Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He can't. But he has conned his followers into believing he knows stuff. Which is why he has a Donate button on his web site. He, (or a carefully selected minion) writes about things he knows little about, his loyal fans gobble it up.....and send him money!
He probably knows everyone at the bank by their first name.
Yep.
There's a huge market for telling people what they want to hear. It could be called the confirmation-bias business.
With an infinite past, the universe would have experienced entropy by now, and would have degraded. But it hasn't. So that demonstrates that it had a beginning.
It's what science does. It looks at the evidence and proposes a theory.
As opposed to "anythingbutgoddunnit"?
Of course it had a beginning. You know about the Big Bang. The wider universe that was inside - who knows how big and 'Old' that is, even if time has any meaning.
Quote:
The problem is that "scientists" commit that fallacy all the time in regards to evolution, abiogenesis, origins of the universe, etc. You don't know how it happens....but you just assume that it must have occurred naturally despite everything we know about the natural universe.
No. This is where Creationist apologists cannot ever get it right because they project their thinking onto us. They have FAITH that Goddunnit. We don't have FAITH that it all happened naturally. What we (1) do have is that a lot of it happened in a way that can be explained 'sufficiently' (as you say) by natural processes that do not need a god. In fact so much of everything we know does not need a god that the 'materialist default' becomes the preferred explanation even where we don't have much evidence.
That is why, although a god cannot be ruled out for the origins of life or the universe, natural explanations are considered the better choice (even without my doubts about a complex god could have come about with no cause) and so we look for evidence to support those natural explanations.
I know that sounds very much like what Creationism does to support Genesis. but the difference is that the scientific method and Peer review means that any evidence is examined to see what it tells us. If what it tells us about - say - human evolution or the origin of life or the universe fits with current theories. If it doesn't - the theories are changed! That is why creationists can claim 'science is always changing its mind'. As though it was a virtue to refuse to change its mind no matter what the evidence says.
That, Vizza mate, is what creationism does; and quite apart from 'This is the conclusion, what facts can we fiddle and misrepresent to support it?' It does slowly change without admitting it to accept theories it can't damn' well deny. Like adaptive change through natural selection of advantageous genetic mutations - but only if it is denied that this cannot become so markedly changed that a new species -label has to be assigned.
That (to look at some of the exchanges with Eusebius and Expat) is denied on the grounds of a genetic barrier between species. But that is irrelevant because evolution does not work with interbreeding of species and creationists KNOW that it doesn't. There is NO valid genetic, geological, morphological or geological or indeed scientific objection to evolution and a thousand museumsfull of evidence for. There not a scrap of valid scientific evidence for creation, which is why Creation 'museums' full of Flintstones -fantasies have to be faked to pretend there is. All part of Bible -Disneyland, old mate.
Quote:
Sorry....chance doesn't explain the origins of the universe. It doesn't explain how the sufficient cause existed to fire off the whole thing in the first place.
No, I agree it doesn't. That is why we evolutionists, scientist and other Darwin worshippers including the High Pope of Darwinism, Dawkins say 'a case can be made'. That was trumpeted about to pretend that Dawkins was becoming a theist!. Creationists tell these silly lies all the time. The origins of the universe are still a puzzle. The origins of life are not really a puzzle, but remain without the convincing evidence we would like. Evolution is not a puzzle and was proved by morphology in Darwin's day, the fossil record up to the 70's and DNA as a whole confirmation of the tree of life, recently and Creationism is in the position of explaining the evidence away. There is not a scrap of it that is evidence FOR Creation.
And that Vizio, old chum, is why it matters not a jot that chance, while it is sufficient explanation of how matter aggregates and life can emerge (and consciousness with it), isn't sufficient explanation of the cause and a postulated god looks like it.
But that does not at all mean that it is the correct one - it never has been so far, it isn't actually an explanation at all - it is an avoidance of the explanation with *magic* and of course the same 'cause' applies to a god and just denying there had to be one is the same blinkered thinking you accuse cosmic physicists of doing.
The fact is that nobody knows - including you. And it may be a god and it may not be. I don't mind if it is a god. But you mind very much if it isn't. If a god exists, i want to know. It it doesn't -or it is the wrong god - I believe you would rather not know and would prefer to believe what is not true on Faith.
If I am wrong about you, then why not start accepting the facts we are sure of?
(1) evolutionists and we goddless hellscum who listen to them.
P.s some dam' fine supporting posts here, chums. And also thanks to Vizza, Eusebius and Expat for making yet another bloody evilooshun thread worth doing! I shall be issuing reps where I can. I need to clear the custard so I can rep Shirina when she resurfaces.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-22-2015 at 05:22 AM..
Reason: typos..and some congrats.
He can't. But he has conned his followers into believing he knows stuff. Which is why he has a Donate button on his web site. He, (or a carefully selected minion) writes about things he knows little about, his loyal fans gobble it up.....and send him money!
He probably knows everyone at the bank by their first name.
They probably send a limo for him and roll out a red carpet.
The high altitude telescope in Chile has photographed, for the first time, the formation of an exoplanet. Now, for those of you who don't or won't understand how science works, the process has been theorized for some time, and additional data has always strengthened the theory. That is the way science works... this is not a guess.
Very cool pictures.
And.... it takes MUCH longer than 6 days.
very cool. people dont get the the time thing you pointed out. For me it was it is as simple as "the dinosaurs stopped here. We showed up up here. What could have happened?" "poof there it is" is just silly to me.
Yes. I sometimes forget how little understnading there often is about the time scale involved - especially with what is referredt p as the 'Cambrian explosion'. Seeker SA will probably recall hiow (as Transponder on Tentmaker) I referred to the Bogroll explanation. On a you tube a roll of toilet paper was unrolled. I believe cells were put halfway along. fish half of that distance. dinosaurs about half the remaining, mammals the half of the remaining and human evolution the last couple of inches.
Originally Posted by Eusebius And yet we have no **visual proof** that humans evolved from anything. It is just the wild imaginations of people who have a vested interest in keeping their jobs and keeping the money flowing into their institutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
Are you then implying that we have **visual proof** that man was created in a day?
That is correct. Both The Bible and evolution is faith based. That's what I've been trying to get through all along.
Quote:
Not just from a single cell but from a pile of dirt? According to Genesis, Adam was the first of such experiments by God so there could not have been any witnesses - or is Genesis wrong?
The Bible doesn't say Adam was an experiment. Do you think it is impossible for your Dad to tell you how you came into the world and you write it down and hand that down to your child who continue the tradition?
Quote:
You see, right there lies the proof that the creation is false. You are believing a lie. According to you, Genesis was written by Moses. Well guess what? Moses was not an eye witness and further more, Moses never met any eye witnesses which of course he couldn't have because there weren't any and besides, he lived several thousand years after the alledged creation.
Christ is the eyewitness to Genesis and it was He Who told Moses.
That is correct. Both The Bible and evolution is faith based. That's what I've been trying to get through all along.
[quote Not just from a single cell but from a pile of dirt? According to Genesis, Adam was the first of such experiments by God so there could not have been any witnesses - or is Genesis wrong?
The Bible doesn't say Adam was an experiment. Do you think it is impossible for your Dad to tell you how you came into the world and you write it down and hand that down to your child who continue the tradition?
Christ is the eyewitness to Genesis and it was He Who told Moses.
Any more questions?
Next.
Have you ever done that experiment where you whisper something into someone's ear, and they whisper it into someone else's and so on and so forth? That is how your Bible came to be. It wasn't written by the people who were actually there, it was written by people long after those people were dead. It is like the experiment I mention above. You can start out with the truth, and end up no where near it. One of the reasons people find it hard to believe the Bible nonsense.
In your scenario (assuming for the sake of argument that Adam was real), it would be that God told Adam, Adam told his son, his son told his son, etc etc. It could have started as, "My dad created me just as I created you," and ended up as, "my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was created by God! He was the first human ever!" People embellish and lie all the time.
Have you ever done that experiment where you whisper something into someone's ear, and they whisper it into someone else's and so on and so forth? That is how your Bible came to be. It wasn't written by the people who were actually there, it was written by people long after those people were dead. It is like the experiment I mention above. You can start out with the truth, and end up no where near it. One of the reasons people find it hard to believe the Bible nonsense.
This isn't the same as your experiment. Christ, the eyewitness to Genesis, and in fact was the One Who created Adam and Eve, has a perfect memory of that and told Moses exactly how it occurred.
Quote:
In your scenario (assuming for the sake of argument that Adam was real), it would be that God told Adam, Adam told his son, his son told his son, etc etc. It could have started as, "My dad created me just as I created you," and ended up as, "my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was created by God! He was the first human ever!" People embellish and lie all the time.
Jesus Christ is the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but the difference is that the scientific method and Peer review means that any evidence is examined to see what it tells us. If what it tells us about - say - human evolution or the origin of life or the universe fits with current theories. If it doesn't - the theories are changed! That is why creationists can claim 'science is always changing its mind'. As though it was a virtue to refuse to change its mind no matter what the evidence says.
