Common Sense Deactivated?

[lewisnotmiller]

And you are probably aware of this, but that is why nothing that comes form Answers in Genesis, or almost any creation mill, can be called "science". AiG requires their workers to agree to a statement of faith, as do all others that I am aware of. In it one swears that:


"

• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
• The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
• The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Updated: August 10, 2015"


Statement of Faith

The last one especially gets to me. If your evidence disagrees with their statement of faith, it is wrong. Since evidence is "king" in science they shoot themselves in the foot by forcing their workers to agree to this.

Thanks for the details.
I'd heard this before, but not seen the wording. Bringing it back to Ray Comfort, he's openly stated that where there is a discrepancy between scripture and science, he discards science.
Which is fine. Stop pretending otherwise, and dressing religion and philosophy up as science.

 

[Deeje]

Here's the problem with Ray's conclusion.

How does "evidence" of a creator prove your creator?

I don't know how much evidence one needs to prove anything to some people. How much is enough? Obviously for some, nothing will ever be enough until they come face to face with this being that they deny. Too late then methinks.

If you believe a great catastrophe is coming and you do nothing to warn people, what does that make you?
No one wants to say "I told you so"...but I think many people are worried about the pitiful state of the world and the direction that things are heading.

I have enough evidence to prove the Creator's existence to myself. I also believe that he did not leave the human race in the dark about his purpose concerning this earth and the humans he put here to manage it. We have instructions and we are benefited when we follow them.

Making our own decisions based on our limitations (not really knowing where a decision will take us) hasn't led us anywhere good...as far as I can see, it has been disastrous.

HIs premise of "accidents don't make existence" doesn't go very far, and is pretty self-defeating. He doesn't make a good argument, he makes a trite argument hiding behind science.

He asks simple questions that even a child can understand...and that is the problem with many in science. They can tackle all the difficult stuff that needs a science degree, but the simple questions leave them stumped.

Ask them how life evolved and they will rattle on for hours, but ask them how life began and they can't tell you.

We all know that an abundance of water is what makes planet Earth so unique in our solar system...it is also what sustains all life. Yet the planet is virtually covered in water that is not suitable for land dwelling creatures to drink....including us.

Do you think that the process of precipitation is just a fluke of nature? The sun creates evaporation so that moisture is gathered from the salty oceans and stored in clouds that dump fresh rainwater on land to keep land dwelling things alive. Don't you sometimes marvel at the volume of water that can be held in those clouds? It seems to defy gravity. But on the other hand, water in large volumes can be extremely destructive.

Every living thing requires water to survive.....animals, aquatic creatures, birds, reptiles, humans, trees and plants. But what is this miraculous substance that falls from the sky and keeps the ocean full? Why is it such a versatile commodity? What do we do with water apart from drinking it?
We bathe in it, wash our clothes in it, swim in it, ski and sail on it, admire it and use water features to decorate our homes with it. How much do we take this vital resource for granted?

How many creatures live in and around it?....
perfectly designed for their salty aquatic home....

When it is still, water reflects the landscape like a mirror...
is this beautiful scene just another fluke?

What about recreational activities? No still mirror here.
Waves pound most coastal areas.

How many ways can we enjoy water?

What about when it freezes?

We still enjoy it!.....it's still beautiful.

Why do we find waterfalls so breathtaking?

What is there about crystal clear tropical water that is so appealing?

Now ask yourself how much you would enjoy any of that if humans were not endowed with sight and hearing. What if you had no sense of touch or balance? What if you had no sense of smell, or the ability to taste food?

Did the human brain that processes all that information just magically engineer itself?

Anyone who does not see purposeful and incredible design in creation is IMO, suffering with a special kind of blindness.

 

[Deeje]

My point is very clear, simple and straight forward. Science does not 'know' the universe had a beginning. In fact, it is unlikely that science will ever falsify the hypothesis either our physical existence universe had a beginning or not.

I did address that. If the universe had no beginning, (assuming that the earth and all heavenly bodies came into existence in one cataclysmic event as in TBB) then the uranium on earth would have all become lead by now. The fact that there is radio-active uranium in large quantities proves that the earth was not always here, so the universe had to have a beginning.

 

[james bond]

Methodological naturalism.

Science leaves the supernatural at the door, since it's neither testable nor falsifiable using the limitations of science.

Not just the supernatural and God, but they leave out the Bible as religion. This wasn't the way it was before the 1850s.

This is today's atheist science I am referring to. Just because something isn't testable nor falsifiable, it does not get excluded in creation science. It isn't part of the scientific method, but philosophy of science. Falsifiability or unfalsifiability (lack of falsifiability) does not mean that if an idea cannot be tested, then it is false; It just means that an idea can't be tested for the time being. An example would be how everyone thought the planets revolved around earth until Copernicus came up with his heliocentric model and thus was able to test his ideas. We can include the concepts of multiverses, time travel back in time and finding aliens to this. I don't believe in any of those. Neither do I believe in being able to successfully colonize another planet (but this is testable); We'll become extinct on one planet.

The original idea of testing and falsifiability was proposed by GK Chesterton, but his intent wasn't what today's atheist scientists claim.

"Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it." G.K. Chesterton, Everlasting Man, II

 

[Deeje]

Ray is just about smart enough to realise he's not debating God, but actually using simple sales techniques. That he can edit a video to ensure it only includes kids unable to frame a coherent response, or that any coherence is edited out is hardly to his credit.

I said I liked his questions....not necessarily his methods. I believe his questions were enough to wake some people up out of their complacency. That is all some people need to get them thinking along new lines. We are all better off having our beliefs challenged. It makes us want to validate them.....if they can't be validated, then perhaps its time to re-evaluate them.

You can compare Ray to Jesus if you like. I wouldn't.

I didn't compare him to Jesus....I said I can imagine Jesus getting the same kind of negative wrap from the population whose beliefs he was challenging.

People make their own choices. Ask Christians to explain the trinity in a sound-byte fashion.

If any "Christian" claims to be able to explain the trinity from the Bible in any fashion, then they are lying. There is no trinity in the Bible.

It isn't enough to be taught about God in church, or to read an approved tract and assume it must be telling the truth. Those people have their views, but they needn't be shared like it's some kind of 'Truth'.

So 'evangelism' is OK with you as long as its for science? Just looks like a different belief system to me.

We tell people about God to save them, and science tells people there is no God to save them from the people who say there is...?

if one is wanting to participate in a thread, I think it behooves them to play along with the OP and it's intent to whatever degree is reasonable, and your request was reasonable, if a little lacking in 'fun' for me personally.

Thanks

that was very magnanimous of you.

Anyhow, I don't have to agree with people who describe genome mapping as the 'Book of Life', you know, right?

Incidentally, based purely on Ray's argument, why would anyone assume a single Watchmaker. Or Author.

That's like looking at a painting done by one of the Masters and asking how many artists there were. Or reading a novel by a well known author and asking how many writers produced the work? Bit insulting really.

If this is your honest opinion on teaching, I wish you had better teachers. Some of mine were half-witted imbeciles, certainly, but they're soon forgotten. I had some others whose impact on me remains. And universally they were about empowering me and my curiousity, something I took very seriously when I was a teacher.

Unfortunately, its often the bad teachers who leave an indelible scar on a child's character. Those who blame the kids for their terrible teaching ability. The child suffers for the teacher's failure. I don't care how knowledgeable anyone is about a subject, if they can't teach it, they should be sacked. No lousy teacher should be kept in a job.Its too important....a lot of damage can be done in a year.

Anyway, suffice to say I get a little prickly when there is this assumption that all the 'lefty atheist teachers' are ramming godlessness down kids throats, or something.

Kids these days get no other input for the most part. What are they to assume when so many in the scientific community openly disparage anything to do with religion or the Bible? Humans are undeniably spiritual, so at least some exposure to faith based beliefs should be permitted....just for the balance. Otherwise you set them up for intolerance. What accompanies faith is not all bad you know.

Actually, based on my time both as a student, and as a university lecturer, that's not true. KISS works well. The thing is, KISS doesn't mean explaining the human genome in 2 easy sentences. That's not KISS.

KISS is being able to explain something complex in a simple manner. If I go to a doctor and I am told I need complicated surgery, he will not sit down and explain it in medical terminology...he will use layman's terms and perhaps draw me a diagram of what he intends to do. Hopefully, at the end of the consultation, I will feel reassured in the understanding of what to expect. It can be in more than 2 sentences.

It sounds much more like you are talking about cognitive dissonance. It sounds to me like you are saying you are not willing to rest when something doesn't sit right, and that you're willing to invest thought and effort until you get a picture that does sit right.
That's common to all people, to a degree, but increased knowledge and understanding commonly don't lead to a reduction in cognitive dissonance in the longer term.

I have spoken to people with this disorder.....that is not the way I approach something. I have a sense of logic and we all have that unexplainable 'thing' inside us that tell us when a 'chord' is struck....it just rings true. We don't know why it feels right, but it just does.

The gut is often the best indication that something important has been implanted. Not that we will run amok with it, but it is the first step to further investigation. The more we investigate the more truth will come to light. That can work in both directions. The truth about something will either attract us or repel us....as it should.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

No he doesn't.

Can nothing create everything?

We don't know that definitively yet, but scientists have proved matter can spontaneously appear from nothing under some circumstances.

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

Well, then what intelligence created the intelligence demonstrated in DNA?

Regardless of his methods or his tactics, (obviously the reason why atheists hate him) answer his honest questions for yourself. Can everything come from nothing?

See above

I personally think he had a good point with the banana. It is perfectly designed to be peeled and held in the direction of the mouth for immediate consumption. (when you are hungry, this is important) You really believe that was just an accident? Discarding the banana peel might be a trifle hazardous to pedestrians but it makes excellent fertilizer for the garden. "Nature" is applauded for its design and recycling skills.....but what is "nature" exactly? Is it that "something" that came from "nothing", I wonder?

This is a wild banana before genetic modification and the modern banana side by side:

Ray Comfort made a fool of himself when he made his wild claims about the shape and size of a banana without (surprise, surprise) any research into the matter hoping to convince gullible people, of whom you seem to be a part.

 

[shunyadragon]

My patented response to the multiverse theory is if there are so many multiverses that can just pop into existence, already addressed as magic, then God has to reside in one of them. Your logic in this thread is an abomination.

Patented response does not address your contorted conflicted view of science.

Like many fundamentalist Christians you unethically manipulate science to justify your agenda, but do not believe in science,

Example, you misuse and selectively cite Hawking to justify your view of the universe, but do not include that Hawking supports the concept of the multiverse.

Do you believe science is correct that the universe is billions of years old?

 

[shunyadragon]

I did address that. If the universe had no beginning, (assuming that the earth and all heavenly bodies came into existence in one cataclysmic event as in TBB) then the uranium on earth would have all become lead by now. The fact that there is radio-active uranium in large quantities proves that the earth was not always here, so the universe had to have a beginning.

Actually, this does not address the issue that in our universe super novas create new elements such as uranium and start the clock over again. Science can estimate the age of the universe indirectly based o uranium half-life, but they cannot go beyond that and 'know.' Also our universe may be part of a multiverse, or that it may be a cyclic universe.

(assuming that the earth and all heavenly bodies came into existence in one cataclysmic event as in TBB)

Science cannot make that assumption come to the conclusion to 'know' that our 'physical existence' has a beginning or not, because of the lack of information. Scientists realize that the cataclysmic event, if it happened, can have a very natural origin from a prior existing natural existence.

 

[james bond]

No he doesn't.

We don't know that definitively yet, but scientists have proved matter can spontaneously appear from nothing under some circumstances.


Well, then what intelligence created the intelligence demonstrated in DNA?


See above


This is a wild banana before genetic modification and the modern banana side by side:

Ray Comfort made a fool of himself when he made his wild claims about the shape and size of a banana without (surprise, surprise) any research into the matter hoping to convince gullible people, of whom you seem to be a part.

Ha ha. You're calling him gullible when you don't know if nothing can create everything? Nothing can't create everything. Nothing can't create a banana. Nothing can't create anything. This is common sense. This has been rendered false already. This is science. Jeez, Louise.

And the banana was selectively bred which is different from genetic modification.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Ha ha. You're calling him gullible when you don't know if nothing can create everything? Nothing can't create everything. Nothing can't create a banana. Nothing can't create anything. This is common sense. This has been rendered false already. This is science. Jeez, Louise.

Read a book. Specifically, this one: https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/B006VPAX3W
Quantum physics often flies in the face of common sense.
Even if we go with your so called common sense answer that something (S) cannot come from nothing(N), i.e, something else (SE) must have created something (S), then what created something else (SE), since, by your logic, N cannot create SE? So it must have been something something else else (SSEE). And we could go on and on forever.

And the banana was selectively bred which is different from genetic modification.

Your point being?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't know how much evidence one needs to prove anything to some people. How much is enough? Obviously for some, nothing will ever be enough until they come face to face with this being that they deny. Too late then methinks.

If you believe a great catastrophe is coming and you do nothing to warn people, what does that make you?
No one wants to say "I told you so"...but I think many people are worried about the pitiful state of the world and the direction that things are heading.

I have enough evidence to prove the Creator's existence to myself. I also believe that he did not leave the human race in the dark about his purpose concerning this earth and the humans he put here to manage it. We have instructions and we are benefited when we follow them.

Making our own decisions based on our limitations (not really knowing where a decision will take us) hasn't led us anywhere good...as far as I can see, it has been disastrous.



He asks simple questions that even a child can understand...and that is the problem with many in science. They can tackle all the difficult stuff that needs a science degree, but the simple questions leave them stumped.

Ask them how life evolved and they will rattle on for hours, but ask them how life began and they can't tell you.

We all know that an abundance of water is what makes planet Earth so unique in our solar system...it is also what sustains all life. Yet the planet is virtually covered in water that is not suitable for land dwelling creatures to drink....including us.

Do you think that the process of precipitation is just a fluke of nature? The sun creates evaporation so that moisture is gathered from the salty oceans and stored in clouds that dump fresh rainwater on land to keep land dwelling things alive. Don't you sometimes marvel at the volume of water that can be held in those clouds? It seems to defy gravity. But on the other hand, water in large volumes can be extremely destructive.

Every living thing requires water to survive.....animals, aquatic creatures, birds, reptiles, humans, trees and plants. But what is this miraculous substance that falls from the sky and keeps the ocean full? Why is it such a versatile commodity? What do we do with water apart from drinking it?
We bathe in it, wash our clothes in it, swim in it, ski and sail on it, admire it and use water features to decorate our homes with it. How much do we take this vital resource for granted?

How many creatures live in and around it?....
perfectly designed for their salty aquatic home....

When it is still, water reflects the landscape like a mirror...
is this beautiful scene just another fluke?

What about recreational activities? No still mirror here.
Waves pound most coastal areas.

How many ways can we enjoy water?

What about when it freezes?

We still enjoy it!.....it's still beautiful.

Why do we find waterfalls so breathtaking?

What is there about crystal clear tropical water that is so appealing?

Now ask yourself how much you would enjoy any of that if humans were not endowed with sight
and hearing. What if you had no sense of touch or balance? What if you had no sense of smell, or the ability to taste food?

Did the human brain that processes all that information just magically engineer itself?

Anyone who does not see purposeful and incredible design in creation is IMO, suffering with a special kind of blindness.

Periodic table of elements.

No active creation, just arrangements of atoms. You do realize those wonderful scenes come and go. Water is only one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. Essentially the "ash" left over from the violent release of energy when hydrogen and oxygen combines.

Water isn't created, nor anything is created.
What makes "creation" possible is the binding and unbinding of atoms under various conditions and pressures. A Creator did none of it as we know how each of these scenes are formed.

It does look beautiful though. It's good to see we evolved the capacity for pattern recognition and symmetry.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing can't create a banana. Nothing can't create anything. This is common sense. This has been rendered false already. This is science. Jeez, Louise.

The banana you buy at the store today.... Was it something 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago? Come to think of it where was that banana tree or even the seed?

Of course nothing can be turned into something. And that which we see as something, will someday be nothing again.

 

[james bond]

Patented response does not address your contorted conflicted view of science.

Like many fundamentalist Christians you unethically manipulate science to justify your agenda, but do not believe in science,

Example, you misuse and selectively cite Hawking to justify your view of the universe, but do not include that Hawking supports the concept of the multiverse.

Do you believe science is correct that the universe is billions of years old.

It seems you're the one who has conflicted views because you believe in multiverses and in the same breath preach common sense and science. And you said you don't believe in the BBT and then in the next post said you believe in the BBT.

I use Hawking because he's a proponent of the BBT and he explains it well. He's overcome great physical hardships. He's a smart man. I've already said I've read both his Brief History of Time books and a few of his papers on RF. Have you? Yes, he and you believe in a multiverse (which isn't science). He also believes in being able to travel back in time (not science either). Both are fiction at this time because neither are testable nor falsifiable. We may as well add multidimensions to this beyond the space time continuum and parallel universes. Hawking hasn't been able to overcome Newtonian (classical) physics with his quantum physics arguments. Hawking admits he wants to know why the universe exists and why something is greater than nothing.

And I can say the same of atheists and their science, which I have, of systematically eliminating God, the supernatural and the Bible from science. They're the ones who unethically manipulated what science is today to satisfy their agenda. Thus, we have creation science vs atheist science.

And what about intelligent design? We have seen design in science, but we aren't allowed to discuss it? Atheist science conveniently ignores the obvious.

As for the universe being billions of years old, it's atheist science and a topic for another day.

 

[james bond]

Periodic table of elements.

No active creation, just arrangements of atoms. You do realize those wonderful scenes come and go. Water is only one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. Essentially the "ash" left over from the violent release of energy when hydrogen and oxygen combines.

Water isn't created, nor anything is created.
What makes "creation" possible is the binding and unbinding of atoms under various conditions and pressures. A Creator did none of it as we know how each of these scenes are formed.

It does look beautiful though. It's good to see we evolved the capacity for pattern recognition and symmetry.

Water is two hydrogen atoms bonded with one oxygen atom.

Atoms are why there is a creator. Man can discover atomic and subatomic particles, but can't create an atom or subatomic particles. He is able to change an atom to a different atom, i.e. already given an atom, but can't create an atom. He can only create at the molecular level using atoms such a H2O.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems you're the one who has conflicted views because you believe in multiverses and in the same breath preach common sense and science. And you said you don't believe in the BBT and then in the next post said you believe in the BBT.

I believe in BBT the same way Hawking views the BBT as one of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, and Hawking confirms that you cannot consider the BBT the beginning of our physical existence.

I use Hawking because he's a proponent of the BBT and he explains it well. He's overcome great physical hardships. He's a smart man. I've already said I've read both his Brief History of Time books and a few of his papers on RF. Have you? Yes, he and you believe in a multiverse (which isn't science).

You dishonestly misuse Einstein, Hubble, Hawking and others to justify your fundamentalist agenda, bit than reject science to justify your agenda.

You have no background in science to determine that the multiverse is not science, and fail to acknowledge the fact that regardless of any theory or hypothesis, science has not and likely cannot ;know' nor determine whether our physical existence is eternal nor temporal,

And what about intelligent design? We have seen design in science, but we aren't allowed to discuss it? Atheist science conveniently ignores the obvious.

Science has not 'seen' Intelligent Design' in our physical existence. As witnessed by the Discovery Institute they have failed to come up with a falsifiable theory nor hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.'

As for the universe being billions of years old, it's atheist science and a topic for another day.

Not really, it is an issue, because you are being hypocritical and selectively unethical citing scientists like Einstein, Hubble and Hawking to justify your agenda, but rejecting their science of the age of the universe falsified by sound science by these same scientists.

Max Planck and Hubble were not atheists, and believed in a universe billions of years old based on sound science,

 

[james bond]

Read a book. Specifically, this one: https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/B006VPAX3W
Quantum physics often flies in the face of common sense.
Even if we go with your so called common sense answer that something (S) cannot come from nothing(N), i.e, something else (SE) must have created something (S), then what created something else (SE), since, by your logic, N cannot create SE? So it must have been something something else else (SSEE). And we could go on and on forever.


Your point being?

I've already made my points about being gullible.

Have you read that book? Second, have you read the reviews on that book? I've read the reviews and decided it wasn't worth the time. I did watch his debate with William Lane Craig and he discusses the same things. He lost the debate.

Here's the review I read about that book.

Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher?

Thus, common sense and Newtonian (classical) physics tells me that a universe or a bottle of pop can't come from nothing.

 

[james bond]

I believe in BBT the same way Hawking views the BBT as one of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, and Hawking confirms that you cannot consider the BBT the beginning of our physical existence.


You dishonestly misuse Einstein, Hubble, Hawking and others to justify your fundamentalist agenda, bit than reject science to justify your agenda.

You have no background in science to determine that the multiverse is not science, and fail to acknowledge the fact that regardless of any theory or hypothesis, science has not and likely cannot ;know' nor determine whether our physical existence is eternal nor temporal,




Science has not 'seen' Intelligent Design' in our physical existence. As witnessed by the Discovery Institute they have failed to come up with a falsifiable theory nor hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.'



Not really, it is an issue, because you are being hypocritical and selectively unethical citing scientists like Einstein, Hubble and Hawking to justify your agenda, but rejecting their science of the age of the universe falsified by sound science by these same scientists.

Max Planck and Hubble were not atheists, and believed in a universe billions of years old based on sound science,

I just laid out Lemaitre, Hubble and Einstein to show that the universe had a beginning. You still seem that you can't get basic physics through your head since you're full of Hawking's quantum mechanics. Where is your common sense?

Moreover, the BBT is what Hawking describes emanating from a single point and this is what he describes well. This is what I was talking about when referring to Hawking.

I have enough of a background in science and that's why I probably upset a lot of the atheists here. The multiverse isn't science because it's neither testable nor falsifiable. I'm parroting atheists now. Didn't I just finish saying you don't know what you're talking about in a nicer way?

I didn't mention ID, but intelligent design. We see that all the time in our scientific findings. Why can't we discuss it?

 

[shunyadragon]

I just laid out Lemaitre, Hubble and Einstein to show that the universe had a beginning. You still seem that you can't get basic physics through your head since you're full of Hawking's quantum mechanics. Where is your common sense?

Common sense? Enough common sense to realize you are unethically and dishonestly selectively citing scientist to justify a a religious agenda. IF the universe began as a singularity, there is nothing here to conclude that our universe nor our physical existence has a beginning, nor conclude that any such beginning is not natural.

Moreover, the BBT is what Hawking describes emanating from a single point and this is what he describes well. This is what I was talking about when referring to Hawking.

This remains an unethical dishonest selective citation to justify your religious agenda.

I have enough of a background in science and that's why I probably upset a lot of the atheists here.

Selective unethical dishonest cut and paste citations to justify a religious agenda does not reflect any knowledge of science whatsoever. I have been here quit a while, and I do not see any atheists nor scientists here impressed with your lack of knowledge,

The multiverse isn't science because it's neither testable nor falsifiable. I'm parroting atheists now. Didn't I just finish saying you don't know what you're talking about in a nicer way?

The fact is you do not know what your talking about. I actually never said it was testable nor falsifiable. I said it is possible, so is a cyclic universe, and a universe originating from a Black hole. I said there is insufficient information to determine whether or not our universe nor our physical existence had an absolute beginning or not. I also said I support the multi-verse concept as Hawking and other do, and that Hawking NEVER concluded the BBT was an absolute beginning of anything.

IF I thought that the multi-verse is a falsifiable concept, at present it is not, I would conclude that there is a sufficient basis to consider the physical existence as eternal without question, but the reality is science cannot at present falsify nor determine whether or physical existence is eternal or not. Insufficient information, and selectively citing scientist to justify your agenda just makes you

I didn't mention ID, but intelligent design. We see that all the time in our scientific findings. Why can't we discuss it?

ID is short for intelligent design. You may 'see' it, but no falsifiable scientific theory nor hypothesis has been proposed that falsifies Intelligent Design. Simply stating I 'see' the evidence for 'Intelligent Design' in nature is not an adequate argument.

If you can present an academic reference that presents a theory or hypothesis that is falsifiable, please do. The Discovery Institute has failed to do so. If you can come up with the academic references I will discuss it.

Still waiting. . .

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't know how much evidence one needs to prove anything to some people. How much is enough? Obviously for some, nothing will ever be enough until they come face to face with this being that they deny. Too late then methinks.

See, it's statements like your last that cause issue; they're just unfoundable. For example, did you know that most polytheists don't deny your god's existence? He's just not our god, just as my gods aren't the gods of a Hellenist. So say I meet your god... so what? How does that prove that he's the one who created hand-perfect bananas? How does it prove that he's anything more than a Canaanite sky god?

I have enough evidence to prove the Creator's existence to myself.

Bully for you, but you do understand that evidence is practically useless to other people, yes?

He asks simple questions that even a child can understand...

No, he asked loaded questions that we've all heard before.

Ask them how life evolved and they will rattle on for hours, but ask them how life began and they can't tell you.

And they're honest in saying "we don't know". Saying "god did it" like you (and Ray) want them too is all well and fine for belief, but that's neither the purpose or yet capability of scientific process. When you get right down to it, we all don't know; you don't know that your god created life, just as I don't know that my gods did. We believe.

And even then, you're left with the massive problem of which god created life. How do you prove that it was yours?

Do you think that the process of precipitation is just a fluke of nature?

I think you're wrong, and skewing the matter, to call it a "fluke". Not to mention assuming on my thoughts of the matter. I would say that it's a matter of physics, just like leaving a water bottle in the sun will develop condensation on the inside that evaporates and falls.

How does that prove your god?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Water is two hydrogen atoms bonded with one oxygen atom.

Atoms are why there is a creator. Man can discover atomic and subatomic particles, but can't create an atom or subatomic particles. He is able to change an atom to a different atom, i.e. already given an atom, but can't create an atom. He can only create at the molecular level using atoms such a H2O.

You're correct with H2O. That was my own mistake and didn't correctly proof read my post. Two hydrogen H2 and oxygen O. A bit red-faced for it, but it is what it is. *Grin*

Atoms cannot change from one element to another but they can be split with immense energy, but understand even though they can be split apart into two, they can also be recombined back together yet the elemental makeup of that atom will never change. What makes atoms interesting is the atomic shell that makes the elements unique in how they combine and split apart from atom to atom and the molecules that are formed that makes everything we see and are.

I don't see how in the world a creator can fit into this just because we don't know the origin of atoms other than from the intense pressures in conditions inside stars from where the elements emerge.

Why in the world would anybody think that atoms themselves are a type of proof for a creator? They can already be manipulated through science and we know a lot more about the atom then we had decades and centuries ago.

There's nothing so far that indicate any kind of intelligent design or direction is present.