Debate on Creationism

[shmogie]

Doesn't really matter, since I was responding to a specific post of yours, not the OP...

It seems you're in dodging mode.

I don't dodge, as you found out when challenging me to prove you wrong, and I did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't dodge, as you found out when challenging me to prove you wrong, and I did.

What are you talking about?

Certainly not the post that started this as all your replies where filled with nothing but "blablabla" responses and dodging.

Perhaps confusing it with another post / thread?

 

[shmogie]

What are you talking about?

Certainly not the post that started this as all your replies where filled with nothing but "blablabla" responses and dodging.

Perhaps confusing it with another post / thread?

Yep, the thread where you demanded I prove you wrong re the requirement that employers must give employees time off for religious observations, I did.

Dodging in this thread, not hardly.

 

[shmogie]

What was under atheism in the 20th century? Nothing.

Did you misspell Communism? Secular humanist are largely atheists. We have no philosophical or religious wars. We leave that to the theologies of despair like Christianity and ideologies of violence



Sure he does. Or maybe he doesn't. Or maybe he doesn't even exist. Nobody knows My guess is as good as yours. Literally.



People always want to absolve their gods of any constraints while holding everything else to them - a special pleading fallacy. I don't. Such constraints must be reasonable at a minimum, not a self-contradiction or a fantasy proclaimed as fact with no support.



No. It is faith that is whistling in the wind. All progress has come from the application of reason to empirical evidence. How can faith possibly reveal truth given that any two mutually exclusive ideas, at least one of which must be false, can be believed by faith,

What progress are you speaking of ? Massive brutal wars that kill millions of people ? Real poverty and starvation in most of the world ? Diseases approaching pandemic levels ?

The humanist myth that things will just get better and better with time is false.

Regardless, The Bible defines faith as " the evidence of things hoped for, the reality of things not seen " .

So, how does that lead to a religion of despair ? Actually, it leads to just the opposite. True Christianity destroys despair, not create it.

Reality is not a special pleading, it is just the way it is. If you cannot understand something, you cannot even postulate an hypothesis to account for what you don't understand.

So you apply unapplicable human rules, designed to analyze human ideas and behavior, to a being that exists within a reality totally non human, and totally oblivious to human rules. Quantum physics even demonstrates this in a very minor way. A single particle can appear to be in two different places at the same. Isn't that totally contrary to the rules of your reality ?

You can choose whatever rules you want to apply to God to fit your wants and needs.


However, I know they do not apply to God. They cannot. Just as I know that the laws of physics cannot apply to the singularity before the big bang, if in fact there was one.

 

[shmogie]

Pretty much everything on this planet, including the planet itself, was formed from existing materials.
In fact, the materials themselves were also formed from pre-existing materials, in the cores of stars and in super novae. And those stars also formed from pre-existing materials, through gravity.

So what exactly are you talking about? What is that you are claiming was "created ex nihilo" by your god, and how do you know?



And we do. Every day.

From what was the universe formed ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep, the thread where you demanded I prove you wrong re the requirement that employers must give employees time off for religious observations, I did.

Dodging in this thread, not hardly.

Ha, so now you're doding the subject at hand by pointing at you not dodging something in a completely different thread concerning a completely different subject.

Got it. And quite hilarious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From what was the universe formed ?

I don't know.

The point wasn't about the universe. It was about things in the universe.

 

[shmogie]

People have done violence in the name of Christ but not based on the words of Christ.
And so.... I do think there is a difference between churchianity and Christianity.

The teachings of Christ cannot be judged by the behavior of those who purport to follow them. Disappointment is the result.

Charles Spurgeon made this his primary theme " Christ came to save sinners" echoing Paul.

The church is not a museum of saints, but is a hospital for sinners.

A man may call himself a fence post, but that doesn't make him one.

A man, or an army may call themselves Christians, but that doesn';t make it so.

 

[shmogie]

Ha, so now you're doding the subject at hand by pointing at you not dodging something in a completely different thread concerning a completely different subject.

Got it. And quite hilarious.

So, what am I dodging here, your standard diatribe about Christianity ? Which has nothing to do with thread ?

Your conclusions are specious, as I have told you before. Just irrelevant opinions.

So, what more do you want ?

 

[1213]

…

Just about EVERY big breakthrough in science, defied our common sense.

Only those that can’t be proven by scientific method.

If relativity was "common sense", then it wouldn't have taken an Einstein to figure it out.

That what is reasonable in the theory of relativity is so simple that I think no normal person would even bother to make a number of it. And that part which is not very reasonable is well described by Nikola Tesla:

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..."
No, Tesla Did Not Predict Faster Than Light Neutrinos

In some solutions the theory works, because it is only necessary to know the ratio or relation, not all exact numbers.

 

[1213]

…In fact, the materials themselves were also formed from pre-existing materials, in the cores of stars and in super novae. And those stars also formed from pre-existing materials, through gravity…

Sorry, I don’t see any good reason to believe that.

So what exactly are you talking about? What is that you are claiming was "created ex nihilo" by your god, and how do you know?

I believe the things Genesis 1 tells were created, were created as the Bible tells. And I say only that I believe so. Reason why I believe it is that I think it is the most reasonable explanation. I believe it also because I have learned to trust to what the Bible tells, it seems to be correct in many things.

 

[1213]

You need to define what you mean by the vague term "creating". We know that the various driving forces of evolution are more than capable of creating the diversity of life that we see.

In Bible creating means, God gives existence to things by word. God says for example, “let there be light” and it comes.

Actually there is no evidence for your Designer.

That is same as saying, “nothing exists”. I think things exist and because things that Bible tells God created, exists, it is evidence for God the creator.

But then creationists won't let themselves understand the concept of evidence.

It seems to me that you don’t understand the word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only those that can’t be proven by scientific method.

"Prove" is a bad word to use in the sciences since nothing is "proven". But what you do not believe has be "proven" by the standard that you used.

That what is reasonable in the theory of relativity is so simple that I think no normal person would even bother to make a number of it. And that part which is not very reasonable is well described by Nikola Tesla:

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..."
No, Tesla Did Not Predict Faster Than Light Neutrinos

In some solutions the theory works, because it is only necessary to know the ratio or relation, not all exact numbers.

Tesla may just have been jealous of a theory that he did not understand because in the macro world Einsein's work has been confirmed countless times. There is no concept that comes even clsoe to dethroning it. And it has gotten stronger over the years, not weaker. A very good sign that if it is not correct it is so close to beng correct that the exceptions to it are extemely few and far between.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Bible creating means, God gives existence to things by word. God says for example, “let there be light” and it comes.

So a spoken magic spell made the Earth.

That is same as saying, “nothing exists”. I think things exist and because things that Bible tells God created, exists, it is evidence for God the creator.

No, it is not. It only says what it says. There is no evidence for a designer. As far as "nothing" one must define that carefully. And you do not seem to understand what is and what is not evidence. You are forming an ad hoc explanation using circular logic. In the sciences to have evidence one must first have a testbalbe idea. That means an idea that could has a reasonable test that could refute it if wrong. What reasonable test woudl refute your ideas? Without a reasonable test, a test based upon your idea's own merits, not the merits of another idea, you have no evidence.

It seems to me that you don’t understand the word.

No, I can demonstrate that I understand the concept of evidence. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding. Would you like to discuss it. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the concept but other sources have the same definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

We could pretty much stop with the first sentence. The rest merely qualifies it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only those that can’t be proven by scientific method.

1. Theories are never proven in science

2. would you say relativity and quantum mechanics has been sufficiently demonstrated, considering its principles are fundamental to our technological society's practical and commercial implementations thereof?

To say that these don't defy common sense, is to just be dishonest.
It defied Einstein's common sense so much he was extremely uncomfortable with it. Especially with certain predictions, like black holes. He thought that was so nonsensical that he had to have made a mistake somewhere. But today off course we all know he was right. We've observed black holes today. A phenomenon that defied the common sense of one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived so much, that he assumed he must have been mistaken.

Again: common sense are those things that you rationally conclude based on the knowledge you have.

If you don't know about relativistic effects, common sense won't lead you to conclude that the flow of time is experienced differently by an observer then by the observed travelling at certain speeds.

I think the vast majority of us, were quite baffled when we first encountered this concept and had it explained to us.

That what is reasonable in the theory of relativity is so simple that I think no normal person would even bother to make a number of it.

yes the parts that don't defy common sense, won't defy common sense

And that part which is not very reasonable is well described by Nikola Tesla:

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..."
No, Tesla Did Not Predict Faster Than Light Neutrinos

In some solutions the theory works, because it is only necessary to know the ratio or relation, not all exact numbers.

Meanwhile, if you don't calibrate the clocks on satelites to accomodate for relativistic effects, GPS is off by several miles.

And I'm not aware of anyone having proposed an alternative with better results. Whatever that alternative would be, it would just as well have to account for relativistic effects. Because those are very real - we can observe and measure them. Speed goes up = time slows down relative to an observer.
And then there's the black holes that also exist wich relativity predicted and thus also accounts for.

So really, none of this is on point.
Because the point was that relativistic effects defy common sense when you first learn about it.[/QUOTE]

 

[1213]

So a spoken magic spell made the Earth.

It is interesting how can “let there be light” be called magic words. If I say the words, nothing happens, so I don’t think those can be called magic words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is interesting how can “let there be light” be called magic words. If I say the words, nothing happens, so I don’t think those can be called magic words.

You need a wizard. But why use magic when the evidence says that none was needed?