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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Honestly? Would it matter? I'd explain it, you'd ignore the basic arguments of it and come back with some silly arguments, as you've done before. It would go on for about 70 pages and then someone would whine about me hijacking the thread when I responded to YOUR post, and then you'd declare victory when I just grew tired of the hard-headed responses and quit posting.
This is it, in a nutshell. Let me know if you have an actual, real, cogent response to it. I really don't want to get into that other stuff.
Really, Vizio, how often do you have to be told that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ONLY applies in a closed system.
And there must be a (Capitalized) Cause? Why Capitalized? Is that suppose do detonate your god? Goddunnit is not a fallback position.
#fail
I'm missing something here. Everything needs a cause to begin. The big bang needs a cause. God needs a cause. God created the universe and something else created God. So what am I missing?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I'm missing something here. Everything needs a cause to begin. The big bang needs a cause. God needs a cause. God created the universe and something else created God. So what am I missing?
No, the god of the gaps doesn't cut it. Do scientists know what caused the Big Bang? Nope. Will they some day? Maybe. But not knowing it now doesn't mean there is a goddunnit.
Who knows, maybe there is a never ending cycle of multi-universes expanding and collapsing, ones who were always here. It's a viable hypothesis, but there is little science behind it, although the concept of multi-universes has some legitimate scientists thinking about it.
I have a small Twix candy bar for Halloween and a large Twix candy bar. This proves evolution.
Being an amateur astronomer, I have known about the so-called "birthplace of stars" for many years in the Orion Nebula. This does not prove stars are evolving. Rather it proves stars are coalescing from matter around them. I'm sure our sun and planets did the same thing. But it is God Who created the heavens and the earth. He made it habitable. He is still creating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Obviously.
The point is that evolution works the same way, it is natural, and doesn't just pop into existence through supernatural and omni-mysterious magic.
I'm missing something here. Everything needs a cause to begin. The big bang needs a cause. God needs a cause. God created the universe and something else created God. So what am I missing?
It is the idea that you cannot have infinite regression. Somewhere, it has to stop and something with the ability to decide to start everything off has to be postulated. That they call God.
I know exactly where they are coming from and why it is such a compelling argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The point is that evolution works the same way, it is natural, and doesn't just pop into existence through supernatural and omni-mysterious magic.
Correct. Eusebius argues that it is impossible for life to start unless Someone started it. If we accepted that on principle, would Eusebius accept evolution of species from then on, just as stars evolved from matter, whatever or whoever started that off?
Fortunatly for evolution it has been used to predict and what it predicted has been found. I forget the if upon finding a very long necked flower there was the prediction of finding a long billed nectar consumer which was found. It is the same predictability that is used in physical geography or geology. You predict what you will find not what will be in the future. Otherwise most of glacialogy would not be a science based on your defintions because none of us will be around for the next ice age.
I think it is funny how so many people want to twist the defintions of science in order to exclude evolution when by doing so they are excluding so many other disciplines of science. Chemistry and other lab experiments is not all there is to science.
I'm missing something here. Everything needs a cause to begin. The big bang needs a cause. God needs a cause. God created the universe and something else created God. So what am I missing?
Correct. Eusebius argues that it is impossible for life to start unless Someone started it. If we accepted that on principle, would Eusebius accept evolution of species from then on, just as stars evolved from matter, whatever or whoever started that off?
No. He rejects the evolution of species, too.
It is one thing for stars to coelesce from matter in it's surroundings and quite another for humans to have evolved from a single cell. The former is scientific fact; the latter is a fable.
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.
