<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is amazing how when you completely out debate a creationist, they just claim this 'victim' complex and then bow out of the debate without attempting to prove why they are right or why the evolutionists are 'incorrect'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn’t you know they are higher than us? They know better than us ? That they look down at us with pity?
I have argued with enough of these unstable halfwits to know that there arguments consist of :
1) Its all in the bible so nothing needs to be proved
2) God/Jesus said yadadada
3) Prove to me god doesn’t exist with evidence! (for a persons that are quite willing to believe in something that has no evidence I find this one a great source of amusement)
4) A sense of something greater
5) God spoke to me/ I saw a miracle
And many variations in between!!! Never any proof, never a convincing argument! Never any real facts. Quoting from a 2000 years old book about events hundreds of years before they were transcribed IS NOT evidence.
Those last two can easily be dismissed by anybody who has done psychology of any level.
I just saw the webbsite: <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org' target='_blank'>Insulting to read</a>
I have never seen so many uneducated people posting "facts'" in such large qauntity. The science in here has been overlooked, twisted, ignored, madeup or lied about. Its insulting to read. But Oh so funny!!!!
It is possibly the funniest thing to read on the internet!
NolSinklerOn the ClorfJoin Date: 2004-02-15Member: 26560Members, Constellation
HEY! What happened to this thread NOT becoming a war-o-flame? Wasn't this about a simple question about Darwin? And what he said on his deathbed? Didn't the topic starter clearly say he didn't want a flamewar over religion and evolution? Seriously...if I were Nem0, after reading my 9,258,275,017,295th thread over religion/evolution...i'd lock it. Again. Then I'd post a sticky saying not to debate these.
Wait...didn't he already sticky one of those? I'm not sure actually, i seem to recall one, but yes I'm not sure.
Sorry for the interupption. Please, continue your research of countless hours, including fun, interesting things like: - Fossils! Who isn't excited by these??? - Darwin! Boy he was an interesting man! I bet his life was awesome - The Bible! What a fun book to read! I'm glad that they, as of now, havn't put it into common language!
You really don't need to do this...
Now excuse me while I conver myself in a flameproof suit, and go swimming at the deepest depths of the ocean to avoid being flamed.
I agree, but then I didn't bring religion into it: I deliberately started by trying to say that religious beliefs are a subject outside the scope of science. I don't think religion has any place in a discussion about a scientific matter, and can be discussed entirely without worrying about whether anyone believes in god or not. Plenty of religious people believe in evolution, so what's the point in arguing religion when you discuss scientific findings? The whole point of scientific inquiry is that it limits itself to discussing only those issues on which people can provide evidence and test their hypotheses.
If you want to figure out how to reconcile your beliefs with the facts that science discovers, then don't get engaged in a science discussion: go ask a religious leader for guidance and insight about how your theology can incorporate them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have never seen so many uneducated people posting "facts'" in such large qauntity. The science in here has been overlooked, twisted, ignored, madeup or lied about. Its insulting to read. But Oh so funny!!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've always called it Gibbering in Genesis myself, due to the amusing amount of sheer and utter nonsense that appears on that site. I use AiG as the definitive reason why in a scientific debate websites are not a credible source, and have demonstrated why several times now in the past.
There are some articles from AiG that I have seen copied and pasted by various creationists lacking their own arguments, that I actually know the text almost word for word I've seen it so many times. It is rather handy though, it means I can write one reply and then find it later to answer the same inaccurate and usually laughable 'science' it is trying to present later.
I'll just throw this out again, because of how much I love it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->we think that Christians should be very much concerned about whether Biblical creation is being defended using arguments that are, for instance, factually incorrect, logically invalid, based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. These sorts of things, often propagated by individuals who have very little scientific training, actually end up harming the cause of Biblical creation (and hence, by extension, the Bible itself). They can provide a potent justification/excuse for people to ‘write off’ creation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Factually incorrect? See their article on the appendix.
Logically invalid? See their article on the newly discovered mammals (partly because it demonstrates they don't even understand evolutionary theory they are arguing against).
Based on incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence? See the whole damn site.
Oh and this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but had been found to be incorrect or in need of substantial modification. Sometimes popular arguments (as in the ‘moon dust’ example following) have had to be abandoned because new research obtained new data.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was not because of 'new data' it was because the ICR (Insitute for creation researcH) referenced a NAS paper as 11 years earlier than it was actually published (in other words, they fradulently claimed the paper was published earlier than it had been). In addition, they had actually misused the equation and got critical aspects of the mathematics involved wrong, meaning that they had actually completely made up their position and had no evidence at all supporting it. Quietly, when they realised the magnitude of their immense screw up they quietly retracted the paper and hid what they had done to save credibility. While it may have worked with the public, it just proved to the scientific community exactly what they are.
AiG makes itself look like a bunch of unscientific fraudulent hacks, nobody else has to do it for them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wasn't this about a simple question about Darwin? And what he said on his deathbed?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was answered quickly and very succintly right at the start of this thread. If we wanted to go even further, we could even mention that not even AiG uses this argument, and they are about as ridiculous as Creationists get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of year ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm lets ignor the fact that we have dating techinques that pick up thease "labels".
Anybody and I mean anybody who uses this site as a source of evidence is asking to get laughed at. Marine01 and a few ausns admins have used this site. Shame I didnt know they were using it earlier or I would have had a field day if the post didnt get locked <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The part that gets me about that site is the misnomer. They have a bunch of claimed "answers" to all sorts of scientific questions but.... by and large the answers AREN'T from genesis???
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Jan 29 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Jan 29 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The part that gets me about that site is the misnomer. They have a bunch of claimed "answers" to all sorts of scientific questions but.... by and large the answers AREN'T from genesis??? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but being made up and factually incorrect is perfectly acceptable. After all, creation 'science' doesn't require the 'science' part anyway.
As a small note, Darwin didn't really spread evolution in his time. Evolution was a hypothesis from half a century before his time to explain similarities amongst differing species. Darwin's <u>The Origin of Species</u> proposed natural selection, the means evolution could succeed in the world. He hypothesized that each generation would change a bit, and if those changes were advantageous, they would be selected for in the next generation; and if those changes put the resulting offspring at a disadvantage, it would be selected against in the following generation.
The main argument against natural selection in Darwin's era was time. Darwin himself acknowledged this, pointing out that his hypothesis required millions of years to accomplish any kind of dramatic results. Lord Kelvin himself published a rather scathing paper in response to <u>The Origin of Species</u>, calculating the length of time the sun would be able to burn. He came up with 10,000 years, and had the math to back it up. The math was unflawed, and natural selection was dismissed as a pipe dream. But Lord Kelvin was assuming the sun was burning chemically, and the turn of the century brought with it understanding of the power within an atom.
Darwin was studying to join the clergy before he took his fated journey, and had, in his own words, accepted the conventional beliefs of the time. He worried often that what he published would be scorned by those who still ascribed to those beliefs. But there is no evidence that Darwin renounced his writings on his deathbed.
-Ryan!
A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it - it keeps him upright. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -- Mark Twain
Darwin also didn't live to know what the actual mechanism at work in evolution was when it came to transfering traits: the genetics model that Mendel discovered. Darwin at first thought that genetics in sexual reproduction worked by blending traits between the two parents, but it quickly became apparent that this would drastically reduce variation and lead creatures to become more alike rather than more diverse. Darwin then speculated instead that perhaps blending was the wrong model and there was instead some sort of binary particulate system. But he didn't live to flesh this out, and it took decades before people linked together his ideas with Mendel's genetics, leading to what is called the "modern synthesis."
Just some words from someone with a fair bit of academic research experiance: Google is not a source of truth, per se, but rather <i>popular</i> "knowledge." Your best hopes for finding reliable information are the kind of search engines you would find in a library, that go through peer-reviewed works. Some disciplines even have their own dedicated, free collections of research papers (Computer Science, is not surprisingly one of them).
For better or worse, the journal and year the paper was published in can say just as much as the text.
I know that most of you do not want to spend that kind of effort in a forum post. Do it for your own enrichment if you're really interested (or confused).
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Jan 27 2005, 07:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Jan 27 2005, 07:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Atheists DONT believe in a god, GEDDIT? Egocentrical? Am I not a pinko commie no more?
EDIT: Sorry for the one liner, was provoked. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why are we talking about God? I thought this was about Darwin and evolution.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why are we talking about God? I thought this was about Darwin and evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'd have to read the thread to find out! It's teh mystery of reading!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Despite my belief in creation, what is the theory of evolution? Theory, that is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory, in science, does not mean "speculative hypothesis" or "guess"
aonomusDedicated NS Mastermind (no need for school)Join Date: 2003-11-26Member: 23605Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Jan 31 2005, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Jan 31 2005, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Despite my belief in creation, what is the theory of evolution? Theory, that is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory, in science, does not mean "speculative hypothesis" or "guess" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite contrary, its an unproven hypothesis, its a well thought out one, but unproven.
<!--QuoteBegin-aonomus+Feb 1 2005, 07:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (aonomus @ Feb 1 2005, 07:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Jan 31 2005, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Jan 31 2005, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Despite my belief in creation, what is the theory of evolution? Theory, that is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory, in science, does not mean "speculative hypothesis" or "guess" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite contrary, its an unproven hypothesis, its a well thought out one, but unproven. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, in science a "Theory" is a thoroughly tested and (to the best of our ability) <u>proven</u> hypothesis that explains why or how something works. No Theory exists without a huge backing of proven fact and testing, otherwise it is not called a "Theory", it is called a "hypothesis". Calling a Theory an "uproven hypothesis" demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of the scientific method.
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darwin also didn't live to know what the actual mechanism at work in evolution was when it came to transfering traits: the genetics model that Mendel discovered. Darwin at first thought that genetics in sexual reproduction worked by blending traits between the two parents, but it quickly became apparent that this would drastically reduce variation and lead creatures to become more alike rather than more diverse. Darwin then speculated instead that perhaps blending was the wrong model and there was instead some sort of binary particulate system. But he didn't live to flesh this out, and it took decades before people linked together his ideas with Mendel's genetics, leading to what is called the "modern synthesis." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, Darwin was still alive when Mendel published his work. Even though most scientists looked over the musings of a monk with a garden (actually Mendel was as much a scientist as a clergyman), it's amazing that Darwin of all people overlooked Mendel's experiments, and even more amazing that Mendel - who owned a copy of <i>On the Origin of Species</i> - never connected his work to Darwin's, or tried to communicate with Darwin in any way.
Also, Mendel was only credited with his work because a few decades down the road, a German scientist "discovered" it and tried to pass it off as his own; a rival colleague then made a big stink about how he had stolen his ideas from a long-forgotten man. So, we're lucky that that second scientist hated the German guy so much, or none of us would have ever heard of Mendel. Gotta love historical tidbits like these. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 25 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 25 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - at its core, evolution must always violate this law. It is the "origin of life" equivalant to falling up hill. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Entropy tends towards a maximum in an enclosed system, from the simple assumptions of probabillity one can make of such a system(e.g. a container of gas). In general there tends to be so unimaginably many more ways for a system to be disordered then ordered that it will tend to a disordered state.
Entropy is a measure of 'disorderedness' in the sense of how energy is distributed. It is an acknowledgement that the probabillty in a large closed system for entropy decreasing(e.g. energy being concentrated somewhere without a coresponding increase in disorder somewhere else in the system) spontaneously is rediciulously small(even a tiny virus is 'huge').
Sure, it is possible that a coin sitting on a desk can steal thermal energy from the table and become red hot glowing(increasing order of the energy distribution-> decreasing entropy), but the number of states in which energy can be distributed between table and coin in a uniform fashion outnumber the ways that it can be significantly inhomogenous by such a wide margin that you will never observe anything else. A closed system containing a coin and a desk will never be observed tending away from thermal equilibrium due to this being so extremely unlikely.
A living organism is far from a closed system, nothing at all prevents order from arising here, the cell is decreasing order outside itself by taking energy concentrated in chemical bonds and spreading it all around in the form of heat. It is vastly increasing entropy as a whole.
This is akin to saying that refrigerators violate the second law of thermodynamics because in effect they transport heat from a cold object to the hotter surroundings, ignoring the fact that it is also transfering electrical energy into heat and spreading it around in it's surroundings and increasing entropy as a whole.
sorry kids, but evolution is totally false... let me explain to you why.....
if we did evovle from single cell organisms and what not when we were being started. as we grew and developed we decided to evovle this thing called "taste" and we decided that for some reason... everything that "tastes" good will be nutritously bad, and that everything that "tastes" bad will be extremly healthy for us.... WHY WOULD ANY ORGANISM EVOLVE INTO SUCH A STUPID WAY LIKE THAT!@!!!!!!!! if we did evolve we'd have evovled taste pallets that craved spinach and carrots 24/7
there you have it morons.... evulution is totally false....
Avenger, did it ever occur to you that maybe our diets were significantly different back then? Sugary foods are, for the most part, picky about where, when, and how they grow. As a result, sugar is rather rare, or at least it was where early humans and their ancestors were living. Sugar is, however, and excellent source of energy, especially when you tend to burn a lot of calories; for instance, if you're doing a lot of physical activity.
Therefore, sugar was actually desirable for humans to seek out and injest, because it represented a quick, simple burst of energy with basically no drawbacks because it wasn't eaten very often. The grains that are actually healthier for us in large quantities are what we evolved to eat a lot of; they aren't good for us because of random chance, they're good for us because our bodies are designed to eat a lot of it. Also, we didn't need whole wheat and such to taste "sweet" because we didn't have a choice in the manner; we ate the grain or we starved. Meat tastes good to most people because originally it was hard to come by; the whole hunting thing kinda made eating meat a tad trickier than it is today. Meat is also not good for us in large quantities, but we still need it.
Also note that children's taste buds "like" sugary foods more than adults, mirroring the greater amount of quick-burning energy that children need. Glucose is the only fuel that the brain uses, and it's very important that children with developing brains don't starve their minds of fuel; that could lead to stunted brain growth. Hence, it was actually more important for children to seek out the substance than adults, and this disparity is reflected in our tastes today.
Sugar is NOW looked on as "bad" for us because it's in nearly everything we eat, because we evolved taste buds that "like" it. Unfortunately (and this goes to prove that evolution doesn't necessarily work to more perfect organisms) evolution could not forsee that humans would eventually become so attatched to the sweet taste of sugar that they would specifically grow and make foods containing large quantities of it. Add to that the fact that an average human's life was becoming more sedentary which leads to slower metabolisms, and you have our sense of taste that used to seek out the "good" now seeking out the "bad". Of course, since natural selection has been displaced by social pressures and other factors for a good part of our species' history, our taste buds aren't changing any time soon.
Oh and, AvengerX, I have a nice quote for you: "The words you speak today should be soft and tender....for tomorrow you may have to eat them." Welcome to the Discussion forum, check your attitude at the door. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
First thing that I got told when I started learning physics is that science is in the business of proving things WRONG .
Science never proves things right only wrong. Thing about it, when a new theory comes up and we try and blast holes in it. If it survives, it stays around for a couple of years to a new theory comes out etc.
Its kind of like the records set at the Olympics. Sure 1 minute and 15 seconds for the 200m is rather good but next year somebody is going to do it in 1 min and 8 seconds!
Creationists think science is out to get them.......Guess what it is. And there crackpot theories have already been proved WRONG, so very WRONG!
Evolution in its current form is just this years current record holder, in a few years it may or might not be knocked off by something better or added too.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Feb 1 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Feb 1 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 25 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 25 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - at its core, evolution must always violate this law. It is the "origin of life" equivalant to falling up hill. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Entropy tends towards a maximum in an enclosed system, from the simple assumptions of probabillity one can make of such a system(e.g. a container of gas). In general there tends to be so unimaginably many more ways for a system to be disordered then ordered that it will tend to a disordered state.
Entropy is a measure of 'disorderedness' in the sense of how energy is distributed. It is an acknowledgement that the probabillty in a large closed system for entropy decreasing(e.g. energy being concentrated somewhere without a coresponding increase in disorder somewhere else in the system) spontaneously is rediciulously small(even a tiny virus is 'huge').
Sure, it is possible that a coin sitting on a desk can steal thermal energy from the table and become red hot glowing(increasing order of the energy distribution-> decreasing entropy), but the number of states in which energy can be distributed between table and coin in a uniform fashion outnumber the ways that it can be significantly inhomogenous by such a wide margin that you will never observe anything else. A closed system containing a coin and a desk will never be observed tending away from thermal equilibrium due to this being so extremely unlikely.
A living organism is far from a closed system, nothing at all prevents order from arising here, the cell is decreasing order outside itself by taking energy concentrated in chemical bonds and spreading it all around in the form of heat. It is vastly increasing entropy as a whole.
This is akin to saying that refrigerators violate the second law of thermodynamics because in effect they transport heat from a cold object to the hotter surroundings, ignoring the fact that it is also transfering electrical energy into heat and spreading it around in it's surroundings and increasing entropy as a whole. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you ever find "Made In Heaven" engraved on the Earth, as well as a contact number for God, let me know.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Feb 2 2005, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Feb 2 2005, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you ever find "Made In Heaven" engraved on the Earth, as well as a contact number for God, let me know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hahahaha <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Feb 2 2005, 12:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 2 2005, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Abandoning an argument, in this case that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by life, means that you give that point up. If you do this, you in effect admit that you were wrong and move on. Trying to cover it up by posting yet another question is simply rude.
Still... Nor have I claimed that a human happened by random chance. All I claim is a simple replicator of some form can be formed by random chance under the right conditions.
The argument you are making here is one of the most pointless and flawed you can make. All it is is an appeal to common sense in a matter where no one has any experience at all. First of all it litterally says right there on the front of the fridge who made it and where. The fridge also seem to lack any sort of reproductive system, you don't see fridges have sex with each other or reproduce by simple devision or any other scheme. This makes a refrigerator and life fundamentally dissimilar.
What you want to tell me with this though is that life is so complex and improbable that it must be the work of intelligent design. Well, all I claim is a simple replicator, you try to make it sound like I'm claiming something as strange as a nuclear reactor just assembling itself without anyones intervention(which coincidentally exists at Oklo).
Riddle me this: if God is the designer, and therefor a very clever creature, at least he is much smarter than I am because I'm not able to design even a simple bacteria. You claim that even I, an lifeform who in comparison is very simple is the work of intelligent design, does it not follow that God is the work of intelligent design himself? I.e. there's some 'super-God' that created God, who is even more intelligent? And why would it end there? This 'super-God' must have had a creator.
I pretty much know the standard answer to this question as I have asked it many times, you will as a first approach claim that God is infinite, exists out-side space time and has allways existed, therefore the question of Gods creation is meaningless because he wasn't created.
Assuming this is the gist of your eventual answer. Ok then, but why can't I claim that the Universe allways existed and similarilly avoid the need for any intelligent designer and unnecessary complexity?
As allways with any religion, it is going to come down to faith eventually. Either you have it, or you don't. But you are trying to drag scientific inquiry down to the low standards of proof of a religion, and that's something you have failed at repetedly but still seem hell bent on doing.
You seem to want to be treated on different terms, you demand out of others something you don't demand out of yourself. If anyone tried to pull the same thing on you you would have left immediately. I can spam bible inconsistencies and anything that contradicts your particular interpretation of the bible at you all day, all I need to do is google a little. And whenever you adress any of my points I just pretended I'm not even listening and post some more arguments I didn't actually write and possibly even didn't take the time to read through.
All you prove by behaving this way is that your stand point is weak, and only holds up under faith, not inquiry in the scientific sense. You have yet to present any kind of evidence at all to back up your claims that science is an article of faith in sheeps clothing, pretending to have a higher standard than any religion while it really is no different.
Creationsts find the first thing in science that dosnt add up and before you know it, ALL science is wrong!
Talking about the natural nuclear reactor , for those who cbf googling it :<a href='http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/oklo.htm' target='_blank'>click here</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assuming this is the gist of your eventual answer. Ok then, but why can't I claim that the Universe allways existed and similarilly avoid the need for any intelligent designer and unnecessary complexity?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Big Bang theory is why. I dispute the time allocated to its happening, but these scientists you are besmirched with have determined that at a specific point, the universe started. If the universe started at a certain time, then it cannot have existed forever. Atheists used to use this one all the time, but its a lot less popular with the BB theory and a decent understand of entropy.
If the universe has existed forever, then time must stretch out infinitely in the past, and infinitely in the future. This would mean that all energy in the universe, acting under the priciples of entropy, would have completely equilized by now - so no suns, no stars etc. Its not a feasible suggestion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can spam bible inconsistencies and anything that contradicts your particular interpretation of the bible at you all day, all I need to do is google a little. And whenever you adress any of my points I just pretended I'm not even listening and post some more arguments I didn't actually write and possibly even didn't take the time to read through. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bring it. Start a thread. Few things are as simple as defending Biblical inaccuracy claims. Nadagast used to have a list he'd use, and it was both entertaining and easy to refute - especially given that its damn hard to find a list that uses context. Normally within 3 quotes I can find one that is obviously cherrypicked and distorted to appear contradictory, and its all downhill from there. The rest are easily dealt with via knowledge bases like tektonics.org etc - Biblical criticism is a very, very old field, and as such, Biblical apologetics is large as well. For every massive list of quotes you find, not only will I be able to deal with over half simply by reading the verses and surrounding passages, but will have access to large, comprehensive lists refuting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why? Big Bang theory is why. I dispute the time allocated to its happening, but these scientists you are besmirched with have determined that at a specific point, the universe started. If the universe started at a certain time, then it cannot have existed forever. Atheists used to use this one all the time, but its a lot less popular with the BB theory and a decent understand of entropy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty amusing claim given that theists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the BB in the first place. Seems like you need more dragging, kicking, and screaming before you get it though.
Dispute the time allocated eh? Why not submit an article with your brilliant re-interpreation of the mountains of experimental evidence to a scientific journal and see what sticks?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the universe started at a certain time, then it cannot have existed forever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try to wrap your head around this one as well: time began in the BB too. The reality is even weirder: the farther you go back in time, the more it takes to get the same distance backwards in time. Just like Xeno's paradox, you can never actually reach a "beginning" of time or track the universe back to a discrete beginning.
Of coures, it doesn't matter either way, since neither entropy, complexity, or a start to the universe help make any sort of case for a creator, and we don't have to agree on a creator in order to discuss the evidence for those things either.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Feb 2 2005, 12:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 2 2005, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 25 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 25 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What a bizarre answer/changing of the subject....
Anyway, give some thought as to WHY you don't do this. A fridge is very obviously a manufactured thing: obvious in ways that biolgocal things are not. It is precisely because living things are NOT like a fridge that we don't have any reason to think that they were designed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why? Big Bang theory is why. I dispute the time allocated to its happening, but these scientists you are besmirched with have determined that at a specific point, the universe started. If the universe started at a certain time, then it cannot have existed forever. Atheists used to use this one all the time, but its a lot less popular with the BB theory and a decent understand of entropy.
If the universe has existed forever, then time must stretch out infinitely in the past, and infinitely in the future. This would mean that all energy in the universe, acting under the priciples of entropy, would have completely equilized by now - so no suns, no stars etc. Its not a feasible suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you get to live outside the rules, so do I(as long as I don't claim it to be a scientific theory and just idle speculation) it's certainly a simpler ad hoc than God if all you intend to do with it is find a possible but untestable and completely unfounded answer of why we are here that has to be accepted on faith and does not contradict observations(yet).
You place God outside of space time and immune to entropy, immune to having to have been created, immune to any sort of inquiry and observation in it's very nature. God is used as a loop hole out of having to explain anything at all(though this is probably not the original intent of introducing a God to be fair). Physics concerns itself with the observable and there is nothing to stop me from making equally unfounded, non scientific, and probably untestable suggestions as that of christianity: e.g that the Universe allways existed in the sense that it is recreated periodically in a fresh state of low entropy(big crunch -> big bang -> big crunch or whatever other mechanism you might suggest and that entropy is not a valid concept during these extreme events), that there is an influx of low entropy forms of energy from outside space-time and an outflux of high entropy forms of energy somewhere else, that time is not linear and that big bang happened infinitely long ago allthough at the current rate that time is passing it only seems to be 15 billion or so years(it is one of the most tricky concepts that come in only as a parameter in most of physics) etc.
The only sensible explanation of God that you can come up with in the end will rely on faith and 'common sense' in matters where no one has any experience because of the fundamental untestabillity of the most fundamental claims made by religion. While science is ever adaptive and prepared to modify or refute in the worst case whatever turns out to not withstand closer inspection. This is why science and religion are _not_ fundamentally exclusive(as long as you are willing to concede that some parts of the bible are not ment to be taken litterally due to being written by people and the filter they naturally impose on what they hear due to previous experiences and the world they live in as well as the bible being touched by the hands of what would be called power hungry psycho's by today's standards).
Christians typically ask that it be accepted on faith that there is some kind of god like creature, that there is only one of them, that it is the God the bible refers to, that he is the kinder God of the new testament and not the breathtakingly cruel and attention seeking psycho some of the stories in the bible(old testament) speaks of, that he cares in the least what you do, that there is some kind of soul that lives on after death(after all, a God that doesn't interact in any way during life, death or anything is meaningless and is just running this huge 'reality show' to entertain itself) or that it is more reasonable to have a God that has allways existed rather than one that was created or just 'appeared' and may at one point cease to exist.
As a consequence, whenever anyone brings up suggestions such as the Universe being too complex to not be intelligent design but still that the God is NOT intelligent-design I can suggest God-less,but still untestable and simpler(simpler by what definition? Again, this is a 'common sense' thing) models that give the same result.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bring it. Start a thread. Few things are as simple as defending Biblical inaccuracy claims. Nadagast used to have a list he'd use, and it was both entertaining and easy to refute - especially given that its damn hard to find a list that uses context. Normally within 3 quotes I can find one that is obviously cherrypicked and distorted to appear contradictory, and its all downhill from there. The rest are easily dealt with via knowledge bases like tektonics.org etc - Biblical criticism is a very, very old field, and as such, Biblical apologetics is large as well. For every massive list of quotes you find, not only will I be able to deal with over half simply by reading the verses and surrounding passages, but will have access to large, comprehensive lists refuting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...And thus you have proved my point, this is exactly analogous to what pepe is doing. Posting innacurate, incomplete, out of context and sometimes downright fradulent claims. When disputed, he just finds something else to spam, and it's not like it's difficult or time consuming to use google to find more innacurate claims. Why are you inviting me to waste your time? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pretty amusing claim given that theists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the BB in the first place. Seems like you need more dragging, kicking, and screaming before you get it though.
Dispute the time allocated eh? Why not submit an article with your brilliant re-interpreation of the mountains of experimental evidence to a scientific journal and see what sticks?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but debating EvC is banned in these forums, and even if it wasnt - the debate always turns into ganking. The same has been demonstrated in theories submitted And in the event that you prove a point, provide backing for it, then the evolutionist falls back on the "mountains of scientific evidence", while the creationist falls back on faith.
Just so you know though - it isnt possible for creationists to submit papers to scientific journals. I demonstrated this point in a previous debate before the ban whereby a man positing that light wasnt constant, and was in fact slowing down was denied publication by a scientific journal because he was a known creationist who was then going to suggest that this could explain the large distances and time light took to travel. They were interested in his piece, until they found out he was a creationist, then he was firmly rejected. Funnily enough, the theory that light slows down was suggested later by an evolutionist, and he got <b>plenty</b> of journal space.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Try to wrap your head around this one as well: time began in the BB too. The reality is even weirder: the farther you go back in time, the more it takes to get the same distance backwards in time. Just like Xeno's paradox, you can never actually reach a "beginning" of time or track the universe back to a discrete beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They reckon they can track it to something rediculous like 1/1000000000 of a second after the explosion. So what happened before that second? They arent sure that time existed then, but they are not insane enough to claim that therefore the universe has existed forever. You give the game away when you say "Time began in the BB". The <b>BB was a beginning</b>, and no amount of time related theories is going to change that. Scientists everywhere believe that the universe began with the Big Bang - if that is true, then the universe cannot have always existed.
The universe is supposedly 6+ billion years old. So what was there 7 billion years ago? Well, since we think that time only started 6 billion years ago, then that question doesnt really make sense - if we have a 1L jug of water, what would be in it if you took 1.2L out? You cant take out .2L if its not there, but that doesnt mean we have an infinite supply of water in the jug. In the same way, we do not have an infinite amount of time. Time may slow down, but it is not infinite. If you have a starting point, then you cannot be infinite. This is very simple, basic philosophy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of coures, it doesn't matter either way, since neither entropy, complexity, or a start to the universe help make any sort of case for a creator, and we don't have to agree on a creator in order to discuss the evidence for those things either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes a considerable argument for a First Cause. I think few things make a stronger argument for a creator than the universe. Why does it exist? To claim that "it just does" is crazy given that it had a definate starting point. Science is the study of the repeatable - and every experience we have here indicates that if something has a starting point, something must have set it off - be it a law of nature or a turn of a key.
Everything that exists comes from something else - we can track the molecules (using your theory of life) in my body into atoms. Where did those atoms come from? They came from the Big Bang. Where did the material present in the Big Bang come from? You dont know - but you seem pretty damn confident nothing outside this universe made it. I want to know why you are so confident - you have no evidence for that assumption. Its a faith like religion, but you cant admit it.
You're trying to claim, against the the consensus of scientific opinion, that the universe has always existed. Science refuses to deal with that which is outside the universe, so rightly makes no comment on the existance of God. However, it is more than sufficient for the purposes of debunking the intellectually bankrupt theory that the universe has always existed. It hasnt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you get to live outside the rules, so do I(as long as I don't claim it to be a scientific theory and just idle speculation) it's certainly a simpler ad hoc than God if all you intend to do with it is find a possible but untestable and completely unfounded answer of why we are here that has to be accepted on faith and does not contradict observations(yet).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, if you want to say "Here's my little theory on everything", then you have every right to. All theories based around things outside our universe have the same credibility. But if you want to try and demonstrate or validify your theory based around the current universe, and your theory is based around something which is patently false, then I'm going to pull you up on it. I just did. Theorising God is exists is untestable and unrelated to scientific study. Theorising the universe has always existed is completely related to scientific study, and scientific study condemned it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You place God outside of space time and immune to entropy, immune to having to have been created, immune to any sort of inquiry and observation in it's very nature. God is used as a loop hole out of having to explain anything at all(though this is probably not the original intent of introducing a God to be fair). Physics concerns itself with the observable and there is nothing to stop me from making equally unfounded, non scientific, and probably untestable suggestions as that of christianity: e.g that the Universe allways existed in the sense that it is recreated periodically in a fresh state of low entropy(big crunch -> big bang -> big crunch or whatever other mechanism you might suggest and that entropy is not a valid concept during these extreme events), that there is an influx of low entropy forms of energy from outside space-time and an outflux of high entropy forms of energy somewhere else, that time is not linear and that big bang happened infinitely long ago allthough at the current rate that time is passing it only seems to be 15 billion or so years(it is one of the most tricky concepts that come in only as a parameter in most of physics) etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realise that Big Bang, Big Crunch is just another way of stating Turtle theory dont you? What started this universe? Collapsing last universe. So what started that universe? Collapsing last universe. And anyway, Apos just tried to claim that because time was so distorted at the start of the Big Bang, that time really is infinite. How can we have the universe collapsing and restarting if this universe has existed for infinity? But we agree, neither the Christian God nor your Turtle theories can be proved. But I still maintain that you cannot fall back on the infinite universe for support.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is why science and religion are _not_ fundamentally exclusive(as long as you are willing to concede that some parts of the bible are not ment to be taken litterally due to being written by people and the filter they naturally impose on what they hear due to previous experiences and the world they live in as well as the bible being touched by the hands of what would be called power hungry psycho's by today's standards<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution and Christianity are fundamentally exclusive. I concede that some parts of the Bible are not to be taken seriously, but only because they are written for specific people (ie Jewish ritual law is Jew specific), or in a specific style (ie poetry) that isnt meant to be read verbatim. Apart from that, I think the book is 100% solid. I deny it has been altered by the rich and powerful - that claim is one commonly made by those who have never read it. The rich and powerful attempted to keep the Bible out of the hands of the poor who believed in it because it was afraid they would recognise it condemned them. Eventually the Bible got leaked to the masses, and it was the beginning of the end for unrivalled Church power in both state and society - a damn good thing if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christians typically ask that it be accepted on faith that there is some kind of god like creature, that there is only one of them, that it is the God the bible refers to, that he is the kinder God of the new testament and not the breathtakingly cruel and attention seeking psycho some of the stories in the bible(old testament) speaks of, that he cares in the least what you do, that there is some kind of soul that lives on after death(after all, a God that doesn't interact in any way during life, death or anything is meaningless and is just running this huge 'reality show' to entertain itself) or that it is more reasonable to have a God that has allways existed rather than one that was created or just 'appeared' and may at one point cease to exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it simple to intellectually reconcile the God of the OT and the God of the NT. But yes, the rest we ask as an article of faith. I reject the notion that God doesnt interact with you in your life, and I reject that from personal experience, but I dont think you'll buy into that. If God was created at a certain point, then we are back to Turtle theory. Everything within the known universe had a starting point - what is required is a unstarted starter, something that exists outside our physical reality to start everything. It might not be the Christian God, but it had to be something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are you inviting me to waste your time? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I have the greatest of confidence that I can defend the Bible, and I enjoy arguing.
Comments
Didn’t you know they are higher than us? They know better than us ? That they look down at us with pity?
I have argued with enough of these unstable halfwits to know that there arguments consist of :
1) Its all in the bible so nothing needs to be proved
2) God/Jesus said yadadada
3) Prove to me god doesn’t exist with evidence! (for a persons that are quite willing to believe in something that has no evidence I find this one a great source of amusement)
4) A sense of something greater
5) God spoke to me/ I saw a miracle
And many variations in between!!! Never any proof, never a convincing argument! Never any real facts.
Quoting from a 2000 years old book about events hundreds of years before they were transcribed IS NOT evidence.
Those last two can easily be dismissed by anybody who has done psychology of any level.
I just saw the webbsite: <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org' target='_blank'>Insulting to read</a>
I have never seen so many uneducated people posting "facts'" in such large qauntity. The science in here has been overlooked, twisted, ignored, madeup or lied about. Its insulting to read. But Oh so funny!!!!
It is possibly the funniest thing to read on the internet!
Wait...didn't he already sticky one of those? I'm not sure actually, i seem to recall one, but yes I'm not sure.
Sorry for the interupption. Please, continue your research of countless hours, including fun, interesting things like:
- Fossils! Who isn't excited by these???
- Darwin! Boy he was an interesting man! I bet his life was awesome
- The Bible! What a fun book to read! I'm glad that they, as of now, havn't put it into common language!
You really don't need to do this...
Now excuse me while I conver myself in a flameproof suit, and go swimming at the deepest depths of the ocean to avoid being flamed.
If you want to figure out how to reconcile your beliefs with the facts that science discovers, then don't get engaged in a science discussion: go ask a religious leader for guidance and insight about how your theology can incorporate them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've always called it Gibbering in Genesis myself, due to the amusing amount of sheer and utter nonsense that appears on that site. I use AiG as the definitive reason why in a scientific debate websites are not a credible source, and have demonstrated why several times now in the past.
There are some articles from AiG that I have seen copied and pasted by various creationists lacking their own arguments, that I actually know the text almost word for word I've seen it so many times. It is rather handy though, it means I can write one reply and then find it later to answer the same inaccurate and usually laughable 'science' it is trying to present later.
I'll just throw this out again, because of how much I love it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->we think that Christians should be very much concerned about whether Biblical creation is being defended using arguments that are, for instance, factually incorrect, logically invalid, based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. These sorts of things, often propagated by individuals who have very little scientific training, actually end up harming the cause of Biblical creation (and hence, by extension, the Bible itself). They can provide a potent justification/excuse for people to ‘write off’ creation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Factually incorrect? See their article on the appendix.
Logically invalid? See their article on the newly discovered mammals (partly because it demonstrates they don't even understand evolutionary theory they are arguing against).
Based on incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence? See the whole damn site.
Oh and this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but had been found to be incorrect or in need of substantial modification. Sometimes popular arguments (as in the ‘moon dust’ example following) have had to be abandoned because new research obtained new data.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was not because of 'new data' it was because the ICR (Insitute for creation researcH) referenced a NAS paper as 11 years earlier than it was actually published (in other words, they fradulently claimed the paper was published earlier than it had been). In addition, they had actually misused the equation and got critical aspects of the mathematics involved wrong, meaning that they had actually completely made up their position and had no evidence at all supporting it. Quietly, when they realised the magnitude of their immense screw up they quietly retracted the paper and hid what they had done to save credibility. While it may have worked with the public, it just proved to the scientific community exactly what they are.
AiG makes itself look like a bunch of unscientific fraudulent hacks, nobody else has to do it for them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wasn't this about a simple question about Darwin? And what he said on his deathbed?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was answered quickly and very succintly right at the start of this thread. If we wanted to go even further, we could even mention that not even AiG uses this argument, and they are about as ridiculous as Creationists get.
Heck, I'll even link you to it:
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp</a>
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs</a>
An extract :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of year ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm lets ignor the fact that we have dating techinques that pick up thease "labels".
Anybody and I mean anybody who uses this site as a source of evidence is asking to get laughed at. Marine01 and a few ausns admins have used this site. Shame I didnt know they were using it earlier or I would have had a field day if the post didnt get locked <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, but being made up and factually incorrect is perfectly acceptable. After all, creation 'science' doesn't require the 'science' part anyway.
The main argument against natural selection in Darwin's era was time. Darwin himself acknowledged this, pointing out that his hypothesis required millions of years to accomplish any kind of dramatic results. Lord Kelvin himself published a rather scathing paper in response to <u>The Origin of Species</u>, calculating the length of time the sun would be able to burn. He came up with 10,000 years, and had the math to back it up. The math was unflawed, and natural selection was dismissed as a pipe dream. But Lord Kelvin was assuming the sun was burning chemically, and the turn of the century brought with it understanding of the power within an atom.
Darwin was studying to join the clergy before he took his fated journey, and had, in his own words, accepted the conventional beliefs of the time. He worried often that what he published would be scorned by those who still ascribed to those beliefs. But there is no evidence that Darwin renounced his writings on his deathbed.
-Ryan!
A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it - it keeps him upright.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-- Mark Twain
For better or worse, the journal and year the paper was published in can say just as much as the text.
I know that most of you do not want to spend that kind of effort in a forum post. Do it for your own enrichment if you're really interested (or confused).
EDIT: Sorry for the one liner, was provoked. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are we talking about God? I thought this was about Darwin and evolution.
You'd have to read the thread to find out! It's teh mystery of reading!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Despite my belief in creation, what is the theory of evolution? Theory, that is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory, in science, does not mean "speculative hypothesis" or "guess"
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory, in science, does not mean "speculative hypothesis" or "guess" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite contrary, its an unproven hypothesis, its a well thought out one, but unproven.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Theory, in science, does not mean "speculative hypothesis" or "guess" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite contrary, its an unproven hypothesis, its a well thought out one, but unproven. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, in science a "Theory" is a thoroughly tested and (to the best of our ability) <u>proven</u> hypothesis that explains why or how something works. No Theory exists without a huge backing of proven fact and testing, otherwise it is not called a "Theory", it is called a "hypothesis". Calling a Theory an "uproven hypothesis" demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of the scientific method.
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darwin also didn't live to know what the actual mechanism at work in evolution was when it came to transfering traits: the genetics model that Mendel discovered. Darwin at first thought that genetics in sexual reproduction worked by blending traits between the two parents, but it quickly became apparent that this would drastically reduce variation and lead creatures to become more alike rather than more diverse. Darwin then speculated instead that perhaps blending was the wrong model and there was instead some sort of binary particulate system. But he didn't live to flesh this out, and it took decades before people linked together his ideas with Mendel's genetics, leading to what is called the "modern synthesis." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Darwin was still alive when Mendel published his work. Even though most scientists looked over the musings of a monk with a garden (actually Mendel was as much a scientist as a clergyman), it's amazing that Darwin of all people overlooked Mendel's experiments, and even more amazing that Mendel - who owned a copy of <i>On the Origin of Species</i> - never connected his work to Darwin's, or tried to communicate with Darwin in any way.
Also, Mendel was only credited with his work because a few decades down the road, a German scientist "discovered" it and tried to pass it off as his own; a rival colleague then made a big stink about how he had stolen his ideas from a long-forgotten man. So, we're lucky that that second scientist hated the German guy so much, or none of us would have ever heard of Mendel. Gotta love historical tidbits like these. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Entropy tends towards a maximum in an enclosed system, from the simple assumptions of probabillity one can make of such a system(e.g. a container of gas). In general there tends to be so unimaginably many more ways for a system to be disordered then ordered that it will tend to a disordered state.
Entropy is a measure of 'disorderedness' in the sense of how energy is distributed. It is an acknowledgement that the probabillty in a large closed system for entropy decreasing(e.g. energy being concentrated somewhere without a coresponding increase in disorder somewhere else in the system) spontaneously is rediciulously small(even a tiny virus is 'huge').
Sure, it is possible that a coin sitting on a desk can steal thermal energy from the table and become red hot glowing(increasing order of the energy distribution-> decreasing entropy), but the number of states in which energy can be distributed between table and coin in a uniform fashion outnumber the ways that it can be significantly inhomogenous by such a wide margin that you will never observe anything else. A closed system containing a coin and a desk will never be observed tending away from thermal equilibrium due to this being so extremely unlikely.
A living organism is far from a closed system, nothing at all prevents order from arising here, the cell is decreasing order outside itself by taking energy concentrated in chemical bonds and spreading it all around in the form of heat. It is vastly increasing entropy as a whole.
This is akin to saying that refrigerators violate the second law of thermodynamics because in effect they transport heat from a cold object to the hotter surroundings, ignoring the fact that it is also transfering electrical energy into heat and spreading it around in it's surroundings and increasing entropy as a whole.
if we did evovle from single cell organisms and what not when we were being started. as we grew and developed we decided to evovle this thing called "taste" and we decided that for some reason... everything that "tastes" good will be nutritously bad, and that everything that "tastes" bad will be extremly healthy for us.... WHY WOULD ANY ORGANISM EVOLVE INTO SUCH A STUPID WAY LIKE THAT!@!!!!!!!! if we did evolve we'd have evovled taste pallets that craved spinach and carrots 24/7
there you have it morons.... evulution is totally false....
thank you
Therefore, sugar was actually desirable for humans to seek out and injest, because it represented a quick, simple burst of energy with basically no drawbacks because it wasn't eaten very often. The grains that are actually healthier for us in large quantities are what we evolved to eat a lot of; they aren't good for us because of random chance, they're good for us because our bodies are designed to eat a lot of it. Also, we didn't need whole wheat and such to taste "sweet" because we didn't have a choice in the manner; we ate the grain or we starved. Meat tastes good to most people because originally it was hard to come by; the whole hunting thing kinda made eating meat a tad trickier than it is today. Meat is also not good for us in large quantities, but we still need it.
Also note that children's taste buds "like" sugary foods more than adults, mirroring the greater amount of quick-burning energy that children need. Glucose is the only fuel that the brain uses, and it's very important that children with developing brains don't starve their minds of fuel; that could lead to stunted brain growth. Hence, it was actually more important for children to seek out the substance than adults, and this disparity is reflected in our tastes today.
Sugar is NOW looked on as "bad" for us because it's in nearly everything we eat, because we evolved taste buds that "like" it. Unfortunately (and this goes to prove that evolution doesn't necessarily work to more perfect organisms) evolution could not forsee that humans would eventually become so attatched to the sweet taste of sugar that they would specifically grow and make foods containing large quantities of it. Add to that the fact that an average human's life was becoming more sedentary which leads to slower metabolisms, and you have our sense of taste that used to seek out the "good" now seeking out the "bad". Of course, since natural selection has been displaced by social pressures and other factors for a good part of our species' history, our taste buds aren't changing any time soon.
Oh and, AvengerX, I have a nice quote for you: "The words you speak today should be soft and tender....for tomorrow you may have to eat them." Welcome to the Discussion forum, check your attitude at the door. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Science never proves things right only wrong. Thing about it, when a new theory comes up and we try and blast holes in it. If it survives, it stays around for a couple of years to a new theory comes out etc.
Its kind of like the records set at the Olympics. Sure 1 minute and 15 seconds for the 200m is rather good but next year somebody is going to do it in 1 min and 8 seconds!
Creationists think science is out to get them.......Guess what it is.
And there crackpot theories have already been proved WRONG, so very WRONG!
Evolution in its current form is just this years current record holder, in a few years it may or might not be knocked off by something better or added too.
Science NEVER proves things right only wrong!!!
Entropy tends towards a maximum in an enclosed system, from the simple assumptions of probabillity one can make of such a system(e.g. a container of gas). In general there tends to be so unimaginably many more ways for a system to be disordered then ordered that it will tend to a disordered state.
Entropy is a measure of 'disorderedness' in the sense of how energy is distributed. It is an acknowledgement that the probabillty in a large closed system for entropy decreasing(e.g. energy being concentrated somewhere without a coresponding increase in disorder somewhere else in the system) spontaneously is rediciulously small(even a tiny virus is 'huge').
Sure, it is possible that a coin sitting on a desk can steal thermal energy from the table and become red hot glowing(increasing order of the energy distribution-> decreasing entropy), but the number of states in which energy can be distributed between table and coin in a uniform fashion outnumber the ways that it can be significantly inhomogenous by such a wide margin that you will never observe anything else. A closed system containing a coin and a desk will never be observed tending away from thermal equilibrium due to this being so extremely unlikely.
A living organism is far from a closed system, nothing at all prevents order from arising here, the cell is decreasing order outside itself by taking energy concentrated in chemical bonds and spreading it all around in the form of heat. It is vastly increasing entropy as a whole.
This is akin to saying that refrigerators violate the second law of thermodynamics because in effect they transport heat from a cold object to the hotter surroundings, ignoring the fact that it is also transfering electrical energy into heat and spreading it around in it's surroundings and increasing entropy as a whole. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!"
If you ever find "Made In Heaven" engraved on the Earth, as well as a contact number for God, let me know.
If you ever find "Made In Heaven" engraved on the Earth, as well as a contact number for God, let me know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hahahaha <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Abandoning an argument, in this case that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by life, means that you give that point up. If you do this, you in effect admit that you were wrong and move on. Trying to cover it up by posting yet another question is simply rude.
Still... Nor have I claimed that a human happened by random chance. All I claim is a simple replicator of some form can be formed by random chance under the right conditions.
The argument you are making here is one of the most pointless and flawed you can make. All it is is an appeal to common sense in a matter where no one has any experience at all. First of all it litterally says right there on the front of the fridge who made it and where. The fridge also seem to lack any sort of reproductive system, you don't see fridges have sex with each other or reproduce by simple devision or any other scheme. This makes a refrigerator and life fundamentally dissimilar.
What you want to tell me with this though is that life is so complex and improbable that it must be the work of intelligent design. Well, all I claim is a simple replicator, you try to make it sound like I'm claiming something as strange as a nuclear reactor just assembling itself without anyones intervention(which coincidentally exists at Oklo).
Riddle me this: if God is the designer, and therefor a very clever creature, at least he is much smarter than I am because I'm not able to design even a simple bacteria. You claim that even I, an lifeform who in comparison is very simple is the work of intelligent design, does it not follow that God is the work of intelligent design himself? I.e. there's some 'super-God' that created God, who is even more intelligent? And why would it end there? This 'super-God' must have had a creator.
I pretty much know the standard answer to this question as I have asked it many times, you will as a first approach claim that God is infinite, exists out-side space time and has allways existed, therefore the question of Gods creation is meaningless because he wasn't created.
Assuming this is the gist of your eventual answer. Ok then, but why can't I claim that the Universe allways existed and similarilly avoid the need for any intelligent designer and unnecessary complexity?
As allways with any religion, it is going to come down to faith eventually. Either you have it, or you don't. But you are trying to drag scientific inquiry down to the low standards of proof of a religion, and that's something you have failed at repetedly but still seem hell bent on doing.
You seem to want to be treated on different terms, you demand out of others something you don't demand out of yourself. If anyone tried to pull the same thing on you you would have left immediately. I can spam bible inconsistencies and anything that contradicts your particular interpretation of the bible at you all day, all I need to do is google a little. And whenever you adress any of my points I just pretended I'm not even listening and post some more arguments I didn't actually write and possibly even didn't take the time to read through.
All you prove by behaving this way is that your stand point is weak, and only holds up under faith, not inquiry in the scientific sense. You have yet to present any kind of evidence at all to back up your claims that science is an article of faith in sheeps clothing, pretending to have a higher standard than any religion while it really is no different.
Creationsts find the first thing in science that dosnt add up and before you know it, ALL science is wrong!
Talking about the natural nuclear reactor , for those who cbf googling it :<a href='http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/oklo.htm' target='_blank'>click here</a>
Why? Big Bang theory is why. I dispute the time allocated to its happening, but these scientists you are besmirched with have determined that at a specific point, the universe started. If the universe started at a certain time, then it cannot have existed forever. Atheists used to use this one all the time, but its a lot less popular with the BB theory and a decent understand of entropy.
If the universe has existed forever, then time must stretch out infinitely in the past, and infinitely in the future. This would mean that all energy in the universe, acting under the priciples of entropy, would have completely equilized by now - so no suns, no stars etc. Its not a feasible suggestion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can spam bible inconsistencies and anything that contradicts your particular interpretation of the bible at you all day, all I need to do is google a little. And whenever you adress any of my points I just pretended I'm not even listening and post some more arguments I didn't actually write and possibly even didn't take the time to read through. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bring it. Start a thread. Few things are as simple as defending Biblical inaccuracy claims. Nadagast used to have a list he'd use, and it was both entertaining and easy to refute - especially given that its damn hard to find a list that uses context. Normally within 3 quotes I can find one that is obviously cherrypicked and distorted to appear contradictory, and its all downhill from there. The rest are easily dealt with via knowledge bases like tektonics.org etc - Biblical criticism is a very, very old field, and as such, Biblical apologetics is large as well. For every massive list of quotes you find, not only will I be able to deal with over half simply by reading the verses and surrounding passages, but will have access to large, comprehensive lists refuting.
Pretty amusing claim given that theists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the BB in the first place. Seems like you need more dragging, kicking, and screaming before you get it though.
Dispute the time allocated eh? Why not submit an article with your brilliant re-interpreation of the mountains of experimental evidence to a scientific journal and see what sticks?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the universe started at a certain time, then it cannot have existed forever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try to wrap your head around this one as well: time began in the BB too. The reality is even weirder: the farther you go back in time, the more it takes to get the same distance backwards in time. Just like Xeno's paradox, you can never actually reach a "beginning" of time or track the universe back to a discrete beginning.
Of coures, it doesn't matter either way, since neither entropy, complexity, or a start to the universe help make any sort of case for a creator, and we don't have to agree on a creator in order to discuss the evidence for those things either.
But never once do you look at a refridgerator and say "wow, that happened by chance!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a bizarre answer/changing of the subject....
Anyway, give some thought as to WHY you don't do this. A fridge is very obviously a manufactured thing: obvious in ways that biolgocal things are not. It is precisely because living things are NOT like a fridge that we don't have any reason to think that they were designed.
If the universe has existed forever, then time must stretch out infinitely in the past, and infinitely in the future. This would mean that all energy in the universe, acting under the priciples of entropy, would have completely equilized by now - so no suns, no stars etc. Its not a feasible suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you get to live outside the rules, so do I(as long as I don't claim it to be a scientific theory and just idle speculation) it's certainly a simpler ad hoc than God if all you intend to do with it is find a possible but untestable and completely unfounded answer of why we are here that has to be accepted on faith and does not contradict observations(yet).
You place God outside of space time and immune to entropy, immune to having to have been created, immune to any sort of inquiry and observation in it's very nature. God is used as a loop hole out of having to explain anything at all(though this is probably not the original intent of introducing a God to be fair). Physics concerns itself with the observable and there is nothing to stop me from making equally unfounded, non scientific, and probably untestable suggestions as that of christianity: e.g that the Universe allways existed in the sense that it is recreated periodically in a fresh state of low entropy(big crunch -> big bang -> big crunch or whatever other mechanism you might suggest and that entropy is not a valid concept during these extreme events), that there is an influx of low entropy forms of energy from outside space-time and an outflux of high entropy forms of energy somewhere else, that time is not linear and that big bang happened infinitely long ago allthough at the current rate that time is passing it only seems to be 15 billion or so years(it is one of the most tricky concepts that come in only as a parameter in most of physics) etc.
The only sensible explanation of God that you can come up with in the end will rely on faith and 'common sense' in matters where no one has any experience because of the fundamental untestabillity of the most fundamental claims made by religion. While science is ever adaptive and prepared to modify or refute in the worst case whatever turns out to not withstand closer inspection. This is why science and religion are _not_ fundamentally exclusive(as long as you are willing to concede that some parts of the bible are not ment to be taken litterally due to being written by people and the filter they naturally impose on what they hear due to previous experiences and the world they live in as well as the bible being touched by the hands of what would be called power hungry psycho's by today's standards).
Christians typically ask that it be accepted on faith that there is some kind of god like creature, that there is only one of them, that it is the God the bible refers to, that he is the kinder God of the new testament and not the breathtakingly cruel and attention seeking psycho some of the stories in the bible(old testament) speaks of, that he cares in the least what you do, that there is some kind of soul that lives on after death(after all, a God that doesn't interact in any way during life, death or anything is meaningless and is just running this huge 'reality show' to entertain itself) or that it is more reasonable to have a God that has allways existed rather than one that was created or just 'appeared' and may at one point cease to exist.
As a consequence, whenever anyone brings up suggestions such as the Universe being too complex to not be intelligent design but still that the God is NOT intelligent-design I can suggest God-less,but still untestable and simpler(simpler by what definition? Again, this is a 'common sense' thing) models that give the same result.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bring it. Start a thread. Few things are as simple as defending Biblical inaccuracy claims. Nadagast used to have a list he'd use, and it was both entertaining and easy to refute - especially given that its damn hard to find a list that uses context. Normally within 3 quotes I can find one that is obviously cherrypicked and distorted to appear contradictory, and its all downhill from there. The rest are easily dealt with via knowledge bases like tektonics.org etc - Biblical criticism is a very, very old field, and as such, Biblical apologetics is large as well. For every massive list of quotes you find, not only will I be able to deal with over half simply by reading the verses and surrounding passages, but will have access to large, comprehensive lists refuting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...And thus you have proved my point, this is exactly analogous to what pepe is doing. Posting innacurate, incomplete, out of context and sometimes downright fradulent claims. When disputed, he just finds something else to spam, and it's not like it's difficult or time consuming to use google to find more innacurate claims. Why are you inviting me to waste your time? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Dispute the time allocated eh? Why not submit an article with your brilliant re-interpreation of the mountains of experimental evidence to a scientific journal and see what sticks?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but debating EvC is banned in these forums, and even if it wasnt - the debate always turns into ganking. The same has been demonstrated in theories submitted And in the event that you prove a point, provide backing for it, then the evolutionist falls back on the "mountains of scientific evidence", while the creationist falls back on faith.
Just so you know though - it isnt possible for creationists to submit papers to scientific journals. I demonstrated this point in a previous debate before the ban whereby a man positing that light wasnt constant, and was in fact slowing down was denied publication by a scientific journal because he was a known creationist who was then going to suggest that this could explain the large distances and time light took to travel. They were interested in his piece, until they found out he was a creationist, then he was firmly rejected. Funnily enough, the theory that light slows down was suggested later by an evolutionist, and he got <b>plenty</b> of journal space.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Try to wrap your head around this one as well: time began in the BB too. The reality is even weirder: the farther you go back in time, the more it takes to get the same distance backwards in time. Just like Xeno's paradox, you can never actually reach a "beginning" of time or track the universe back to a discrete beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They reckon they can track it to something rediculous like 1/1000000000 of a second after the explosion. So what happened before that second? They arent sure that time existed then, but they are not insane enough to claim that therefore the universe has existed forever. You give the game away when you say "Time began in the BB". The <b>BB was a beginning</b>, and no amount of time related theories is going to change that. Scientists everywhere believe that the universe began with the Big Bang - if that is true, then the universe cannot have always existed.
The universe is supposedly 6+ billion years old. So what was there 7 billion years ago? Well, since we think that time only started 6 billion years ago, then that question doesnt really make sense - if we have a 1L jug of water, what would be in it if you took 1.2L out? You cant take out .2L if its not there, but that doesnt mean we have an infinite supply of water in the jug. In the same way, we do not have an infinite amount of time. Time may slow down, but it is not infinite. If you have a starting point, then you cannot be infinite. This is very simple, basic philosophy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of coures, it doesn't matter either way, since neither entropy, complexity, or a start to the universe help make any sort of case for a creator, and we don't have to agree on a creator in order to discuss the evidence for those things either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes a considerable argument for a First Cause. I think few things make a stronger argument for a creator than the universe. Why does it exist? To claim that "it just does" is crazy given that it had a definate starting point. Science is the study of the repeatable - and every experience we have here indicates that if something has a starting point, something must have set it off - be it a law of nature or a turn of a key.
Everything that exists comes from something else - we can track the molecules (using your theory of life) in my body into atoms. Where did those atoms come from? They came from the Big Bang. Where did the material present in the Big Bang come from? You dont know - but you seem pretty damn confident nothing outside this universe made it. I want to know why you are so confident - you have no evidence for that assumption. Its a faith like religion, but you cant admit it.
You're trying to claim, against the the consensus of scientific opinion, that the universe has always existed. Science refuses to deal with that which is outside the universe, so rightly makes no comment on the existance of God. However, it is more than sufficient for the purposes of debunking the intellectually bankrupt theory that the universe has always existed. It hasnt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you get to live outside the rules, so do I(as long as I don't claim it to be a scientific theory and just idle speculation) it's certainly a simpler ad hoc than God if all you intend to do with it is find a possible but untestable and completely unfounded answer of why we are here that has to be accepted on faith and does not contradict observations(yet).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, if you want to say "Here's my little theory on everything", then you have every right to. All theories based around things outside our universe have the same credibility. But if you want to try and demonstrate or validify your theory based around the current universe, and your theory is based around something which is patently false, then I'm going to pull you up on it. I just did. Theorising God is exists is untestable and unrelated to scientific study. Theorising the universe has always existed is completely related to scientific study, and scientific study condemned it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You place God outside of space time and immune to entropy, immune to having to have been created, immune to any sort of inquiry and observation in it's very nature. God is used as a loop hole out of having to explain anything at all(though this is probably not the original intent of introducing a God to be fair). Physics concerns itself with the observable and there is nothing to stop me from making equally unfounded, non scientific, and probably untestable suggestions as that of christianity: e.g that the Universe allways existed in the sense that it is recreated periodically in a fresh state of low entropy(big crunch -> big bang -> big crunch or whatever other mechanism you might suggest and that entropy is not a valid concept during these extreme events), that there is an influx of low entropy forms of energy from outside space-time and an outflux of high entropy forms of energy somewhere else, that time is not linear and that big bang happened infinitely long ago allthough at the current rate that time is passing it only seems to be 15 billion or so years(it is one of the most tricky concepts that come in only as a parameter in most of physics) etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realise that Big Bang, Big Crunch is just another way of stating Turtle theory dont you? What started this universe? Collapsing last universe. So what started that universe? Collapsing last universe. And anyway, Apos just tried to claim that because time was so distorted at the start of the Big Bang, that time really is infinite. How can we have the universe collapsing and restarting if this universe has existed for infinity? But we agree, neither the Christian God nor your Turtle theories can be proved. But I still maintain that you cannot fall back on the infinite universe for support.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is why science and religion are _not_ fundamentally exclusive(as long as you are willing to concede that some parts of the bible are not ment to be taken litterally due to being written by people and the filter they naturally impose on what they hear due to previous experiences and the world they live in as well as the bible being touched by the hands of what would be called power hungry psycho's by today's standards<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution and Christianity are fundamentally exclusive. I concede that some parts of the Bible are not to be taken seriously, but only because they are written for specific people (ie Jewish ritual law is Jew specific), or in a specific style (ie poetry) that isnt meant to be read verbatim. Apart from that, I think the book is 100% solid. I deny it has been altered by the rich and powerful - that claim is one commonly made by those who have never read it. The rich and powerful attempted to keep the Bible out of the hands of the poor who believed in it because it was afraid they would recognise it condemned them. Eventually the Bible got leaked to the masses, and it was the beginning of the end for unrivalled Church power in both state and society - a damn good thing if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christians typically ask that it be accepted on faith that there is some kind of god like creature, that there is only one of them, that it is the God the bible refers to, that he is the kinder God of the new testament and not the breathtakingly cruel and attention seeking psycho some of the stories in the bible(old testament) speaks of, that he cares in the least what you do, that there is some kind of soul that lives on after death(after all, a God that doesn't interact in any way during life, death or anything is meaningless and is just running this huge 'reality show' to entertain itself) or that it is more reasonable to have a God that has allways existed rather than one that was created or just 'appeared' and may at one point cease to exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it simple to intellectually reconcile the God of the OT and the God of the NT. But yes, the rest we ask as an article of faith. I reject the notion that God doesnt interact with you in your life, and I reject that from personal experience, but I dont think you'll buy into that. If God was created at a certain point, then we are back to Turtle theory. Everything within the known universe had a starting point - what is required is a unstarted starter, something that exists outside our physical reality to start everything. It might not be the Christian God, but it had to be something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are you inviting me to waste your time? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I have the greatest of confidence that I can defend the Bible, and I enjoy arguing.