PDA

View Full Version : Question for magical-genie (God) believers



Hagbard Celine
06-25-2007, 04:50 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

jackass
06-25-2007, 05:10 PM
Its all about faith. Isnt that the meaning of faith? To believe even though you dont have any proof?
What proof do the scientists offer? There is speculation...but nothing PROVES where we came from, how life was formed or how the universe began. You have faith that science has the answer...I have faith that God is the answer.

manu1959
06-25-2007, 05:17 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

at some point there was nothing .... shortly after that there was something....

creationisim by definition ..... now argue who or what was the catalist ....

evolution occured after the moment of creation ....

darin
06-25-2007, 05:32 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

How about this - Why do you REFUSE to consider the figuratively-TONS of evidence pointing to creationism?

nevadamedic
06-25-2007, 05:39 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

You hit the nail on the head for once. Scientist's have been proving for years that it couldn't have played out the way the bible says. People just buy into because they are afraid of what happens after they die. If they believe in this theroy it might make them feel a little better thinking there is someplace else to go.

Monkeybone
06-25-2007, 05:47 PM
how do fossils prove it? they couldn't have died in the flood that the bible mentions?

and how does science prove evolution 100%? how have we not been able to make something from nothing or from an explosion?

and how are they uneducated? granted there are some hill rods that scream Jebus at all you non-believers and that you will burn in the firery brimstone.

what about evolitionary-creationism? a created world and life that has adapted to world changes through the means of evolution?

Pale Rider
06-25-2007, 06:05 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

Why do you have to start out your thread with sarcastic, Christian bashing, bullshit, like this... Question for magical-genie (God) believers

avatar4321
06-25-2007, 06:05 PM
we exist dont we? that is certainly evidence. might not be convincing for you but its certainly evidence.

It really ticks me off when people claim there is no evidence simply because they dont like the evidence presented. You can disagree with it all you want. but there is still evidence, even if it is weak.

glockmail
06-25-2007, 06:13 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

Hag this all comes down to the 7 day argument we've had before. Fo me the coorect interpretaion of day in Genesis is "age". I have no problem attesting to the age of the earth is millions of years old.

LOki
06-25-2007, 06:25 PM
Its all about faith. Isnt that the meaning of faith? To believe even though you dont have any proof?
What proof do the scientists offer? There is speculation...but nothing PROVES where we came from, how life was formed or how the universe began. You have faith that science has the answer...I have faith that God is the answer.Scientists offer evidence as proof, and evidence is the foundation for a scientist's belief. Faith is the belief that an assertion is true in fact, despite all evidence to the contrary. When it comes to belief based in faith, the notion of "proof" is not relevent--only the strength of the belief is relevent.


at some point there was nothing .... shortly after that there was something....

creationisim by definition .....Nonsense.


How about this - Why do you REFUSE to consider the figuratively-TONS of evidence pointing to creationism?There's no such evidence that is ever presented that does not presume the existence of a creator...NONE. That's why.


Why do you have to start out your thread with sarcastic, Christian bashing, bullshit, like this... Question for magical-genie (God) believersI think Pale, that this is a pithy--that which is good for the goose is also good for the gander--response to the <a href="http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=81124#post81124"><b>Question for Pond-scum (Evolution) believers</b></a> posted elsewhere.


Hag this all comes down to the 7 day argument we've had before. Fo me the coorect interpretaion of day in Genesis is "age". I have no problem attesting to the age of the earth is millions of years old.LOLz.

manu1959
06-25-2007, 06:30 PM
Nonsense.




so what was the first something and where did it come from .....

LOki
06-25-2007, 06:35 PM
so what was the first something and where did it come from .....TADA! You win first prize! That question illustrates exactly why your previous "nonsense" is NOT the definition of creationism. The creationist says "God," but denies the question "Who created God?"

glockmail
06-25-2007, 06:45 PM
TADA! You win first prize! That question illustrates exactly why your previous "nonsense" is NOT the definition of creationism. The creationist says "God," but denies the question "Who created God?" God is not matter; He is spirtual energy. His existence is independent of the universe.

LOki
06-25-2007, 06:56 PM
God is not matter; He is spirtual energy. His existence is independent of the universe.wooOOOOOOOooh! ScaryGhostStoryLOLz!:laugh2:
FYI Glockmail: The "Guy who created God" is also "independent of the universe." So is "the Guy who created the Guy who created God."

darin
06-25-2007, 07:33 PM
There's no such evidence that is ever presented that does not presume the existence of a creator...NONE. That's why.


Not exactly right - God's existence is the conclusion upon looking at the evidence. that's how it works.

krisy
06-25-2007, 07:57 PM
Why do you have to start out your thread with sarcastic, Christian bashing, bullshit, like this... Question for magical-genie (God) believers

THANK YOU!

Hag-I've always like you,but the way you have worded your title and thread is pretty nasty and degrading to a way of life and core beliefs for millions of people. Since I'm a Christian,I will not say what I really would like to about it:wink2:

5stringJeff
06-25-2007, 08:00 PM
wooOOOOOOOooh! ScaryGhostStoryLOLz!:laugh2:
FYI Glockmail: The "Guy who created God" is also "independent of the universe." So is "the Guy who created the Guy who created God."

If that's the case, then what was/is the first cause?

krisy
06-25-2007, 08:04 PM
. People just buy into because they are afraid of what happens after they die. If they believe in this theroy it might make them feel a little better thinking there is someplace else to go.

This is what some non beleivers tell themselves about people of faith because they don't understand faith themselves.

Lightning Waltz
06-25-2007, 08:37 PM
at some point there was nothing .... shortly after that there was something....

creationisim by definition .....

At the point that "God" came to be?

Lightning Waltz
06-25-2007, 08:38 PM
God is not matter; He is spirtual energy. His existence is independent of the universe.

Prove it.

LOki
06-25-2007, 08:49 PM
Not exactly right - God's existence is the conclusion upon looking at the evidence. that's how it works.No. Every instance of evidence presented for the existence of a creator has ALWAYS presumed the existence of a creator--that's the only way it works. If you think otherwise, submit some of this non-presumptive evidence, just don't try <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0">Irreducible Complexity</a> on me if you plan on using eyes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4) and flagella (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w) as examples; those examples of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4">Irreducible Complexity</a> have had their complexity reduced.

nevadamedic
06-25-2007, 08:51 PM
How about this - Why do you REFUSE to consider the figuratively-TONS of evidence pointing to creationism?

The evidence is a book of hocus pocus by the church the most powerful and corrupt orginization in the world.

nevadamedic
06-25-2007, 08:52 PM
This is what some non beleivers tell themselves about people of faith because they don't understand faith themselves.

I completly understand faith, I also understand it is a multi-billion dollar business.

LOki
06-25-2007, 08:54 PM
If that's the case, then what was/is the first cause?Good question, let's not fabricate an answer satisfy it. The first step is to accept that there is no more evidence for this "God as first cause" than there is for the "Guy who created God," so let's not assert them in the first place and just go with what we know, and admit we don't know what we don't know. Ok?

Lightning Waltz
06-25-2007, 08:57 PM
If that's the case, then what was/is the first cause?

That assumes that there was a "first cause". It also assumes that an uncaused causer is possible.

glockmail
06-25-2007, 09:10 PM
wooOOOOOOOooh! ScaryGhostStoryLOLz!:laugh2:
FYI Glockmail: The "Guy who created God" is also "independent of the universe." So is "the Guy who created the Guy who created God." There is no guy that created God.

glockmail
06-25-2007, 09:11 PM
Prove it. It's self evident, and believed by the majority. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong.

jackass
06-25-2007, 09:14 PM
That assumes that there was a "first cause". It also assumes that an uncaused causer is possible.

Everything is assuming. You assume there was a big explosion (I am guessing) that created the universe and then after life. We assume that God created everything. Neither you not I can PROVE anything.

nevadamedic
06-25-2007, 09:18 PM
Everything is assuming. You assume there was a big explosion (I am guessing) that created the universe and then after life. We assume that God created everything. Neither you not I can PROVE anything.

Ok, let's not start a holy was here. :laugh2:

5stringJeff
06-25-2007, 09:22 PM
Good question, let's not fabricate an answer satisfy it. The first step is to accept that there is no more evidence for this "God as first cause" than there is for the "Guy who created God," so let's not assert them in the first place and just go with what we know, and admit we don't know what we don't know. Ok?

We may not know, but we can at least hypothesize:

P1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C: The universe had a cause.

P1 is obvious because something cannot be its own sufficient cause.
P2 is obvious from science.
Therefore, C. And we are back to asking, what is that cause?

5stringJeff
06-25-2007, 09:22 PM
That assumes that there was a "first cause". It also assumes that an uncaused causer is possible.

See post 30.

darin
06-25-2007, 09:36 PM
The evidence is a book of hocus pocus by the church the most powerful and corrupt orginization in the world.

You CLEARLY Have never put any research into creationism, have you?

LOki
06-25-2007, 09:39 PM
We may not know, but we can at least hypothesize:

P1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C: The universe had a cause.

P1 is obvious because something cannot be its own sufficient cause.
P2 is obvious from science.
Therefore, C. And we are back to asking, what is that cause?

Rather than obvious, P1 is unverified. It's the crux of the biscuit. But if we are to accept it as true, it must also be true for God, if we are to accept God to be within the set of "everything"--if there is no cause for God, then there is no God.

You might make an exception for God (i.e. claim he never began), but you can just as easily make that same exception for the universe by asserting that the notion of "begin" is only meaningful within the context of space/time. You can assert that space/time is its own sufficient cause, just as you would assert so for God, without having to invent God.

P2 is consistent with observable evidence. The universe is expanding; and it is doing so in such a manner that a central origin can be validly hypothesiszed.

The evidence for C seems to indcate some manner of rapidly expanding singularity.

manu1959
06-25-2007, 11:33 PM
TADA! You win first prize! That question illustrates exactly why your previous "nonsense" is NOT the definition of creationism. The creationist says "God," but denies the question "Who created God?"

TADA! You win second prize! That question illustrates exactly why your previous "nonsense" is NOT the definition of evolutionism. The evolutionists says "evolution," but denies the question "Who created evolution?"

LOki
06-26-2007, 05:28 AM
TADA! You win second prize! That question illustrates exactly why your previous "nonsense" is NOT the definition of evolutionism. The evolutionists says "evolution," but denies the question "Who created evolution?"TADA! You win the retarded 1st prize! I did not submit a definition for evolution! AND you win 2nd prize for confusing evolution with ambiogenisis! AND you win 3rd prize for begging the question! A clean sweep!

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 05:37 AM
It's self evident, and believed by the majority. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong.

It is in no way "self evident", and the fact that it is believed by the majority, means neither jack, nor shit.

See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 05:42 AM
We may not know, but we can at least hypothesize:

P1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C: The universe had a cause.

P1 is obvious because something cannot be its own sufficient cause.
P2 is obvious from science.
Therefore, C. And we are back to asking, what is that cause?

First, you were trying to prove an uncaused causer? Then you have just disproven it with P1.

Second, P1 has problems and is not "obvious" if the universe is eternal. Afterall...if your "God" can be eternal, why not the universe?

P2 is not "obvious from science". It is a theory about the origins of the very universe and scientists have also theorized that it's Bang, expansion, contraction, Bang again, endlessly. But, I've always found it highly amusing the way creationists pick and choose from science. Evolution? Bunk. Global Warming? Hogwash. The Big Bang in that it gives any sort of reason to believe in a "God"? Perfectly reasonable...

glockmail
06-26-2007, 06:39 AM
It is in no way "self evident", and the fact that it is believed by the majority, means neither jack, nor shit.


So you admit that you have no way of justifying your FAITH in no God? :laugh2:

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 07:05 AM
So you admit that you have no way of justifying your FAITH in no God? :laugh2:

I don't need faith in "no God". Actually, that's not even a position that I hold.

But, if I were to claim "no God", I would need as much FAITH in "no God", as I would in "no Allah", "no Odin", "no invisible purple dragons doing the tango on my forehead", "no Great Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc...

glockmail
06-26-2007, 07:10 AM
I don't need faith in "no God". Actually, that's not even a position that I hold.
......

Your self-title of atheist identifies you as one who has faith in no God despite overwhelming evidence.

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 07:20 AM
Your self-title of atheist identifies you as one who has faith in no God despite overwhelming evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Try harder.

glockmail
06-26-2007, 07:39 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Try harder.

No need. Your faith is yours to justify. I've already justified mine.

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 07:43 AM
No need. Your faith is yours to justify. I've already justified mine.

And I use no faith in employing weak atheism.
Non-belief requires no justification in the absense of evidence for something's existence.
You haven't justified anything.

Zero for Three.

5stringJeff
06-26-2007, 08:00 AM
First, you were trying to prove an uncaused causer? Then you have just disproven it with P1.

Second, P1 has problems and is not "obvious" if the universe is eternal. Afterall...if your "God" can be eternal, why not the universe?

A being which did not begin to exist, but simply exists, has no need for a causer, and can be a First Cause.


P2 is not "obvious from science". It is a theory about the origins of the very universe and scientists have also theorized that it's Bang, expansion, contraction, Bang again, endlessly. But, I've always found it highly amusing the way creationists pick and choose from science. Evolution? Bunk. Global Warming? Hogwash. The Big Bang in that it gives any sort of reason to believe in a "God"? Perfectly reasonable...

The evolution and global warming red herrings are irrelevant to the discussion.

You'll find a large spectrum of beliefs regarding the 'specifics' of creation, even among those who take the Bible literally. Many Christians have no issue with the position that God created the universe through the Big Bang. It fits with both the biblical accounts of creation and the scientific data.

glockmail
06-26-2007, 08:02 AM
And I use no faith in employing weak atheism.
Non-belief requires no justification in the absense of evidence for something's existence.
You haven't justified anything.

Zero for Three.


So you admit that you are weak on the subject of religion as well as debate?

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 08:10 AM
A being which did not begin to exist, but simply exists, has no need for a causer, and can be a First Cause.

A heavy assumption that such a being could exist...and the existance of such a being would disprove P1.

In any event, explain to me why such a being could not begin to exist, and the universe can't.


The evolution and global warming red herrings are irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh, that was a side observation, not meant to side-track the conversation. It was a comment about creationists picking and choosing within a field that they don't trust when it suits them, not about evolution and global warming, themselves.


You'll find a large spectrum of beliefs regarding the 'specifics' of creation, even among those who take the Bible literally. Many Christians have no issue with the position that God created the universe through the Big Bang. It fits with both the biblical accounts of creation and the scientific data.

Oh, yes...I know. I'm not disputing that at all...

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 08:11 AM
So you admit that you are weak on the subject of religion as well as debate?

I admit that your insults are weak, and I have yet to see you debate anything. You just state your beliefs as if they were fact, and then insult anyone that disagrees with you.

glockmail
06-26-2007, 08:19 AM
I admit that your insults are weak, and I have yet to see you debate anything. You just state your beliefs as if they were fact, and then insult anyone that disagrees with you. Perhaps you can point out where I have insulted you or anyone else for putting forth a logical argument. Or is your claiming victim status your new tactic to make up for your inability to put forth a logical argument?

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 08:27 AM
Perhaps you can point out where I have insulted you or anyone else for putting forth a logical argument. Or is your claiming victim status your new tactic to make up for your inability to put forth a logical argument?

Let me guess...you are going to decide what is a "logical" argument or not, right? Let me further guess that the "logical" arguments are the ones that support your positions...

I'm done with you on this topic. Let's not derail the thread, shall we? You just aren't worth it, anyway...

glockmail
06-26-2007, 08:37 AM
Let me guess...you are going to decide what is a "logical" argument or not, right? Let me further guess that the "logical" arguments are the ones that support your positions...

I'm done with you on this topic. Let's not derail the thread, shall we? You just aren't worth it, anyway...


A logical argument is one where logic is used. Very simple, actually, as well as self-evident.

So are you now admitting that I have not insulted anyone here for putting forth a logical argument, or is your credibility simply not worth the effort?

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 08:39 AM
I understand that you want to turn the conversation to yourself, but you just aren't that interesting. Move on.

glockmail
06-26-2007, 08:59 AM
I understand that you want to turn the conversation to yourself, but you just aren't that interesting. Move on. I understand that you made assertions that you can't back up.

Hagbard Celine
06-26-2007, 09:48 AM
we exist dont we? that is certainly evidence. might not be convincing for you but its certainly evidence.

It really ticks me off when people claim there is no evidence simply because they dont like the evidence presented. You can disagree with it all you want. but there is still evidence, even if it is weak.

Where is the evidence of creationism? Where is the evidence of the so-called "great flood?" You seem to just insist that there is evidence and that I'm thick for not seeing it. :dunno: So my question, for the billionth time, is where is all this so-called evidence? Should I refer to the creation museum website, which claims to have evidence of dinosaur carvings on ancient stone buildings and iron tools in cretaceous rock?

Science, on the other hand, offers physics, atomic physics, quantum physics, chemistry, molecular chemistry, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, biology, etc. to explain the origins and functions of the world we live in.

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 10:13 AM
I just want to expand on Hagbard Celine's points a bit.


we exist dont we? that is certainly evidence. might not be convincing for you but its certainly evidence.

It really ticks me off when people claim there is no evidence simply because they dont like the evidence presented. You can disagree with it all you want. but there is still evidence, even if it is weak.

cheese exists, doesn't it? that is certainly evidence (of intelligent mushrooms living on a cave somewhere on Mars). might not be convincing for you but its sertainly evidence.

It really ticks me off when people claim there is no evidence simply because they dont like the evidence presented. You can disagree with it all you want. but there is still evidence, even if it is weak.

See...the problem is that without a causal conneciton between the supposed "evidence" that you are claiming and the thing that you are trying to prove, that "evidence" is meaningless.

There is no causal connection between the fact that we exist, and that there is a "God" that created everything. Without that, there is no evidence.

-Cp
06-26-2007, 12:13 PM
No. Every instance of evidence presented for the existence of a creator has ALWAYS presumed the existence of a creator--that's the only way it works. If you think otherwise, submit some of this non-presumptive evidence, just don't try <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0">Irreducible Complexity</a> on me if you plan on using eyes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4) and flagella (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w) as examples; those examples of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4">Irreducible Complexity</a> have had their complexity reduced.

Does Dawkins Exist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis)?

darin
06-26-2007, 12:42 PM
Where is the evidence of creationism? Where is the evidence of the so-called "great flood?" You seem to just insist that there is evidence and that I'm thick for not seeing it. :dunno: So my question, for the billionth time, is where is all this so-called evidence? Should I refer to the creation museum website, which claims to have evidence of dinosaur carvings on ancient stone buildings and iron tools in cretaceous rock?

Science, on the other hand, offers physics, atomic physics, quantum physics, chemistry, molecular chemistry, genetics, geology, archaeology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, biology, etc. to explain the origins and functions of the world we live in.


Try this - read this book with an open mind:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/index.asp

-Cp
06-26-2007, 01:00 PM
Try this - read this book with an open mind:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/index.asp


Nice find - too bad he can't have an open mind...

LOki
06-26-2007, 02:32 PM
Try this - read this book with an open mind:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/index.asp <blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Beginning at the beginning" </blockquote>...is a strawman arttack on evolution.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Tools for inquiry: logic and observation" </blockquote>...is a celebration of a logical fallacy; the argument from lack of imagination.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
The origin of life: DNA and protein " </blockquote>...is a continuation of the strawman arttack on evolution.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Comparative similarities: homology" </blockquote>...is a celebration of a logical fallacy; begging the question.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Embryonic development" </blockquote>...is a continuation of the celebration of begging the question.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Adaptation and ecology: the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment" </blockquote>...is a celebration of Irreducable Complexity; a routinely refuted argument founded upon the fallacy of lack of imagination.

This first chapter alone is primarily a question begging appeal to creationism and a straw-man attack on evolution. Only a mind closed to reason could take this book seriously after the first chapter.

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 02:41 PM
Nice find - too bad he can't have an open mind...

An open mind is fine...just don't let your brain fall out.

-Cp
06-26-2007, 02:47 PM
<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Beginning at the beginning" </blockquote>...is a strawman arttack on evolution.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Tools for inquiry: logic and observation" </blockquote>...is a celebration of a logical fallacy; the argument from lack of imagination.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
The origin of life: DNA and protein " </blockquote>...is a continuation of the strawman arttack on evolution.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Comparative similarities: homology" </blockquote>...is a celebration of a logical fallacy; begging the question.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Embryonic development" </blockquote>...is a continuation of the celebration of begging the question.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Adaptation and ecology: the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment" </blockquote>...is a celebration of Irreducable Complexity; a routinely refuted argument founded upon the fallacy of lack of imagination.

This first chapter alone is primarily a question begging appeal to creationism and a straw-man attack on evolution. Only a mind closed to reason could take this book seriously after the first chapter.


See what I mean dmp? They don't even read it and leave inconclusive remarks on it - trying to dupe folks into thinking they actually read it..

LOki
06-26-2007, 02:53 PM
See what I mean dmp? They don't even read it and leave inconclusive remarks on it - trying to dupe folks into thinking they actually read it..False accusation. Perhaps you didn't read it with the open mind you asked Hagbard Celine to read it with.

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 02:55 PM
False accusation. Perhaps you didn't read it with the open mind you asked Hagbard Celine to read it with.

Perhaps the only way that he'll admit that you read it, is if you agreed with it.

-Cp
06-26-2007, 02:58 PM
False accusation. Perhaps you didn't read it with the open mind you asked Hagbard Celine to read it with.

It's not a false accusation.. .if you had truely read them then you'd have no problems pointing out the specific areas you felt they were wrong on...

And not pointing them out with little comments but actual scientific reasons...

LOki
06-26-2007, 03:05 PM
It's not a false accusation.. .if you had truely read them then you'd have no problems pointing out the specific areas you felt they were wrong on...

And not pointing them out with little comments but actual scientific reasons...I will gladly quote each strawman attack made in the chapter cited, and each question begging argument made in the chapter cited, and demonstrate how they are so, but only if you then admit that your accusation is patently false, apologize to me and everyone you meant to brush with that false accusation, and then shut-the-fuck-up with such bullshit antics in the future. Deal?

darin
06-26-2007, 03:06 PM
<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Beginning at the beginning" </blockquote>...is a strawman arttack on evolution.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Tools for inquiry: logic and observation" </blockquote>...is a celebration of a logical fallacy; the argument from lack of imagination.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
The origin of life: DNA and protein " </blockquote>...is a continuation of the strawman arttack on evolution.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Comparative similarities: homology" </blockquote>...is a celebration of a logical fallacy; begging the question.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Embryonic development" </blockquote>...is a continuation of the celebration of begging the question.

<blockquote>"Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Adaptation and ecology: the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment" </blockquote>...is a celebration of Irreducable Complexity; a routinely refuted argument founded upon the fallacy of lack of imagination.

This first chapter alone is primarily a question begging appeal to creationism and a straw-man attack on evolution. Only a mind closed to reason could take this book seriously after the first chapter.

Dude - your mind will NOT be penetrated by facts, data, or objective opinion.

(shrug)

Howniceforyou.

darin
06-26-2007, 03:07 PM
False accusation. Perhaps you didn't read it with the open mind you asked Hagbard Celine to read it with.

I honestly don't buy that you read it.

LOki
06-26-2007, 03:16 PM
Dude - your mind will NOT be penetrated by facts, data, or objective opinion.

(shrug)

Howniceforyou.Dude - WTF? Objectively, that trash is just what I asserted. All logical fallacy. Go on, re-read it without the presumption of a Creator. This guy demands you accept that presumption as he presents his "facts" and "data" in support of creationism--I mean really, the arrow head; a bald-faced demand to presume a creator. Objectively, check into his attacks on evolution. He claims evolution is something that it is not, he claim evolution says thing that it does not, and then goes on to attack those--patent strawmen, all of them.

Hagbard Celine
06-26-2007, 03:17 PM
Try this - read this book with an open mind:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/index.asp

Ok, I gave it a chance, but I couldn't read this anymore. This guy's science is all skewed up. He assumes the Earth's early atmosphere was oxygen-rich, he assumes that the earliest forms of life were comprised of modern, complex dna/rna and all of his arguments are philosophical ones.

darin
06-26-2007, 03:20 PM
Ok, I gave it a chance, but I couldn't read this anymore. This guy's science is all skewed up. He assumes the Earth's early atmosphere was oxygen-rich, he assumes that the earliest forms of life were comprised of modern, complex dna/rna and all of his arguments are philosophical ones.

I see it like this - his science contradicts your personal opinion.

Hagbard Celine
06-26-2007, 03:48 PM
I see it like this - his science contradicts your personal opinion.

What science? Is this guy a scientist? I was under the impression that this guy was a highschool science teacher who used to make little Christian girls cry in his classroom. He's using philosophy to debate science. The arrowhead argument? C'mon, that's a thinly-veiled rip-off of the watchmaker analogy. This is pseudoscience dmp. You can't just make claims, throw in a few science vocabulary words and claim it as "his science." "HE" doesn't have any science. Real scientists aren't just making this stuff up. They're actually studying the world and logging the facts they gleam from their observations. They aren't taking those facts and then saying "Well, I'm going to throw-out my hypothesis that amino acids can be formed from chemical reactions since I've only had small successes and nothing conclusive at it so far and it doesn't fit-in with Descartes' watchmaker analogy." Not to mention the fact that this guy paints evolutionary theory in a bad light from the very beginning with his four "B's" and four "C's" comparison that sounds like it came out of a motivational speaker seminar. This guy's so over the top I don't know where to begin. He actually says
What a difference! In evolutionary thinking, chance and struggle produce “new and improved” forms of life. In Biblical thinking, chance and struggle produce disease, decline, and death. Evolution begins with dead things; living things—including us—are temporary intruders in the universe, and death wins at last. The Bible begins with the life of God; death is a temporary intruder, and eternal life wins at Christ’s return. Wow. I'm convinced. Those mean ol' evolutionists are so depressing! If only there were a more rosey-colored story about life's origins! *GASP!* Wonder of wonders! There is! AND there's free coffee and doughnuts to boot! I'm in! :laugh2:

darin
06-26-2007, 03:52 PM
n evolutionary thinking, chance and struggle produce “new and improved” forms of life.

Right - and you have NO problems with that part?

Hagbard Celine
06-26-2007, 03:56 PM
Right - and you have NO problems with that part?

Yes I do actually. It's a misnomer. Evolution is driven by laws, not chance. AND, the lifeforms produced by this process are not always improved. The sentence you quoted assumes that evolution is a conscious process with some end result in mind that doesn't make mistakes and it proves that this guy doesn't even understand evolutionary theory to begin with.

Lightning Waltz
06-26-2007, 04:09 PM
I see it like this - his science contradicts your personal opinion.

Damn...that theory was blown all to hell...

LOki
06-26-2007, 04:35 PM
The sentence you quoted assumes that evolution is a conscious process with some end result in mind that doesn't make mistakes and it proves that this guy doesn't even understand evolutionary theory to begin with.Yeah dmp, it's a strawman.

jackass
06-26-2007, 05:36 PM
Many Christians have no issue with the position that God created the universe through the Big Bang. It fits with both the biblical accounts of creation and the scientific data.

Really?? This is news to me. Do you mind explaining? Never heard of this.

Black Lance
06-26-2007, 11:06 PM
Yes I do actually. It's a misnomer. Evolution is driven by laws, not chance. AND, the lifeforms produced by this process are not always improved. The sentence you quoted assumes that evolution is a conscious process with some end result in mind that doesn't make mistakes and it proves that this guy doesn't even understand evolutionary theory to begin with.

No, evolution is not driven by laws. Most evolution allegedly occurs because of genetic drift caused by the need to adapt to changing environments, so it is these changing environments, not the unalterable and almost universally applicable laws of physics, that actually drive the process along.

manu1959
06-26-2007, 11:09 PM
evolution is not the creation of life it is the progress or i dare say the development of life .....

Pale Rider
06-26-2007, 11:34 PM
THANK YOU!

Hag-I've always like you,but the way you have worded your title and thread is pretty nasty and degrading to a way of life and core beliefs for millions of people. Since I'm a Christian,I will not say what I really would like to about it:wink2:

Just more apathy krisy. Christianity has been getting bashed now for so long, people just blow it off when chumps take cheap shots at it. They're so conditioned to it, now they just pretend they didn't hear it... "oh well."

Black Lance
06-26-2007, 11:38 PM
Really?? This is news to me. Do you mind explaining? Never heard of this.

Since this is my opinion of the subject as well, I will interject and try to explain it as best I can. Basically, the idea is that the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical, as suggested by several fairly obvious problems that arise with a literal reading of the text. For instance, light is created on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars aren't created until much later. Where then is the 'light' (which probably represents time) coming from?

I should point out that the idea of the Genesis account being a symbolic passage is not something new. It is not a contemporary reaction to evolutionary theory, as many people seem to think. Christian theologians as early and important as St. Augustine have argued for a symbolic understanding of the Genesis account, and Augustine is basically the founding father of Christian theology. Accepting evolution then does not represent Christians conceding defeat to atheists, but rather it merely represents the triumph of one very old school of Christian thought over another.

manu1959
06-27-2007, 12:12 AM
Since this is my opinion of the subject as well, I will interject and try to explain it as best I can. Basically, the idea is that the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical, as suggested by several fairly obvious problems that arise with a literal reading of the text. For instance, light is created on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars aren't created until much later. Where then is the 'light' (which probably represents time) coming from?

I should point out that the idea of the Genesis account being a symbolic passage is not something new. It is not a contemporary reaction to evolutionary theory, as many people seem to think. Christian theologians as early and important as St. Augustine have argued for a symbolic understanding of the Genesis account, and Augustine is basically the founding father of Christian theology. Accepting evolution then does not represent Christians conceding defeat to atheists, but rather it merely represents the triumph of one very old school of Christian thought over another.

the church i go to teaches all of the bible as metaphorical and allegorical and we discuss intent and meaning....

Black Lance
06-27-2007, 12:35 AM
the church i go to teaches all of the bible as metaphorical and allegorical and we discuss intent and meaning....

What church is that? Viewing the entire document as metaphorical would seem to defeat its historical value.

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 06:33 AM
No, evolution is not driven by laws. Most evolution allegedly occurs because of genetic drift caused by the need to adapt to changing environments, so it is these changing environments, not the unalterable and almost universally applicable laws of physics, that actually drive the process along.

How do changing environments occur? How does this change occur?

EDIT: Let me be more explicit. Is the change described by evolution, or the changing environment described by evolution, within, our outside of the laws of physics?

Black Lance
06-27-2007, 11:02 AM
How do changing environments occur? How does this change occur?

EDIT: Let me be more explicit. Is the change described by evolution, or the changing environment described by evolution, within, our outside of the laws of physics?

Of course environmental changes occur within the laws of physics. If the laws of physics ceased to apply there would be no gravity, and all living things would simply float into outer space, which obviously would preclude any further evolution. But the fact that changes to the environment occur in a manner consistent with the laws of physics does not alter the reality that it is these environmental changes, not the rules of physics themselves, which determine which organisms are able to survive and reproduce, and by extension determines the traits of future generations of the organism.

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 11:07 AM
Of course environmental changes occur within the laws of physics. If the laws of physics ceased to apply there would be no gravity, and all living things would simply float into outer space, which obviously would preclude any further evolution. But the fact that changes to the environment occur in a manner consistent with the laws of physics does not alter the reality that it is these environmental changes, not the rules of physics themselves, which determine which organisms are able to survive and reproduce, and by extension determines the traits of future generations of the organism.

Break it down to it's simplest parts, and you will ultimately find that the laws of physics are the rules by which we determine how the "environment changes"... You can't see the forest for all the trees...

Hagbard Celine
06-27-2007, 11:14 AM
THANK YOU!

Hag-I've always like you,but the way you have worded your title and thread is pretty nasty and degrading to a way of life and core beliefs for millions of people. Since I'm a Christian,I will not say what I really would like to about it:wink2:

Seems there's a double standard. :dunno:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4761

Abbey Marie
06-27-2007, 12:01 PM
Seems there's a double standard. :dunno:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=4761

I dunno about that comparison. Isn't the prevailing evolutionary theory that we all started as some form of pond scum?

Black Lance
06-27-2007, 12:21 PM
Break it down to it's simplest parts, and you will ultimately find that the laws of physics are the rules by which we determine how the "environment changes"... You can't see the forest for all the trees...

But is it the laws of physics which determine how the environment will change, or is it the activities of living organisms within the biosphere?

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 12:30 PM
I dunno about that comparison. Isn't the prevailing evolutionary theory that we all started as some form of pond scum?

Isn't the prevailing creationist theory that we all started from some sort of magic genie type "God"?

-Cp
06-27-2007, 12:53 PM
Really?? This is news to me. Do you mind explaining? Never heard of this.

It's news to you and Me bud... Big Bang does not fit the Bible...

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 01:07 PM
But is it the laws of physics which determine how the environment will change, or is it the activities of living organisms within the biosphere?

Yes.

Monkeybone
06-27-2007, 01:17 PM
the only way tha ti would see them going together would be that it is the activity of the organism, but limited by the laws of physics

manu1959
06-27-2007, 09:07 PM
What church is that? Viewing the entire document as metaphorical would seem to defeat its historical value.

why does the church matter ? and how does an opinion of a book of stories, parrabels and allegories defeat the historical value of the book they are contained in?....

manu1959
06-27-2007, 09:09 PM
Isn't the prevailing creationist theory that we all started from some sort of magic genie type "God"?

like the "god" that caused primordial oooooz aka pond scum to become man?

like that 'god"?

Yurt
06-27-2007, 09:25 PM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?

How did the eye evolve?

Abbey Marie
06-27-2007, 09:42 PM
Isn't the prevailing creationist theory that we all started from some sort of magic genie type "God"?

No, my God isn't a magic genie. But you believe we all evolved from pond scum, correct?

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 10:25 PM
No, my God isn't a magic genie. But you believe we all evolved from pond scum, correct?

1. I didn't say that your "God" is a magic genie...I said a magic genie type...

2. Evolution and abiogenisis is a theory. As such, it is at least grounded in facts. That, to me, has a lot better chance of being true than your magic genie type "God" thingie pulling everything out of its arse.

Is what is currently proposed likely to be absolutely correct? No.

Is it probably closer than the creation myths that we hear out of Christianity and other religions? Yes.

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 10:27 PM
How did the eye evolve?

Good question.

You can either:
1. Look for the answer given the data that we have.
or,
2. Assume that the magical "God" thingie did it. It's worked so many times before...we've had thunder "gods" when we didn't understand thunder, fertility "gods" when we didn't understand fertility, etc, etc, etc.

manu1959
06-27-2007, 10:33 PM
1. I didn't say that your "God" is a magic genie...I said a magic genie type...

2. Evolution and abiogenisis is a theory. As such, it is at least grounded in facts. That, to me, has a lot better chance of being true than your magic genie type "God" thingie pulling everything out of its arse.

Is what is currently proposed likely to be absolutely correct? No.

Is it probably closer than the creation myths that we hear out of Christianity and other religions? Yes.

why haven't humans evolved since the leap from cave man....it has been millions of years....

creation is not a myth ...without creation there would not be anything to undergo evolution

Abbey Marie
06-27-2007, 10:34 PM
1. I didn't say that your "God" is a magic genie...I said a magic genie type...

2. Evolution and abiogenisis is a theory. As such, it is at least grounded in facts. That, to me, has a lot better chance of being true than your magic genie type "God" thingie pulling everything out of its arse.

Is what is currently proposed likely to be absolutely correct? No.

Is it probably closer than the creation myths that we hear out of Christianity and other religions? Yes.

Wow, can you go off on a tangent. The simple point was: the post you made which I commented on, showed that you saw no difference between Cp's "pond scum" title and the "magic genie" one. Well, it is different. Evolutionists believe in our origin as pond scum, so the title is legitimate. Christians, however, do not believe our God is a magic genie. Nothing you replied changes those facts.

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 10:37 PM
why haven't humans evolved since the leap from cave man....it has been millions of years....

creation is not a myth ...without creation there would not be anything to undergo evolution

Manu, I doubt you're interested in the answer that science would give.

And, there have been many, many creation myths. Yours is far from unique.

Lightning Waltz
06-27-2007, 10:40 PM
Wow, can you go off on a tangent. The simple point was: the post you made which I commented on, showed that you saw no difference between Cp's "pond scum" title and the "magic genie" one. Well, it is different. Evolutionists believe in our origin as pond scum, so the title is legitimate. Christians, however, do not believe our God is a magic genie. Nothing you replied changes those facts.

Abbey, you are just lying if you don't see the similarities in putting each set of beliefs in a negative light.

Is asking people if they are "pond scum believers" disrepsectful to those that believe in evolution? Sure.

Is asking people if they are "magic genie ("God")" believers just as disrespectful? You bet.

Don't think for a minute that you've fooled anyone.

manu1959
06-27-2007, 11:40 PM
Manu, I doubt you're interested in the answer that science would give.

And, there have been many, many creation myths. Yours is far from unique.

why do think you know what i would be interested?

what is my creation myth?

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 12:23 AM
Abbey, you are just lying if you don't see the similarities in putting each set of beliefs in a negative light.

Is asking people if they are "pond scum believers" disrepsectful to those that believe in evolution? Sure.

Is asking people if they are "magic genie ("God")" believers just as disrespectful? You bet.

Don't think for a minute that you've fooled anyone.

First, I don't lie.

Second, it is you who are not fooling anyone, if you think people will believe that calling us pond scum is the same to evolutionists, as belittling the God of the Universe is to those of us who worship Him. Not even a good try, really.

nevadamedic
06-28-2007, 12:41 AM
Abbey, you are just lying if you don't see the similarities in putting each set of beliefs in a negative light.

Is asking people if they are "pond scum believers" disrepsectful to those that believe in evolution? Sure.

Is asking people if they are "magic genie ("God")" believers just as disrespectful? You bet.

Don't think for a minute that you've fooled anyone.

How is Abbey a liar. I have never seen her lie about anything and I don't think that she is the type of person to lie. :fu:

Lightning Waltz
06-28-2007, 06:13 AM
why do think you know what i would be interested?

what is my creation myth?

Manu, obviously, I've heard that question before...and I know the context in which it was brought up in.

I'm not an evolutionary scientist. I'm not going to even try to defend evolutionary theory. I just wouldn't do it justice. I can point you to a source to try to look up the answer to your question, but it's up to you to do an honest search for the answer.

My best suggestion is to start at www.talkorigins.org

I will say this...a question doesn't give rise to an answer. Do you know what I mean by that?

If we have something that we don't know, all that tells us is that we don't know something. It doesn't, in itself, give us knowledge. Saying, "We don't know how the eye was formed..."God" must have done it", is a logical fallacy. It is called the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

That isn't to say that you can never come up with tough questions to try to challenge a theory, but just don't think your tough questions actually provide answers.

As for what creation myth you believe in, I really don't care unless you have specific proof that your creation myth is more reasonable to believe than any other creation myth that is out there.

Lightning Waltz
06-28-2007, 06:16 AM
First, I don't lie.

Second, it is you who are not fooling anyone, if you think people will believe that calling us pond scum is the same to evolutionists, as belittling the God of the Universe is to those of us who worship Him. Not even a good try, really.

Yes, it is the same. It's just that YOU don't happen to believe in one of those things, so you aren't insulted when derogatory terms are used against it, but you are insulted when derogatory terms are used against the other.

Maybe you aren't lying. Maybe you're just so narsasitic that you can't comprehend an insult because it isn't directed at you. I don't know...

Frankly, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and calling you a liar...

Yurt
06-28-2007, 09:45 AM
Good question.

You can either:
1. Look for the answer given the data that we have.
or,
2. Assume that the magical "God" thingie did it. It's worked so many times before...we've had thunder "gods" when we didn't understand thunder, fertility "gods" when we didn't understand fertility, etc, etc, etc.

So you saying that to "believe" it was not God who created is just as "magical a genie" as a christians believing God created the eye.

Nice one.

Yurt
06-28-2007, 09:46 AM
Manu, I doubt you're interested in the answer that science would give.

And, there have been many, many creation myths. Yours is far from unique.

Science does not even have an answer to the eye....

LOki
06-28-2007, 10:09 AM
Science does not even have an answer to the eye....A 15 second search on google reveals...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/furcepFlfZ4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/furcepFlfZ4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ybWucMx4W8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ybWucMx4W8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
...that you're a dumbass.

Black Lance
06-28-2007, 10:53 AM
why does the church matter ?


It doesn't, I just wanted to get a better idea of where you were coming from.



and how does an opinion of a book of stories, parrabels and allegories defeat the historical value of the book they are contained in?....

Because if the whole text is fictional, it obviously has no value as a testimony to actual events.

Abbey Marie
06-28-2007, 11:27 AM
Yes, it is the same. It's just that YOU don't happen to believe in one of those things, so you aren't insulted when derogatory terms are used against it, but you are insulted when derogatory terms are used against the other.

Maybe you aren't lying. Maybe you're just so narsasitic that you can't comprehend an insult because it isn't directed at you. I don't know...

Frankly, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and calling you a liar...

You are offended by being called the very thing you believe you came from? How ironic. It would seem that you need to rethink your beliefs.

And the fact that you would call me narcissistic and a liar, tells me all I need to know about your "integrity" and your lack of debating skills.

Lightning Waltz
06-28-2007, 11:31 AM
So you saying that to "believe" it was not God who created is just as "magical a genie" as a christians believing God created the eye.

Nice one.

One more time? In English?

Lightning Waltz
06-28-2007, 11:33 AM
You are offended by being called the very thing you believe you came from? How ironic. It would seem that you need to rethink your beliefs.

As are you, of course. You are offended that someone called your "God" a magical genie type thingie...which, of course, it is...


And the fact that you would call me narcissistic and a liar, tells me all I need to know about your "integrity" and your lack of debating skills.

No, I called you narcissistic OR a liar. Which is it?

I'd prefer to think you are liar...but, it could be either, I suppose. I tend to try to think the best of people.

The ClayTaurus
06-28-2007, 11:37 AM
You are offended by being called the very thing you believe you came from? How ironic. It would seem that you need to rethink your beliefs.

And the fact that you would call me narcissistic and a liar, tells me all I need to know about your "integrity" and your lack of debating skills.Ignoring your counterpart and his "arguments" (which I've entirely skipped over), I'd just like to point out that many people are often offended by being called things that you came from. If your husband called you a little girl, you would be upset at the condescension. We tell people all the time to stop being such babies. You were once a little girl; we were all at one time babies, but in most cases, being called that as an adult is offensive.

Hagbard Celine
06-28-2007, 11:40 AM
Ignoring your counterpart and his "arguments" (which I've entirely skipped over), I'd just like to point out that many people are often offended by being called things that you came from. If your husband called you a little girl, you would be upset at the condescension. We tell people all the time to stop being such babies. You were once a little girl; we were all at one time babies, but in most cases, being called that as an adult is offensive.

Just like being called a paramecium, when you are obviously a highly intelligent ape is offensive.

LOki
06-28-2007, 02:24 PM
2. Assume that the magical "God" thingie did it. It's worked so many times before...we've had thunder "gods" when we didn't understand thunder, fertility "gods" when we didn't understand fertility, etc, etc, etc.You'll like:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm">Socrates to Jesus:</a></b>
"It is not necessarily your God that created the world: There are thousands of other priests who claim that their God did it. Just because I do not have the answer, does not mean that I must accept yours without examining it. I could just as logically demand that you believe that Zeus created the world."</blockquote>

Hagbard Celine
06-28-2007, 02:26 PM
You'll like:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm">Socrates to Jesus:</a></b>
"It is not necessarily your God that created the world: There are thousands of other priests who claim that their God did it. Just because I do not have the answer, does not mean that I must accept yours without examining it. I could just as logically demand that you believe that Zeus created the world."</blockquote>

If Socrates said it, it should be in the form of a question :poke:

LOki
06-28-2007, 06:18 PM
If Socrates said it, it should be in the form of a question :poke:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm">Socrates:</a></b>
"Please forgive me for my stolid ignorance."</blockquote>

Yurt
06-29-2007, 07:39 PM
A 15 second search on google reveals...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/furcepFlfZ4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/furcepFlfZ4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ybWucMx4W8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ybWucMx4W8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
...that you're a dumbass.


still theory, not fact... keep deluding yourself

LOki
06-29-2007, 08:34 PM
still theory, not fact... keep deluding yourselfStill answers, regardless. And answers not based in superstitions. But you can continue to delude yourself it's otherwise.

Lightning Waltz
06-29-2007, 09:16 PM
still theory, not fact... keep deluding yourself

I'd trust a theory based on the available evidence over "faith" any day of the week.

glockmail
06-30-2007, 07:02 AM
I'd trust a theory based on the available evidence over "faith" any day of the week. You must have tremendous faith in your theory to believe in it despite evidence to the contrary.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 08:17 AM
You must have tremendous faith in your theory to believe in it despite evidence to the contrary.

What "evidence to the contrary"?

Gunny
06-30-2007, 09:06 AM
Just wondering - hoping you can shed some light on this for me - if Creationism IS in fact true - uhh.. why no evidence? e.g. what makes you think that you have this creation thing figured out when it flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary?

What will it take to accept the mountains of scientific evidence? Doesn't the mere existence of fossils alone prove the story of creation flawed and false? Is there anything? If not, why? What makes you hold so steadfastly to your beliefs even though they make you and your ideas seem out-dated and uneducated to the rest of the world?


Dumb. The "magical genie" is EVERY BIT as plausible as any concocted BS anyone else has to offer.

There is as much REAL evidence to support God as there is to support "the Big Wang," or evolving from ooze.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 09:19 AM
Dumb. The "magical genie" is EVERY BIT as plausible as any concocted BS anyone else has to offer.

There is as much REAL evidence to support God as there is to support "the Big Wang," or evolving from ooze.

There is absolutely NO evidence to support any form of creationism. Just fallacies and other really bad arguments.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 09:21 AM
There is absolutely NO evidence to support any form of creationism. Just fallacies and other really bad arguments.


Bull. A creator is FAR more logical than any other lameass theory I've ever ehard.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 09:27 AM
Bull. A creator is FAR more logical than any other lameass theory I've ever ehard.

Prove it.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 09:32 AM
Prove it.

Dishonesty at its finest. One does not have to prove a negative. Each and every theory is a matter of opinion and belief, and each "theory" is pretty self-evident.

If you are suggesting otherwise, then YOU prove your assertion.

As far as my statement goes, I easily find a creator more logical than the "Big Bang" which at its base level suggest something being created from nothing which directly defies scientific law, or that life on Earth was created by happenstance.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 09:39 AM
Dishonesty at its finest. One does not have to prove a negative.

Do you need me to repeat the conversation?
I said there was not any evidence of creation. You said a creator is farm more logical. I asked you to prove it.

If anyone is being dishonest, it is you. I am NOT asking you to prove a negative, but to prove the bunk, called creationism.


Each and every theory is a matter of opinion and belief, and each "theory" is pretty self-evident.

Bull. You don't understand what a scientific theory is...how can you claim to judge one?


If you are suggesting otherwise, then YOU prove your assertion.

A theory is developed by collecting scientific evidence. Once you have some scientific evidence, you then can come up to a theory as to why that evidence is the way that it is. Any new evidence that comes along has to comform with the theory, or the theory is modified or thrown out in favor of the evidence.

That is not simply a belief pulled out of one's arse. A belief pulled out of one's arse would be in the realm of religion, not science.


As far as my statement goes, I easily find a creator more logical than the "Big Bang" which at its base level suggest something being created from nothing which directly defies scientific law, or that life on Earth was created by happenstance.

"Something created from nothing", assumes that there is an ultimate beginning. That's debateable.

But, since your "God" would not have a creator, you have the same problem. Your "God" is something from nothing.

And science doesn't deal with happenstance, but with explanations of events based on scientific law...

YOU want to assign a higher motivation to "creation". That is your arrogance at work. Science doesn't have any such arrogance.

glockmail
06-30-2007, 09:48 AM
What "evidence to the contrary"? Cited elsewhere in this forum many, many times. Or you could read the Bible, or try google.

As you have exhibited and unwillingness to learn I will not spoon feed you.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 09:54 AM
Do you need me to repeat the conversation?
I said there was not any evidence of creation. You said a creator is farm more logical. I asked you to prove it.

If anyone is being dishonest, it is you. I am NOT asking you to prove a negative, but to prove the bunk, called creationism.

Since I have alredy acknowledged that none of the theories that abound can be proven, I would say turning around and demanding I prove one of them is dishonest.

I said creationism is more logical. That's my opinion. Nothing to prove there either.


Bull. You don't understand what a scientific theory is...how can you claim to judge one?

Do you have the dishonest, wannabe intellectual checklist taped to the wall next to your PC? 'You don't under stand .... yada, yada, yada."

Not buying the bullshit has NOTHING to do with my ability to comprehend what the bullshit is trying to sell.


A theory is developed by collecting scientific evidence. Once you have some scientific evidence, you then can come up to a theory as to why that evidence is the way that it is. Any new evidence that comes along has to comform with the theory, or the theory is modified or thrown out in favor of the evidence.

That is not simply a belief pulled out of one's arse. A belief pulled out of one's arse would be in the realm of religion, not science.

"Something created from nothing", assumes that there is an ultimate beginning. That's debateable.

But, since your "God" would not have a creator, you have the same problem. Your "God" is something from nothing.

And science doesn't deal with happenstance, but with explanations of events based on scientific law...

YOU want to assign a higher motivation to "creation". That is your arrogance at work. Science doesn't have any such arrogance.


You assume much. I haven't assigned anything to anything.

Your argument concerning God is fallacious. God is, was, and always will be. No beginning nor end.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 10:43 AM
Cited elsewhere in this forum many, many times. Or you could read the Bible, or try google.

As you have exhibited and unwillingness to learn I will not spoon feed you.

:lol:

As for your "evidence", I'm still waiting.

Missileman
06-30-2007, 10:44 AM
There is as much REAL evidence to support God as there is to support "the Big Wang," or evolving from ooze.

What REAL evidence can you provide that points solely to the existence of God?

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 10:45 AM
Your argument concerning God is fallacious. God is, was, and always will be. No beginning nor end.

Then it's not true that you "can't get something from nothing"...

And, you would have to explain why the universe has to have a beginning and an end whereas your "God" does not.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 10:48 AM
What REAL evidence can you provide that points solely to the existence of God?

I have none. I have never said otherwise. I don't need any.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 10:49 AM
I have none. I have never said otherwise. I don't need any.

Yup...all you have is faith.

I'll take science over faith any day and twice on Sunday mornings.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 10:50 AM
Then it's not true that you "can't get something from nothing"...

And, you would have to explain why the universe has to have a beginning and an end whereas your "God" does not.

It is a scientific fact that you you cannot get something from nothing.

Again, you're attempting to have me support statements I have not made. I have never said the Universe has a beginning nor an end.

Missileman
06-30-2007, 10:51 AM
:lol:


It's your own fault...you didn't specify "credible, scientific" evidence. :laugh2:

Gunny
06-30-2007, 10:51 AM
Yup...all you have is faith.

I'll take science over faith any day and twice on Sunday mornings.

Unless that science you are "taking" has nothing more to back its theories than creation does.

Science does a great job of explaining Man's world within the parameters of Man's intellect. When it attempts to explain what is beyond Man's intellect, it is no more plausible than religion.

glockmail
06-30-2007, 11:08 AM
:lol:

As for your "evidence", I'm still waiting. Don't hold your breath.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 11:10 AM
Don't hold your breath.

Good advice...

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 11:11 AM
Unless that science you are "taking" has nothing more to back its theories than creation does.

Which, of course, it does.


Science does a great job of explaining Man's world within the parameters of Man's intellect. When it attempts to explain what is beyond Man's intellect, it is no more plausible than religion.

That's why science doesn't bother trying to explain things beyond man's intellect. You just don't like the fact that our origins are within man's intellect...

Gunny
06-30-2007, 11:14 AM
Which, of course, it does.

No it doesn't. There is absolutely no more evidence to back up any scientific theory of creation than there is any other theory of creation.


That's why science doesn't bother trying to explain things beyond man's intellect. You just don't like the fact that our origins are within man's intellect...

Kind of contradicts your first statement doesn't it? Creation is beyond Man's intellect, yet you anti-religion types will buy off on baseless cock-n-bull theories of creation so long as they're called "science," even though in reality, they are supporte by nothing but conjecture.

Missileman
06-30-2007, 11:46 AM
Kind of contradicts your first statement doesn't it? Creation is beyond Man's intellect, yet you anti-religion types will buy off on baseless cock-n-bull theories of creation so long as they're called "science," even though in reality, they are supporte by nothing but conjecture.

I don't see anything logical about considering science trustworthy only up to the point where it competes with religion.

LOki
06-30-2007, 12:02 PM
Cited elsewhere in this forum many, many times. Or you could read the Bible, or try google.

As you have exhibited and unwillingness to learn I will not spoon feed you.<blockquote>Translation: "Unsurprisingly, I won't be able to find it because it's not there--I'll put the onus of such discovery on you by refusing to "spoon feed" you, and imply that your failure is due to your "unwillingness to learn" rather than my unwillingness to admit I'm full of shit."</blockquote>

I suspect that this is simply an admission that such evidence does not, in fact, exist.


Don't hold your breath.Suspicion verified.


God is, was, and always will be. No beginning nor end.Why cannot this exact same assertion be made for the universe? What evidence demands that somebody must <b>neccessarily</b> exist to create the universe? I have yet to see one argument that does not implement a Petitio Principii fallacy, or that demands without any evidentiary or logical support that the "uncaused cause" of the universe must be, in fact, uncaused.


Science does a great job of explaining Man's world within the parameters of Man's intellect. When it attempts to explain what is beyond Man's intellect, it is no more plausible than religion.It think not. Actual scientists say, "I don't know" or "based on my understanding of the evidence, this is my best guess" or "the evidence does not neccessarily point to that conclusion." The religeous assert "knowing" where evidence is contadictory to their assertion, or at best, where evidence for their assertion is not existent. For those whose beliefs are based in faith, the notion of evidence is not relevent (except for being the greatest challenge for their faith to overcome)--only the strength of their belief is relevent.


Creation is beyond Man's intellect, yet you anti-religion types will buy off on baseless cock-n-bull theories of creation so long as they're called "science," even though in reality, they are supporte by nothing but conjecture.You say "Creation is beyond Man's intellect,..", but that is more properly an admission that the origin of existence is beyond your intellect. Me saying so not saying that it's not beyond mine, but rather saying there's no reason to categorically deny that man's intellect cannot fathom the full nature of existence. "Anti-religion" types are certainly capable of accepting "cock-n-bull theories of creation so long as they're called "science,"" but that's really a function of religion rather than actual science. Those precise "anti-religion" types you speak of have nearly as little regard for evidence and reason as those whose beliefs are faith based. Those actual scientists who assert explanations for existence, without the creation trappings of the faithful, are not engaging in "nothing but conjecture" as the faithful do, but rather attempt to make objectively testable statements based on verifiable evidence.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 12:12 PM
I don't see anything logical about considering science trustworthy only up to the point where it competes with religion.

For one thing, that isn't what I stated at all. I stated words to the effect of science overtepping its bounds. When it oversteps its bounds, it is no more than baseless conjecture.

Isn't that what you consider religion to be?

The comparison doesn't begin until AFTER science has ALREADY left its own parameters.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 12:13 PM
I don't see anything logical about considering science trustworthy only up to the point where it competes with religion.

Well said.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 12:16 PM
Kind of contradicts your first statement doesn't it? Creation is beyond Man's intellect, yet you anti-religion types will buy off on baseless cock-n-bull theories of creation so long as they're called "science," even though in reality, they are supporte by nothing but conjecture.

No, btw, I didn't contradict myself at all.

1. There is more reason to believe science than religion
2. There is no scientific proof of any "creation".
3. Science does not suppose anything that is beyond man's intellect.

BTW, creation is not beyond man's intellect...you and the rest of the creationists aren't spouting off anything that is beyond your intellect. You all are just spouting off stuff that is of dubious intellect.

Gunny
06-30-2007, 12:21 PM
<blockquote>Translation: "Unsurprisingly, I won't be able to find it because it's not there--I'll put the onus of such discovery on you by refusing to "spoon feed" you, and imply that your failure is due to your "unwillingness to learn" rather than my unwillingness to admit I'm full of shit."</blockquote>

I suspect that this is simply an admission that such evidence does not, in fact, exist.

Suspicion verified.

Why cannot this exact same assertion be made for the universe? What evidence demands that somebody must <b>neccessarily</b> exist to create the universe? I have yet to see one argument that does not implement a Petitio Principii fallacy, or that demands without any evidentiary or logical support that the "uncaused cause" of the universe must be, in fact, uncaused.

I have not argued either way, and have no real opinion on whether or not the universe has a beginning and end.

It think not. Actual scientists say, "I don't know" or "based on my understanding of the evidence, this is my best guess" or "the evidence does not neccessarily point to that conclusion." The religeous assert "knowing" where evidence is contadictory to their assertion, or at best, where evidence for their assertion is not existent. For those whose beliefs are based in faith, the notion of evidence is not relevent (except for being the greatest challenge for their faith to overcome)--only the strength of their belief is relevent.

For the purpose of this argument, I have not stated any absolutes one way or the other, with the exception of my comment about God's existence. On an even playing field with the facts laid out, science presumes to explain creation just as religion does. That is not to say ALL scientists are in complete agreement with one or more scientific theory.

Only the strength of anyone's belief, be it scientific theories of origin or religious theories of origin are relevant.

You say "Creation is beyond Man's intellect,..", but that is more properly an admission that the origin of existence is beyond your intellect. Me saying so not saying that it's not beyond mine, but rather saying there's no reason to categorically deny that man's intellect cannot fathom the full nature of existence. "Anti-religion" types are certainly capable of accepting "cock-n-bull theories of creation so long as they're called "science,"" but that's really a function of religion rather than actual science. Those precise "anti-religion" types you speak of have nearly as little regard for evidence and reason as those whose beliefs are faith based. Those actual scientists who assert explanations for existence, without the creation trappings of the faithful, are not engaging in "nothing but conjecture" as the faithful do, but rather attempt to make objectively testable statements based on verifiable evidence.

How life on Earth as we know it was created IS beyond Man's intellect, not solely mine. If Man had a fact-based explanation for the origin of existence, then I'm sure one or more of us could grasp the concept.

I agree as far as your comments concerning the anti-religious is concerned.

Science has no real verifiable evidence that supports the origin of existence.

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 12:27 PM
[COLOR="olive"]How life on Earth as we know it was created IS beyond Man's intellect, not solely mine. If Man had a fact-based explanation for the origin of existence, then I'm sure one or more of us could grasp the concept.

Grasping it isn't the problem. Allowing it might be true when people want to keep their justifications for believing a "God", is the problem.

Missileman
06-30-2007, 12:29 PM
For one thing, that isn't what I stated at all. I stated words to the effect of science overtepping its bounds. When it oversteps its bounds, it is no more than baseless conjecture.

Isn't that what you consider religion to be?

The comparison doesn't begin until AFTER science has ALREADY left its own parameters.

Only if in fact there is a supernatural realm for science to intrude into. The assignment of creation to the realm of the supernatural is yours and doesn't negate the possibility that science may find a natural explanation for our existence.

And not to quibble, but how does what you wrote differ from considering science trustworthy only up to the point where it competes with religion?

Gunny
06-30-2007, 12:31 PM
Grasping it isn't the problem. Allowing it might be true when people want to keep their justifications for believing a "God", is the problem.

Allowing that God might be true when people want to justify life by other means is as much a problem. Just depends on which side of the coin you choose to look at.

It goes back to the premise of my argument, in your own words : "allowing it might be true ...."

Rahul
06-30-2007, 01:27 PM
There is as much REAL evidence to support God as there is to support "the Big Wang," or evolving from ooze.

Nonsense. There isn't any evidence to support God's existence. There isn't much to support the Holy Bible, either.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?ex=1333252800&en=6f654bfd6c4fbcd8&ei=5088&partner=rssny


Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/03/world/03exodus-600.jpg

NORTH SINAI, Egypt, April 2 — On the eve of Passover, the Jewish holiday that celebrates the story of Moses leading the Israelites through this wilderness out of slavery, Egypt’s chief archaeologist took a bus full of journalists into the North Sinai to showcase his agency’s latest discovery.

A grave containing a female skeleton near the military fort. Egyptian archaeologists say no evidence has surfaced to confirm the Exodus story.
It didn’t look like much — some ancient buried walls of a military fort and a few pieces of volcanic lava. The archaeologist, Dr. Zahi Hawass, often promotes mummies and tombs and pharaonic antiquities that command international attention and high ticket prices. But this bleak landscape, broken only by electric pylons, excited him because it provided physical evidence of stories told in hieroglyphics. It was proof of accounts from antiquity.

That prompted a reporter to ask about the Exodus, and if the new evidence was linked in any way to the story of Passover. The archaeological discoveries roughly coincided with the timing of the Israelites’ biblical flight from Egypt and the 40 years of wandering the desert in search of the Promised Land.

“Really, it’s a myth,” Dr. Hawass said of the story of the Exodus, as he stood at the foot of a wall built during what is called the New Kingdom.

Egypt is one of the world’s primary warehouses of ancient history. People here joke that wherever you stick a shovel in the ground you find antiquities. When workers built a sewage system in the downtown Cairo neighborhood of Dokki, they accidentally scattered shards of Roman pottery. In the middle-class neighborhood of Heliopolis, tombs have been discovered beneath homes.

But Egypt is also a spiritual center, where for centuries men have searched for the meaning of life. Sometimes the two converge, and sometimes the archaeological record confirms the history of the faithful. Often it does not, however, as Dr. Hawass said with detached certainty.

“If they get upset, I don’t care,” Dr. Hawass said. “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”

... More can be read at the source.


The truth is out there for those who wish to find it.


[/quote]

Lightning Waltz
06-30-2007, 01:28 PM
Allowing that God might be true when people want to justify life by other means is as much a problem. Just depends on which side of the coin you choose to look at.

It goes back to the premise of my argument, in your own words : "allowing it might be true ...."

Sorry, but I do allow for things to be true. You don't.

I allow that not only your "God" may be true, but Allah, Odin, Ra, the Great Raven and any or all other possible "Gods" or sets of gods.

The difference is in what we have reason to believe. We have reason to believe in science a hell of a lot more than we do in some fairie tale.

LOki
06-30-2007, 02:14 PM
I have not argued either way, and have no real opinion on whether or not the universe has a beginning and end.I didn't say you did; I was just asking.


For the purpose of this argument, I have not stated any absolutes one way or the other, with the exception of my comment about God's existence. On an even playing field with the facts laid out, science presumes to explain creation just as religion does. That is not to say ALL scientists are in complete agreement with one or more scientific theory.On an even playing field, with the facts laid out, religion explains existence in a manner where facts are irrelevent, and the "explanations" that science provides simply remain objectively testable statements based on verifiable evidence. There's the distinct difference, science does not demand that there's no God because there's no evidence that demands His existence--scientists simply suspend the assertion that God exists until the evidence demands His existence. The religious, on the other hand, demand the existence of God, and then defy others to bring evidence to the contrary, as if that evidence would be meaningful to those for whom evidence is the supreme challenge to faith.


Only the strength of anyone's belief, be it scientific theories of origin or religious theories of origin are relevant.This is only true for those who validate their beliefs in faith, rather than evidence.


How life on Earth as we know it was created IS beyond Man's intellect, not solely mine.I didn't say it was solely beyond your intellect, I said there's no reason to categorically deny that man's intellect can fathom the full nature of existence, just because you (or I) can't.


If Man had a fact-based explanation for the origin of existence, then I'm sure one or more of us could grasp the concept.The truth of this remains to be demonstrated, but the fact that it hasn't, is no reason to categorically deny that man's intellect can fathom the full nature of existence.


Science has no real verifiable evidence that supports the origin of existence.This in no way makes science faulty, and in no way endorses the practice of putting a Creator in the place of an explanation for existence rather than "I don't know."

glockmail
07-02-2007, 10:19 AM
@ Gunny:

These two are committed to go to hell so why do you bother?

Lightning Waltz
07-02-2007, 01:02 PM
@ Gunny:

These two are committed to go to hell so why do you bother?

Nah, there is no "hell". But, when you die, you will be tormented by the Evil Doorknob forever unless you repent now and believe in the Great Marshmallow!

Hagbard Celine
07-02-2007, 01:04 PM
@ Gunny:

These two are committed to go to hell so why do you bother?

Wow, isn't that the end-all trump card? :rolleyes:

glockmail
07-02-2007, 05:03 PM
Wow, isn't that the end-all trump card? :rolleyes: It just is, man. Christ told us to shine our light, not bash our heads against the wall. It's time to move on to someone else who is more open-minded.