no basis). Secondly, the grammar is his book is, to say the least, horrid. My metaphorical ears bleed every time I read it.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

flekhes; You're right, 1.37 to 2 is a large leap, but again, sources may vary--whoever said he was using the first number to begin with?

Regarding to the 'irrelevent argument with no basis,' no, I didn't have evidence nor data to back up my claim, but then again, I was only saying that it may have been 1.56. I was only speculating.

Regards to your 2nd point: this is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed; this is called a Red Herring fallacy. But sorry you didn't like his style!

[Ray01Geogeass]

@AgowTisro "Why make the assumption it was a god"

Because laws of creation states that everything must have a creator. And what thing so powerful can create something such as this universe? A constrcution worker? If something was to build with so much beauty and had the intelligence to add details that made a species able to survive haven't we just described god ourselves?

[AgowTisro]

@Ray01Geogeass Why make the assumption it was a god? That's like saying we don't know exactly who built the pyramids, so we might as well as assume it was aliens from another planet.

There's no reason to believe that or the latter; it's starting with an answer and putting it into the question. What came before the expansion, I can assure you no one knows, but we do know what came fractions of milliseconds after, we've essentially recreated it. That's the purpose of the Hadron Collider.

[Ray01Geogeass]

@AgowTisro How could anyone have designed the universe for our specific living conditins such as the planets alignment. Everything needs a beginning point meaning something would've had to make it go "bang"

[AgowTisro]

@Ray01Geogeass (part 2) It was also far, far from a "simple bang". It was more like a massive expansion. If you care enough, watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's "In Defense of the Big Bang."

[AgowTisro]

@Ray01Geogeass All that does is beg the question; who or what created the creator? It is at best an infinite regression.

By the way, that is the fine tuning argument. It is bullshit. Why assume the entire Universe is fine tuned for our existence? Why not instead insist that we in fact have painstakingly evolved to suit the harsh environment in which we live. Were the whole Universe created in our favour, it was by a sick man, given that a close 98% of the Universe is ready to kill us.

[Ray01Geogeass]

@AgowTisro Think of it this way; Picture this Everyone and everything has a builder right? The white house,statue of liberty, your laptop correct? How is it possible that this world which is set just right so we can survive created by a simple bang? It makes no sense. For something to begin there must be a beginner or creator. The same goes for this world

[AgowTisro]

@Ray01Geogeass (part 2) from the parent generation. If you were to take the last child and compare to the first parent that survived with the mutation, you wouldn't be able to tell they were even remotely related. Yet, this massive change had happened because of an allowance of time. That's how species evolve, and it's really up to the zoologist to decide where the point of transition was to name it a new species.

[AgowTisro]

@Ray01Geogeass Think of it this way; Imagine a remote human civilization, where, for some reason, the ones with the longest noses and most pointed ears survived to mate. With each generation these features would gain by a minuscule amount; we'll say one millimeter. With each subsequent generation, you wouldn't notice the difference from parent to offspring, it'd be so incredibly small. Now imagine, 40,000 generations of that change, but with each offspring the change would be barely noticeable -

[Ray01Geogeass]

@AgowTisro Can you answer them for me since you bleive so strongly of this?

He showed reasons why evolution was false and gave examples of such a belief