PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Genesis 9:13
       A probelm for biblical creationism?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
nanu

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wish to bring up a point for those who take a literal intrepretation of the bible as an explaination of creation.

Genesis 9:13  "I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth."

Is this saying that there was no rainbows before the flood? If we assume the bible to be true, this passage must also be true.
But here is the BIG probelm. The sun like all other hot bodies emits electromagnetic radiation across a band of frequencies. Part of this band is the visual light which make up the colours of the rainbow. We all know light travels at a fixed speed through space. What everybody might not know is that this speed is determined by two constants of nature. In different materials, such as raindrops, light travels slower than in space. This is determined by the nature of the water and these two physical constants. The reduction in speed and the geometric nature of the droplet cause the light to bend. The amount light bends depends on its frequency (colour) thus splitting white light into its different colours creating a rainbow.

My point here is that the existance of rainbows is predetermined by the constants which define our universe. If we assume, very reasonably, that the universe was the same before and after the flood we must assume that rainbows existed before and after the flood. No rainbows means a different universe. The above bible passage is simply not true.  

I would like to get a creationists intrepretation of this if there is any.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:25 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunately, there is only one Bible literalist here-- Unworthy Servant. Regardless of the evidence you give for your claim, he'll just justify the Bible's claims using the Bible itself, which means he'll be likely to give us some completely unrelated quote of the Bible stating that you are wrong. We await his post... *raises eyebrows*...(Look at some of his posts, you'll know what I mean)...

Anyway, back to your question. I'm actually not sure; just because this is the first time a rainbow has been mentioned, doesn't mean they didn't exist until the Bible mentioned it. That would be like saying because the Bible didn't mention the color black before the flood, black didn't exist before it. Know what I mean? :-)...

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/15/2005 at 11:09 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:06 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all, i minor point to be made is that if the speed of light can (and is) altered naturally, it can't be assumed to be constant by any means.

that aside global flood believers (such as myself) usually maintain that the world itself was a much different place prior to the flood. It is entirely possible that through the course of events surrounding the flood, that the physical appearance of the earth changed drastically. It's not outside the realm of possibility that there existed a different atmospheric composition (different percentages of the gases we find today, different air-pressures at their respective altitudes etc.) These differences could also explain the longevity of life found among humans of that era. It is also possible that these differences are what allowed certain species to grow to the sizes we find fossilized today which are vastly larger than the same species grow to today. Air bubbles trapped inside amber (viewed by some to represent prehistoric atmospheric samples) contain very large proportions of oxygen in comparison to that we find today. in any case, im not saying that these things are all true, but it is definately possible that there were no visible rainbows before the flood, if in fact the atmosphere was very different.

This is all admittedly speculation, but i refuse to rest on simplistic assumptions that the conditions we see today were identical all throughout history... there is no evidence i'm aware of that supports the constancy of atmospheric conditions, for they are known to be more dynamic in nature. Perhaps a catastrophic event (such as a flood) was what changed the world from that which supported near-millenia in length lives and that which we live in today. I dont know, but it is possible.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 11:37 AM on May 16, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 11:06 PM on May 15, 2005 :
Unfortunately, there is only one Bible literalist here-- Unworthy Servant. Regardless of the evidence you give for your claim, he'll just justify the Bible's claims using the Bible itself, which means he'll be likely to give us some completely unrelated quote of the Bible stating that you are wrong. We await his post... *raises eyebrows*...(Look at some of his posts, you'll know what I mean)...

Anyway, back to your question. I'm actually not sure; just because this is the first time a rainbow has been mentioned, doesn't mean they didn't exist until the Bible mentioned it. That would be like saying because the Bible didn't mention the color black before the flood, black didn't exist before it. Know what I mean? :-)...

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/15/2005 at 11:09 PM).



Actually the bible did mention black before the great flood.

take note: Genesis 1: 2 and 4

But I see the point you are making.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:05 PM on May 16, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2005 :
first of all, i minor point to be made is that if the speed of light can (and is) altered naturally, it can't be assumed to be constant by any means.

that aside global flood believers (such as myself) usually maintain that the world itself was a much different place prior to the flood. It is entirely possible that through the course of events surrounding the flood, that the physical appearance of the earth changed drastically. It's not outside the realm of possibility that there existed a different atmospheric composition (different percentages of the gases we find today, different air-pressures at their respective altitudes etc.) These differences could also explain the longevity of life found among humans of that era. It is also possible that these differences are what allowed certain species to grow to the sizes we find fossilized today which are vastly larger than the same species grow to today. Air bubbles trapped inside amber (viewed by some to represent prehistoric atmospheric samples) contain very large proportions of oxygen in comparison to that we find today. in any case, im not saying that these things are all true, but it is definately possible that there were no visible rainbows before the flood, if in fact the atmosphere was very different.

This is all admittedly speculation, but i refuse to rest on simplistic assumptions that the conditions we see today were identical all throughout history... there is no evidence i'm aware of that supports the constancy of atmospheric conditions, for they are known to be more dynamic in nature. Perhaps a catastrophic event (such as a flood) was what changed the world from that which supported near-millenia in length lives and that which we live in today. I dont know, but it is possible.



The speed of light doesn't change, the frequency of light changes as it changes angle throug differnt objects. To say that there was no rainbows before the great flood would be to say that there was no water in the atmosphere before the great flood, that would mean no clouds, no rain, no moisture. It is most likly that this is an atepted explanation of what at the time was unexplicable but now know how it works. But this for you would be to admit flaws in the bible, which I don't expect you will do. Which is where religion and science differ, religion denies changes and new information where as science changes to incorprate the new evidence.



-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 7:00 PM on May 16, 2005 | IP
nanu

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2005 :

This is all admittedly speculation, but i refuse to rest on simplistic assumptions that the conditions we see today were identical all throughout history... there is no evidence i'm aware of that supports the constancy of atmospheric conditions, for they are known to be more dynamic in nature.



I totally agree. But i said, the universe, meaning that chemically and phyiscally everything reacts the same as it does now. Admittingly a simplistic but necessary assumption for nearly all our scientific theories.

If this is true the atomospheric requirement would be one either with no water, no rain and conitinous drought. Or one with no or little and very scattered light (picture an extremely foggy day). Either condition instead of prolonging human life would probably end it pretty quickly.

Quote from Carns at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2005 :
first of all, i minor point to be made is that if the speed of light can (and is) altered naturally, it can't be assumed to be constant by any means.



This is what i said, reread my post i apologise if i was not clear. I said its speed is constant in space, if you disagree about this you will have to take it up with Einstein. In matter that allows it to pass its speed reduces.



 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:13 PM on May 17, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

everything that is argued by those who dont believe in creation use reason which would seem to make perfect sense.  Look at it this way though, God is all powerful so would it not be possible then for God to simply change a few things.  Maybe before the flood God had it to where there where no rainbows this seems strange but then again he is God and can do what he wants.  Just something that could have happened


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:27 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or maybe rainbows existed previously but god chose that this would symbolize his covenant with Noah because it says no where in the bible that rainbows were first created then.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:48 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or possibly, rainbows have always existed where ever there has been the right conditions. The whole point of science is not to say "God Did It" Science is there to show how things work by natural methods, and no real scientific theory will ever incorporate god, because you need proof for science and there is NO proof that god exists and no proff that he doesn't. But personaly I belive that there was no global flood there is no consistant evidence for a global flood, yes there is evidence for floods but not all in the same era. And I will hold this opinion until I see evidence more than "god did it" or "its in the bible".


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:00 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
blinddeafdumb

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most ancient cultures have a flood legend, which I think is understandable. As the last great Ice Age was ending, the warming of the Earth, melting of really Big glaicers,evaporation,ect. would have caused a period of global flooding, rising sea levels, really bad storms. The same things we worry about today, as we move into another warming period. Ancient Man would have been in dire straits at such a time, and many deaths would have resulted. Whole tribes could have been wiped out, ect. The gods must have been REALLY mad at somebody.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:07 AM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually the Bible never really talked about rain before the flood, only a mist. Either way it is an assumption. You assume that man is the supreme being in the Universe you think you are.
Either the Bible is true or it is not. Why do you care?
What's your point? It is you that claims to preach a scientific theory of origins , what's the problem , no proof?
So you set up a strawman that no one can prove.
Please be more creative than this.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:32 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
blinddeafdumb

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rainbows, right? When such a period of global warming occured, weather patterns would have shifted drastically on a global scale. Areas previously dry would have turned much wetter, other areas much dryer (sahara) . Perhaps the Summarian tribe that would later become the Hebrew were taught of such a time when their long ago homeland, a dry place suddenly flooded was becoming far too dangerous. God imparted wisdom to Noah, who made a sort of floting ranch/ house werein he kept the stock animals and things his family needed to survive. The Mother of all Floods comes one day, and they survived, and migrated to a safer place. Remember, families were the line of communication across time in those days. Anyway,The dryer place would have had much fewer, if any, rainbows to see. When the local climate changed, rainbows would have become very common, due to the increase in liquid precipatation. I won't go into the accuracy and validity of oral histories, but  simply say that all forms of history are modified by cultural, political, and religous influences. In our own schools, where the scientific approach is the norm, world and American history is taught a little  bit differently than it was only a single generation ago. So after many generations, the change in the freqency of rainbows could have very well become the rainbow covenant in the Bible. In hard times, we all need reasurance. A rainbow is beauty and hope after the storm.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 8:40 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok there is NO evidence for consistent global flooding, there is evedence for local flooding but that is it. Even the Ice melting at the end of the ICE age would not have caused a flood, because the ice melted gradualy not suddenly.
I do NOT asume man is the supreme being in the universe, just the earth, show me evidence we arn't. I do however belive that statisticaly there must be other inteligence life due to the vast size of the universe.
Also please refrain from the miss use of scientific terminology, precipitation means a solid forming from the reation of two liquids.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:51 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
blinddeafdumb

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did I miss use a word? I stand corrected. A planet covering global flood is not , in my opion possile, but the sudden or much more frequent appearence of a rainbow to a local tribe is.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 11:02 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 9:51 PM on May 27, 2005 :
Ok there is NO evidence for consistent global flooding, there is evedence for local flooding but that is it. Even the Ice melting at the end of the ICE age would not have caused a flood, because the ice melted gradualy not suddenly.
I do NOT asume man is the supreme being in the universe, just the earth, show me evidence we arn't. I do however belive that statisticaly there must be other inteligence life due to the vast size of the universe.
Also please refrain from the miss use of scientific terminology, precipitation means a solid forming from the reation of two liquids.
Please refrain? That's seems a strange request.
Your use of the word statistic seems a bit odd as well.

statistics

n : a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters

In order to create a statistic information is required. You have no information on the possibility of life on oher planets. All you know is there is life on this planet and other planets exist. Any numerical value placed on the proability of life on other planets is pure imagination. Statistics are estimates based on information not wishful thinking.

No one ever claimed there was consistent global flooding.
con·sis·tent    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kn-sstnt)
adj.
In agreement; compatible: The testimony was consistent with the known facts.
Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform: a consistent pattern of behavior.
Reliable; steady: demonstrated a consistent ability to impress the critics.
Mathematics. Having at least one common solution, as of two or more equations or inequalities.
Holding true as a group; not contradictory: a consistent set of statements.

Sea creature 20k feet high on a mountain ? Must have been some local flood. :}
You can argue you don't like interpretation of the evidence as a global flood but to say you "know" there was not one is your opinion not a known fact.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:45 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 3:00 PM on May 26, 2005 :
Or possibly, rainbows have always existed where ever there has been the right conditions. The whole point of science is not to say "God Did It" Science is there to show how things work by natural methods, and no real scientific theory will ever incorporate god, because you need proof for science and there is NO proof that god exists and no proff that he doesn't. But personaly I belive that there was no global flood there is no consistant evidence for a global flood, yes there is evidence for floods but not all in the same era. And I will hold this opinion until I see evidence more than "god did it" or "its in the bible".


Where is this law that science is required to be atheistic? you keep quoting it , show it to me.
Science means to know. How do you know God did not create the world just like the Bible says?

Scientist all have pre-suppositions To say that only atheist /humanist who deny the possibility of creation is absurd.

History is full of such scientist. Science was created by people who believed that to an overwhelming extent.

Name one Major University that was not started by Christians. Just one in the History of the World.+


Yours is a political/religious argument not a real one.

Science does not know everything. It seems to have become your god. You worship cronos and chaos . time and chance.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:55 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:55 PM on May 27, 2005 :
Quote from Peter87 at 3:00 PM on May 26, 2005 :
Or possibly, rainbows have always existed where ever there has been the right conditions. The whole point of science is not to say "God Did It" Science is there to show how things work by natural methods, and no real scientific theory will ever incorporate god, because you need proof for science and there is NO proof that god exists and no proff that he doesn't. But personaly I belive that there was no global flood there is no consistant evidence for a global flood, yes there is evidence for floods but not all in the same era. And I will hold this opinion until I see evidence more than "god did it" or "its in the bible".


Where is this law that science is required to be atheistic? you keep quoting it , show it to me.
Science means to know. How do you know God did not create the world just like the Bible says?

Scientist all have pre-suppositions To say that only atheist /humanist who deny the possibility of creation can practice science is absurd.

History is full of such scientist. Science was created by people who believed that to an overwhelming extent.

Name one Major University that was not started by Christians. Just one in the History of the World.+


Yours is a political/religious argument not a real one.

Science does not know everything. It seems to have become your god. You worship cronos and chaos . time and chance.








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:56 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is this law that science is required to be atheistic? you keep quoting it , show it to me.
Science means to know. How do you know God did not create the world just like the Bible says?


Geez, you don't even understand science!
Science is a method of examining the natural world!  It can't study the supernatural, so it says nothing about it!  Here's a good definition of science from here:
Science
- a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Where is this law that science is required to be atheistic?

Science isn't atheistic!  But since God is supposedly omnipotent, unconstrained by natural laws, He is beyond science.  So science says nothing about God, doesn't say he exists, doesn't say he doesn't.  Since God can't be observed, detected, tested, there is no proof that he even exists, there is nothing science can examine.  

Scientist all have pre-suppositions To say that only atheist /humanist who deny the possibility of creation can practice science is absurd.

Yes all humans have presuppositions, but the scientific method is the MOST objective method we have for examining the natural world.  Go where the data leads should be the credo of every scientist.  Those who believe in creationism all ready have the answer (dogmatically arrived at), so they view all the evidence through this unscientific lense.  They are not objective, they don't try to be objective.

History is full of such scientist. Science was created by people who believed that to an overwhelming extent

So what, christians at one time believed the sun oritted the earth, that demons caused disease, that heaven was in the sky, do we still believe these things?  Creation by God isn't a scientific theory (it's a possibility but not scientific), creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  What are you saying, that because early christians belived somthing, we should believe it too, despite what the evidence says?

Science does not know everything. It seems to have become your god. You worship cronos and chaos . time and chance.

Science isn't worshipped, it is used to explain the natural world.  And it has proved to be the best method we have for examining the natural world.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:04 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Name one Major University that was not started by Christians
How do you define major, I would guess you mean the old standing universities, most of which are in the western world, such as Oxford, Cambridge or Yale. However if you look in history, you will find that there are plenty of major learning establishments with no christian influence. The Greek Medical School of Alexandria for example, that taught a scienfic view of human anatomy, hence it was the only place in the world where human disection was legal. The majority of the major greek thinkers were athiests.

My use of statistics was correct...
sta·tis·ti·cal (stə-tĭs'tĭ-kəl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or employing statistics or the principles of statistics.

sta·tis'ti·cal·ly adv.

I was relating the principles of statistics. There is clearly a possibility that life can arise on a planet, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and the universe is widely belived to be infinate, therefore there is a huge possability of life on other planets.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:40 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Sea creature 20k feet high on a mountain ? Must have been some local flood. :}
You can argue you don't like interpretation of the evidence as a global flood but to say you "know" there was not one is your opinion not a known fact.


There isn't enougth water in the world to flood it 20K feet. That is impossible!
However the other explanation is tectonic plates, which we KNOW move, and thus that mountain was once at the bottom of the sea.




-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:42 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start.  You may say there is no God and such things but matter did not simply appear on its own to start the big bang threory.  The universe could not have be made by chance over a billions of years its just not possible.  


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:27 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.

You may say there is no God and such things

No evidence for a god...

but matter did not simply appear on its own to start the big bang threory.

Matter did not start the Big Bang, matter didn't exist for a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.  Great amounts of energy were released in the Big Bang.  We know that energy can create itself out of nothing, that has been observed.  Now here's the flaw in your arguement, why is it more logical to say God is eternal (or created himself) than it is to say energy is eternal (or created itself).  We directly observe energy creating itself, but we have no evidence whatsoever for God...What is your explaination?

The universe could not have be made by chance over a billions of years its just not possible.

The universe was not made by chance, it formed by natural forces that we don't fully understand yet.  You make this claim but can't explain how your god came into existance, that's a double standard.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

plain and simple there is none.

can you prove to me that the wind is real?

God is... God is all present, we can not even began to understand God. everything you present to me while good arguments they are  based on reason, things that must make sense.

I dont think you even grasp how big God is.  God has allways been and will always be.  He is the great I am, the alpah and the omega, the beginning and end.  Our minds can not even come close to grasping God.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 11:25 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

can you prove to me that the wind is
real?


Yes I can, wind, though not visible to the naked eye, can be detected, measured, studied.

God is... God is all present, we can not even began to understand God. everything you present to me while good arguments they are  based on reason, things that must make sense.

how do you know God is all present?  How do you know God even exists?  Everything in nature, so far, can be ascribed to natural causes, the supernatural is not needed.  Besides haveing religion drummed into your head since childhood, why do you believe in God?

I dont think you even grasp how big
God is.


If He can't be detected, if He can't be studied, If there is no evidence to support his existance, if He doesn't even exist, then of course we can grasp notning about Him...

God has allways been and will always
be.


How do you know this, what evidence supports this?

He is the great I am, the alpah and the omega, the beginning and end.  Our minds can not even come close to grasping God.

Why is this any different from other God myths?  And how does this support the existance God?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:49 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skins38 why do you find it so hard to acept an infinate universe, but you easily accetp an infinite god?

You may ask the question back at us, so I will answer now. We have no evidence for god. However this does not disprove god, a lack of evidence doesn't mean the oposite. Yes there may be a god, but untill there is evidence to prove a god I will remain agnostic.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:35 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
 There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.

I would be facinated to hear that theory. What exisred before reality?
Don't quite understand what you mean by that, do you?
Perhaps LaLa land existed before reality ? Please enlighten me.

Matter did not start the Big Bang, matter didn't exist for a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.  Great amounts of energy were released in the Big Bang.  We know that energy can create itself out of nothing, that has been observed.  Now here's the flaw in your arguement, why is it more logical to say God is eternal (or created himself) than it is to say energy is eternal (or created itself).  We directly observe energy creating itself, but we have no evidence whatsoever for God...What is your explaination?

Energy creating itself has been observed? For example? Did this happen before or after reality?
If the Big Bang did not create matter and there was no matter for millions of years , what was there? LaLa Land perhaps?
Please tell us where matter came from and why.


The universe was not made by chance, it formed by natural forces that we don't fully understand yet.  You make this claim but can't explain how your god came into existance, that's a double standard.

That is a contradiction in terms, the universe was not made by chance , natural forces formed it.
Why did the natural forces exist if not by chance and why would they form anything. That would require purpose.
God is eternal and therefore did not come into existence. Otherwise He would not be God.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause .
The universe had a beginning and therfore a cause.
God had no beginning [/b] and therefore no cause




(Edited by peddler8111 5/29/2005 at 7:07 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:05 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still think that my idea was the one that mad the most sense

I'll be straight forward about another point that annoys me, spamming! If you have multiple points you'd like to make, then use the ENTER key... I don't feel like seeing your avatars more than I have to. Another scenario would be if you posted and you realized you left something out, then use the EDIT tool which is located near the quote tool which I know all of you enjoy using. And basically, it shows that you lack the meaning of a debate which is to have an argumentary dialogue with someone ELSE. and it shows you don't care about the opions of others and just want to feel smart by making different post about basically the same crap.

And if you belive in the great flood and Noah then you are missing the big picture. The ice age happened tens of thousands of years ago while you bible beaters say the earth is a infantile 6000 years old. The Ice age had ended way before Adam and Eve which would make this knowledge useless. Also, of course it rained before Noah! If not Noah wouldn't be so freaked out.

Besides, rainbows don't rely on the temperature or andthing like that. It works on the theory of color which exised previously to Noah...


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 7:05 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:04 AM on May 28, 2005 :
Where is this law that science is required to be atheistic? you keep quoting it , show it to me.
Science means to know. How do you know God did not create the world just like the Bible says?


Geez, you don't even understand science!
Science is a method of examining the natural world!  It can't study the supernatural, so it says nothing about it!  Here's a good definition of science from here:
Science
- a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Who said you could study God? Are you saying if you believe in Creation instead of spontaneous generation you are not a scientist.
You talk like scientist who believe in Creation don't experiment. Ever hear of Newton.
Do airplanes fly , or MRI machines provide valuable data? Does the Laser have ant benefits?
If what you think is true they don't exist.
You are making a childish political argument.
I could say Crick's DNA research is invalid because he is an atheist who believes in the life from a galaxy far far away theory.
I would never say that because it's not true, niether is the fact that believing God created the universe means Damadian's research is invalid.



Science isn't atheistic!  But since God is supposedly omnipotent, unconstrained by natural laws, He is beyond science.  So science says nothing about God, doesn't say he exists, doesn't say he doesn't.  Since God can't be observed, detected, tested, there is no proof that he even exists, there is nothing science can examine.  
According to you it is. You say science requires naturalism. Naturalism requires no miracles from God , it is atheistic.
Chance cannot be observed either , or what might happen if you add long periods of times to small , insignificant changes.
You quote is as fact because naturalism is your priori.

"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed, without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance. Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp.127- 135, p.129)



Yes all humans have presuppositions, but the scientific method is the MOST objective method we have for examining the natural world.  Go where the data leads should be the credo of every scientist.  Those who believe in creationism all ready have the answer (dogmatically arrived at), so they view all the evidence through this unscientific lense.  They are not objective, they don't try to be objective.

Their is NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.

So Newton was not a scientist or Kelvin ? The Wright brothers were idiots and MRI machines invented themselves?
Are you really that dense or do you just hate Christians?



So what, christians at one time believed the sun oritted the earth, that demons caused disease, that heaven was in the sky, do we still believe these things?  Creation by God isn't a scientific theory (it's a possibility but not scientific), creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  What are you saying, that because early christians belived somthing, we should believe it too, despite what the evidence says?

A lot of people believed the sun orbited the earth before Galileo -a Creationist -proved it was not so. Are you saying the pagans knew it before Gallileo?
Where in the Bible does it say demons cause disease? Where does it say Heaven was in the sky.
You are just spouting atheist propaganda and have no clue what you are saying.
Not suprising as you believe reality is a relativly new condition.
You keep saying Creationist don't practice science, they invented it!

Science isn't worshipped, it is used to explain the natural world.  And it has proved to be the best method we have for examining the natural world.
You really miss the point. Science is the only way to examine the natural world. Naturalism /atheism is your favorite way of interpreting the evidence. That does not mean it's the correct way .

The wrong answer will always be the wrong answer.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 8:04 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:55 PM on May 27, 2005 :
Quote from Peter87 at 3:00 PM on May 26, 2005 :
Or possibly, rainbows have always existed where ever there has been the right conditions. The whole point of science is not to say "God Did It" Science is there to show how things work by natural methods, and no real scientific theory will ever incorporate god, because you need proof for science and there is NO proof that god exists and no proff that he doesn't. But personaly I belive that there was no global flood there is no consistant evidence for a global flood, yes there is evidence for floods but not all in the same era. And I will hold this opinion until I see evidence more than "god did it" or "its in the bible".


Where is this law that science is required to be atheistic? you keep quoting it , show it to me.
Science means to know. How do you know God did not create the world just like the Bible says?

Scientist all have pre-suppositions To say that only atheist /humanist who deny the possibility of creation is absurd.

History is full of such scientist. Science was created by people who believed that to an overwhelming extent.

Name one Major University that was not started by Christians. Just one in the History of the World.+


Yours is a political/religious argument not a real one.

Science does not know everything. It seems to have become your god. You worship cronos and chaos . time and chance.




Name one university that teaches creationsm and not evolution AND is still accredited.



-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:12 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would be facinated to hear that theory. What exisred before reality?

Still too lazy to do your own research!  Look up superstring theory or Brane world theory.  As to what existed before our universe, eleven dimensional space.

Don't quite understand what you mean by that, do you?

Yeah, I understand it, do you have problems with advanced cosmology or quantum physics?

Energy creating itself has been observed? For example?

quantumm fluctuations, Casimir effect.

Did this happen before or after reality?

During our reality, it happens all the time and has been observed.

If the Big Bang did not create matter and there was no matter for millions of years , what was there?

sub atomic particles, energy...From here:
FirstAtoms
"The temperature is now about 300 million K and the Universe consists of protons, the excess electrons that did not annihilate with the positrons, helium-4 (26% abundance by mass), photons, neutrinos, and antineutrinos. There are no atoms yet because the temperature is still too high for the protons and electrons to bind together. "

So it seems you don't understand cosmology either...

That is a contradiction in terms, the universe was not made by chance , natural forces formed it.
Why did the natural forces exist if not by chance and why would they form anything. That would require purpose.


No contradiction, natural forces react to each other all the time.  Why did they exist, why not?  Why do you claim god exists?

God is eternal and therefore did not come into existence.

Prove it!

Everything that has a beginning has a cause .

Now that's a contradiction!  you said God is eternal, why can;t reality be eternal?  Who said reality had a cause, whosaid reality had a begining.  Stop playing games, you have no idea what you're talking about here...

The universe had a beginning and therfore a cause.

Why couldn't the universe have caused itself?

God had no beginning and therefore no cause[/b]

how do you know God had no begining?  Prove it!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:32 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the laws of cause and effect may not always work in that way, you may feel the effect before the cause has even happened, I can't remember where I found this out, but I'm sure you can do some research.

Why do you not struggle to think of god as eternal when you struggle to think of energy or the universe as eternal?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:56 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He knows little about what he preaches (there is very little he does preach) (please note his over-zealous excitement when mentioning incest)


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 10:40 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:32 PM on May 29, 2005 :
I would be facinated to hear that theory. What existed before reality?

Still too lazy to do your own research!  Look up superstring theory or Brane world theory.  As to what existed before our universe, eleven dimensional space.
So the string theory , which is purely hypothetical and far from universally accepted explains what existed before reality?
I have the video on my hard drive. Don't recall that part. Please answer the question.


Yeah, I understand it, do you have problems with advanced cosmology or quantum physics?

Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang. Do you wish to resend the statement or explain it?
What is advanced cosmology? Quantum physics is an interesting theory. Do you have a problem with reality?


quantumm fluctuations, Casimir effect.
That is your example of energy creating itself? Your personal observation?



During our reality, it happens all the time and has been observed.
During our reality? Who has the other reality and when was it?


If the Big Bang did not create matter and there was no matter for millions of years , what was there?

sub atomic particles, energy...From here:
FirstAtoms
"The temperature is now about 300 million K and the Universe consists of protons, the excess electrons that did not annihilate with the positrons, helium-4 (26% abundance by mass), photons, neutrinos, and antineutrinos. There are no atoms yet because the temperature is still too high for the protons and electrons to bind together. "

So it seems you don't understand cosmology either...

Okay there were sub atomic particles . Why ?
What caused them. What caused the Big Bang. What existed before the Big Bang? How did nothing explode?
"The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium,
only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust." (Dr. Robert V. Gentry,
Research Physicist

Where did the others come from?

No contradiction, natural forces react to each other all the time.  Why did they exist, why not?  Why do you claim god exists?

I know him personnally.
Why do you claim that he dosen't?

God is eternal and therefore did not come into existence.

Prove it!
In a scientific sense I can't. But I have a reason to believe He does. I know He does.
How do you know evolution is true, you can't see it or test it?

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary

transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have

included them. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such

fossil.." (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of

Natural History, in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in

Darwin's Enigma, 1988 p. 89)


Everything that has a beginning has a cause .

Now that's a contradiction!  you said God is eternal, why can;t reality be eternal?  Who said reality had a cause, whosaid reality had a begining.  Stop playing games, you have no idea what you're talking about here...

You said it airhead!
"There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.

Origin of the start? As opposed to the origin of the end maybe?

The universe had a beginning and therfore a cause.

Why couldn't the universe have caused itself?

Same reason cars don't created themselves.
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at

random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible

to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends

are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable

that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher

intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious

that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident.

The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." (Sir Fred Hoyle,

well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to

a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury

Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life

were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful

intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and

mathematician, Cambridge University)






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:06 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh dear, he is now quoteing Fred Hoyle, if thats where he is getting his back ground information maybe we should just acept that he knows nothing about the topic and just ignour him, but lets continue to play games with people that don't understand evolution etc.

You are asking questions that no one knows the answer too. Yes it is all hypothetical, but there is a damb sight more evidence for it than "god did it".

OK so your asking for his personal observations of quantumm fluctuations and the casmir effect. Lets Ask you for personal observations of the creation story.

During our reality? Who has the other reality and when was it?
Again you ask questions that can't be answered, and just sound silly, but if we were to ask a similair question about god your answer would be "we cannot study god, we are not suposed to know" Well guess what be can't studdy things out side of this reality. You ask these questions as if human knowledge is complete.

The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium,
only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust


Hey I guess we have to explain it all... You see there is somthing special about helium and hydrogen, they are the smallest of atoms, and guess what, when you put them in nuclear reactors (and nuclear bombs) you can form nuclear fussion, and becuase they are the smallest atoms they can be combined in differnt amounts to create every other atom in the universe, and all this happens by random. Guess what is happening in our sun and every other star. It is basicaly I giant nuclear furnace, mainly just hydrogen. You wouldn't belive what sub-atomic paricles can do ;).

I know him personnally.
Why do you claim that he dosen't?

Realy what he like? when did you last go round for tea? Any evidence for this?
I don't claim he doesn't exist, simpily the christian god doesn't exist because so much in the bible has been faulsified (in  my opinion). And there is no evidence for a god so until there is I will remain agnostic, no evidence iether way so, I don't know, people are always worried to admit they don't know

How do you know evolution is true, you can't see it or test it?
We have had this discussion before, there is evidence for evolution, you just choose to put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and start shouting the bible. You just ignour the evidence, probably due to a fear of death, thats what drives most people to religion. Guess what, its going to happen wether you belive it or not.

And I have already mention hoyle... 1/10^40000 maybe a small number, but think of it this way, the universe is near infinate, and there are therefore a near infinte number of planets, so there is more than enougth chance of it happening. What is the chance of you winning the lottery? But what is the chance of someone winning the lottery?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:02 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So the string theory , which is purely hypothetical and far from universally accepted explains what existed before reality?

Yes it does, I'd throw that video out along with all your other creationist crap, if I were you!  And yes superstring theory and brane world theory are hypothetical and far from universally accepted, but there is SOME evidence for them.  Even as we speak theoretical physicists are conducting experiments to confirm or deny them.  And it should be noted that though there is slim evidence, it is infinitely greater than the evidence that exists for creation, which is absolutely none.

Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang.

Where did I say that?  There could be a higher reality that our universe exists in or the universe could have created itself, either theory has more evidence to support it and is more logical than "Goddidit".

That is your example of energy creating itself? Your personal observation?

That is empirical data, it has been observed numerous times, tested, retested, checked, rechecked, it's a fact.  Energy has been seen to create itself uncaused.

During our reality? Who has the other reality and when was it?

I was merely clearing up your confusion, remember, you said:
"Did this happen before or after reality?"
This indicated that you didn't understand that energy self creates in our reality.

Okay there were sub atomic particles . Why ?

Since particles have been seen to appear uncaused also, why doesn't apply.  Geez, learn some physics!

What caused them. What caused the Big Bang.

The Big Bang could have been uncaused.  Why do you say it needed a cause?

What existed before the Big Bang?

OR it could be a part of a higher reality, it could have been caused by the collision of dimensional membranes.

How did nothing explode?

It's when you make statements like this that you really show your ignorance.  The Big Bang was NOT an explosion!

The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium,
only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust." (Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Research Physicist


I'd hardly call Gentry a research physicist, more like a discredited creationist, but he's right here.  What's the problem?

Where did the others come from?

Oh brother, you really don't know anything about cosmology and astronomy!  Real quick, the free hydrogen in the early universe collapsed under it's own gravity into denser and denser clouds, when the density became too great, nuclear fusion kicked in and stars were born.  Once a star fuses all the hydrogen, new elements are created and when the star goes nova, those new elements are strewn out into space.  This happened millions of times, creating ALL the elements.

I know him personnally.

You know God personally?!?  Or you believe you know God personally...
6000 years ago the ancient egyptians believed they knew Ra and Isis and Set personally, 3000 years ago the Greeks thought they knew Zeus personally, 1500 years ago the Vikings thought when they died the valkyries carried them to Valhalla, the Hindus belive they are part of the Karmic whell of life, how does your relgious dellusion differ from these others?

In a scientific sense I can't.

Then why do you argue, in a scientific sense, that he did create the universe?

But I have a reason to believe He does. I know He does.

You are delluded.

How do you know evolution is true, you can't see it or test it?

Because by examining the evidence there is no other alternative.  By examining the evidence we do see evolution in action, we do test it and in 150 years it has not been proved wrong.

Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of
Natural History, in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in
Darwin's Enigma, 1988 p. 89)


All ready demonstrated that this was a dishonest creationist trick taking Dr. Patterson's quote out of context, once again, here's what Patterson REALLY has to say on the subject:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." "

Origin of the start? As opposed to the origin of the end maybe?

What the hell does that mean??
amswer the question, why can God be eternal but reality can't, why can God be uncaused and reality can't?

Same reason cars don't created themselves.

But you said:
"Everything that has a beginning has a cause."
AS I've proved everything that has a begining does NOT have a cause, as demonstrated by the Casimir effect and quantum fluctuations.
So the universe DOES NOT need a cause.  You are wrong again.

Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer

Why should we care what Hoyle, an astronomer, say about the origins of life?
And why are you bringing up abiogenesis in a discussion about cosmology?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:49 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, Peddler, do us a favor and shut the hell up because we are dicussing rainbows not the rainbow waving Hoyle. So talk rainbows not big bang theory. This happens way before the rainbows and it doesn't make a difference. The question is whether god changed the speed of light and physics to make rainbows not the Casimir effect so just shup up before you look like you lack awareness.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 11:13 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 6:49 PM on May 30, 2005 :
[Yes it does, I'd throw that video out along with all your other creationist crap, if I were you!  And yes superstring theory and brane world theory are hypothetical and far from universally accepted, but there is SOME evidence for them.  Even as we speak theoretical physicists are conducting experiments to confirm or deny them.  And it should be noted that though there is slim evidence, it is infinitely greater than the evidence that exists for creation, which is absolutely none.

So PBS is puting out creationist crap? I did not know that . You are a world of information.
So if scientist are working on something with flimsy evidence that proves what they are working on is a scientific fact? You are a wealth of knowledge. What ever you say is fact.

Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang.

Where did I say that?  There could be a higher reality that our universe exists in or the universe could have created itself, either theory has more evidence to support it and is more logical than "Goddidit".
How can you trust your thoughts when you don't remember your own stories.

Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.
I still want to know what you mean by the origin of the start of reality.
What was unreality like? Never heard that theory before and you should be an expert on the subject.



That is empirical data, it has been observed numerous times, tested, retested, checked, rechecked, it's a fact.  Energy has been seen to create itself uncaused.
You can say anything . Give me an example .

I was merely clearing up your confusion, remember, you said:
"Did this happen before or after reality?"
This indicated that you didn't understand that energy self creates in our reality.

No you lost me way back when you started talking about the theory of the theory of the origin of reality. Explain unreality before you go to the next level of absurdity please.

Since particles have been seen to appear uncaused also, why doesn't apply.  Geez, learn some physics!
I know a little physics I never heard this story. I think you made it up. Give me an example.
The Big Bang could have been uncaused.  Why do you say it needed a cause?
I did not say that I said it was a fairy tale. FAIRY STORIES ARE CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHO MAKE THEM UP . So therefore the big bang does have a cause.

OR it could be a part of a higher reality, it could have been caused by the collision of dimensional membranes.
It could be be a fairy story. You say something is a scientific fact and then refer to it with subjunctive phrases.



It's when you make statements like this that you really show your ignorance.  The Big Bang was NOT an explosion!
Okay -what made it go bang?:} Your funny.

The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium,
only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust." (Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Research Physicist


I'd hardly call Gentry a research physicist, more like a discredited creationist, but he's right here.  What's the problem?
He is a fellow ,an invited guest scientist at Oakridge and Los Alamos. Your politics would make Huey Long cringe. You can say anything and lie with authority. Show me where he in discredited. You have no honor.
How do you account where the other 92 came from? Little green men?

Oh brother, you really don't know anything about cosmology and astronomy!  Real quick, the free hydrogen in the early universe collapsed under it's own gravity into denser and denser clouds, when the density became too great, nuclear fusion kicked in and stars were born.  Once a star fuses all the hydrogen, new elements are created and when the star goes nova, those new elements are strewn out into space.  This happened millions of times, creating ALL the elements.
That is a fairy story.

You know God personally?!?  Or you believe you know God personally...
6000 years ago the ancient egyptians believed they knew Ra and Isis and Set personally, 3000 years ago the Greeks thought they knew Zeus personally, 1500 years ago the Vikings thought when they died the valkyries carried them to Valhalla, the Hindus belive they are part of the Karmic whell of life, how does your relgious dellusion differ from these others?
You think unreality existed . An atheist cannot find God for the same reason a theif cannot find a policeman.


Then why do you argue, in a scientific sense, that he did create the universe?
It is you that have to prove it created itself. You have to prove evolution is true , not just what some scientist believe. Either evolution is true or creation is.
I cannot argue scientifically that my God created the universe. Just that an intelligent mind did, people are not that swift.

You are delluded.
That's possible. But I don't believe in spontaneous generation or that unreality use to exist so I would bet the ranch it is you not me.

Because by examining the evidence there is no other alternative.  By examining the evidence we do see evolution in action, we do test it and in 150 years it has not been proved wrong.
Many brilliant scientist examine the evidence and see the handiwork of God so that is a false statement to say there is no other alternative. Just because you don't like or agree with it to say it does not exist is not true. Science does not rule out any possiblity and very few scientist would make the statement you did.
You say science does not deny the existence of God. To say there is no other possibility than evolution does just that.
Opinions are not facts. Just because you can make up stories does not make them true.

[All ready demonstrated that this was a dishonest creationist trick taking Dr. Patterson's quote out of context, once again, here's what Patterson REALLY has to say on the subject:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." "
He said on BBC that they were just stories. He responded to a letter about his book by saying there is not one fossil living or dead that provides proof of trans-mutation. He made simlar statements 3 times. He is a liar , an idiot, or that is how he truly sees it.

Archaeopteryx is a bird. It lived before the therapods it was supposed to decend from. Get a grip.
Origin of the start? As opposed to the origin of the end maybe?

What the hell does that mean??

Inquiring minds want to know. You are the one that stated there was an origin, a start to reality. If I was you I would admit I made it up. Otherwise answer the question. It is you that started the discussion about the origin of reality , not me. I find it amusing.
Which scientist are working on it? What universities? What are the textbooks called?
The great cranial echo theory?

amswer the question, why can God be eternal but reality can't, why can God be uncaused and reality can't?
Reality is eternal.Unreality does not exist. If unreality was real it would be reality.
You say some really strange things.

The quality or state of being actual or true.
One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.



But you said:
"Everything that has a beginning has a cause."
AS I've proved everything that has a begining does NOT have a cause, as demonstrated by the Casimir effect and quantum fluctuations.
So the universe DOES NOT need a cause.  You are wrong again.
You did not prove anything. How does the casimer effect prove anything?
You make these wild statements and I think you are telling stories, I don't believe you have any more clue about this subject than reality.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:40 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can you trust your thoughts when you don't remember your own stories.

Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak


Still don't see where I said the reality didn't exist before the Big Bang, try again!

I still want to know what you mean by the origin of the start of reality.

Here let me repost my answer for you, since you only read what youwant to see:
"There could be a higher reality that our universe exists in or the universe could have created itself, either theory has more evidence to support it and is more logical than "Goddidit"."

You can say anything . Give me an example.


I already did!  The Casimir effect!

No you lost me way back when...

You get confused alot, do you take medication?

know a little physics I never heard this story. I think you made it up

You obviously know NOTHING of physics, biology, astronomy and science in general.
Don't you ever get tired of asking me to do your research for you?  From here:
VirtualParticles
"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)"
From the same site:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]"

Any more questions you need me to answer for you?

I did not say that I said it was a fairy tale. FAIRY STORIES ARE CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHO MAKE THEM UP . So therefore the big bang does have a cause.

Hahaha, dodging another question you can't answer.

It could be be a fairy story. You say something is a scientific fact and then refer to it with subjunctive phrases.

I never said it was a scientific fact, Ijust said it had more evidence thatn Goddidit".  Then I asked you why you thought "Goddidit" was a better explaination, you couldn't answer me.

Okay -what made it go bang?:} Your funny.


It didn't.

Show me where he in discredited.

OK, from here:
GentryDebunked
On Gentry's New Redshift Interpretation, this page tears it apart, thoroughly debunking it.
Read it if youwant, but here's the conclusion:
"While Dr. Gentry's model apparently escaped criticism by whatever review went on before being published in MPLA, upon further examination it is seriously lacking. Despite claims to be a static solution to the Einstein Field Equations, the NRI, in fact, is not. Even while assuming the simple Hubble Relation as an initial condition it fails to match the observed linearity in variation of redshift with distance. While its elements may persist for a short time in the configurations that Dr. Gentry describes, the matter inside the hydrogen shell and the insufficiently massive hydrogen shell will significantly diverge from their initial positions in less than a Hubble time. Lastly, the NRI completely fails to account for the observed light element abundance. This all makes Dr. Gentry's preprint claim to have found the "Genuine Cosmic Rosetta Stone" in his NRI seriously questionable."

On the formation of the elements, you said:
" That is a fairy story."
Why elemental formation is well supported and NO scientists doubt it.  From here:url=http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=118903]Elements[/url]
"The Pre-Stellar Epoch
The Big Bang jumpstarts the initial large-scale production of
hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium.

The Epoch of Very Massive Stars
The earliest stages of heavy element formation in the Galaxy were
dominated by stars with masses ten times that of the Sun or more, and
lifetimes of a few million years or less. These supermassive stars
produced small amounts of all the elements, but their presence can be
identified most clearly by excesses of elements like strontium,
yttrium and zirconium. Released by supernovae and absorbed by new
star-forming clouds, these elements were incorporated into the next
generation of stars

The Europium Epoch
For the next 30-100 million years, element formation was dominated by
supernovae from stars with about 8-10 times the mass of the Sun. These
longer-lived stars enriched the Milky Way in heavier elements like
barium, europium, and other lanthanide elements in the Periodic Table,
such as cerium.

The Double Shell Epoch
A major shift from previous epochs, lasting from about 100 million to
a billion years after the Galaxy formed, it featured stars with
perhaps 3-7 times the mass of the Sun. These stars produced more
strontium, barium, and some particular lanthanides from
nuclear-burning interior shells during the later stages of their
evolution, not by supernovae. Their products are characterized by more
solar-like distribution of heavy elements.

The Iron Epoch
From one billion to three billion years after the Galaxy formed,
supernovae from white dwarf stars a bit larger than the Sun produced
large amounts of iron. The addition of large amounts of iron to the
Milky Way's chemical stew can be deduced by the relative decrease of
heavier metals within stars which hold about 1/100th of the Sun's
overall metal abundance."

This is doubted by no one in the scientific community, what do you have to refute it?

You think unreality existed

Liar.

It is you that have to prove it created itself.

No I don't I just have to show it's a much better explaination thatn "Goddidit" and I
have.

You have to prove evolution is true

That's already been done, just because you refuse to accept it because you want to remain ignorant and superstitious, doesn't falsify it.  Evolution is valid, it has been tested continually for 150 years and has not been found wanting.  It is the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth that is scientifically defensable.

Many brilliant scientist examine the evidence and see the handiwork of God

And they still accept evolution.  Like I said, 99.9% of the biologists in the U.S. alone accept evolution and many of them are christians.

Archaeopteryx is a bird. It lived before the therapods it was supposed to decend from. Get a grip.

No it didn't. m Therapods originated in the Triassic, Archaeopteryx didn't appear until the Jurassic, you never get the facts straight!
And if Archaeopteryx was a bird, why did it have more dinosaur characteristics than bird characteristics?  No it most certainly was NOT just a bird.

You are the one that stated there was an origin, a start to reality.

Nope, I said there were a couple of different theories, all of which were better than "Goddidit".  Let me reitterate, for the dim witted, the universe could have been uncaused or it could exist in a greater, eternal reality.

Reality is eternal.Unreality does not exist. If unreality was real it would be reality.
You say some really strange things.


You're the only one talking about unreality...
Answer the question, why is it more logical for God to be eternal than reality being eternal?

You did not prove anything. How does the casimer effect prove anything?

It proves that everything that begins doesn't need a cause, which proves you wrong!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:45 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh brother, you really don't know anything about cosmology and astronomy!  Real quick, the free hydrogen in the early universe collapsed under it's own gravity into denser and denser clouds, when the density became too great, nuclear fusion kicked in and stars were born.  Once a star fuses all the hydrogen, new elements are created and when the star goes nova, those new elements are strewn out into space.  This happened millions of times, creating ALL the elements.



That is a fairy story.


Sorry but demon, did you miss that. Thats a good laugth, so just out of interest what the hell do you think a star is peddler? or do you still belive that we are the center of the universe and the sun roates around us, and night is just a veil over god and the stars are holes in veil. Sorry but you just shrug off this is a fairy tale, but blindly follow biblical creation.

And to settle another point! Evolution does not go against god! It goes against litral biblical interpretation, however many cristians acept genesis as a story, and belive that god worked through natural methods to create the world and life. Evolution is NOT anti-god, considering that evolution is to do with diversity there is nothing to surgest that god didn't create the first life, hey if he did it was probably by abiogenesis becuase thats what the evidence points too. I'm not saying god did it, just that it is possible that god works through natural methods, however this is just a possability.

Also you say that its iether evolution or special creation, this is simpily incorrect. If you were to prove to me right now that evolution is false (go on I dare you) I would not belive special creation unless you proved that as well. So prove to be that evolution is not true and that special creation is.

(Edited by Peter87 5/31/2005 at 09:42 AM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:36 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 

(Edited by Peter87 5/31/2005 at 09:43 AM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:41 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 09:36 AM on May 31, 2005 :


That is a fairy story.

Emmanuel Swedenborg learned that at a  16th century seance.

Sorry but demon, did you miss that. Thats a good laugth, so just out of interest what the hell do you think a star is peddler? or do you still belive that we are the center of the universe and the sun roates around us, and night is just a veil over god and the stars are holes in veil. Sorry but you just shrug off this is a fairy tale, but blindly follow biblical creation.
There is no where in the Bible it says the Earth revolves around the sun. Whether the earth is close to the center of the universe is not known to science.
The Bible does not say stars are holes in a veil. Have you ever read the bible? It says God made them not that they were holes in a veil.
A star is a celestial body that can be seen from the energy is produces . Do you think Galileo was an atheist?
When your arguments are direct attacks and political statements it means you have no legitimate argument. And no class.

And to settle another point! Evolution does not go against god! It goes against litral biblical interpretation, however many cristians acept genesis as a story, and belive that god worked through natural methods to create the world and life. Evolution is NOT anti-god, considering that evolution is to do with diversity there is nothing to surgest that god didn't create the first life, hey if he did it was probably by abiogenesis becuase thats what the evidence points too. I'm not saying god did it, just that it is possible that god works through natural methods, however this is just a possability.
You say evolution is a fact. That is a definitive statement and requires absolute proof.
Saying may be god did or did not is saying it was supernatural or natural and you don't know.
Facts require knowledge.
Once again. Evolution is the anti-thesis of belief in a creator god. To accept it you must disregard everything the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ. That He was the Creator of all things, the Kinsman Reedemer , and that He was Resurected from the dead. Without the uniformitarian principle, no miracles from God , the time line fails.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You have to call Jesus Christ a liar and the Bible as a pack of lies to accept evolution. It is an atheist worldview and it has always been one.
Just because you sit in a chicken house for an hour on Sunday does not make you a chicken.
If Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the Universe He was not the Christ. It really is that simple.
Some evolutionist are honest about that.

Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’

Michael Ruse
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’


Also you say that its iether evolution or special creation, this is simpily incorrect. If you were to prove to me right now that evolution is false (go on I dare you) I would not belive special creation unless you proved that as well. So prove to be that evolution is not true and that special creation is.

(Edited by Peter87 5/31/2005 at 09:42 AM).

The atheist cannot find God for the same reason a theif cannot find a policeman.

One cannot prove special creation any more than spontaneous generation. However spontaneous generation was disproved 120 years ago.

If life did not evolve it was created. There is no third theory.
Maybe you could join Demon in the belief of the origin of reality and it has not occured yet.

Long ago and far far away!




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:47 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 02:45 AM on May 31, 2005 :

Still don't see where I said the reality didn't exist before the Big Bang, try again!
Posts: 33 | Posted: 6:27 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP  
Demon38
  One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.
So were you refering to reality not existing before the big bang or before the first life?
Either way if reality had an Origin it was after the Big Bang and Unreality existed .
You are really losng grip w/ reality here. Why nor admit you made this up? Your just digging a hole too deep to crawl out of.


Here let me repost my answer for you, since you only read what youwant to see:
"There could be a higher reality that our universe exists in or the universe could have created itself, either theory has more evidence to support it and is more logical than "Goddidit"."
This was not in your original post. What does it have to do with the Origin of Reality . Give it up you can't win this one. No one here agrees with you.
Know you know what I feel like. Well , not really, there are people somewhere that agree with me. :}

You get confused alot, do you take medication?
recently I have been worried about my increased use of asprin.


You obviously know NOTHING of physics, biology, astronomy and science in general.
Don't you ever get tired of asking me to do your research for you?  From here:
VirtualParticles
"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)"
From the same site:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]"
I have read that before. It does not prove energy created itself. I have all of Hawkins books. I have them on my mp3 player as well. He is a brilliant guy but his views are not all bsed on known facts and many disagree with him.

Any more questions you need me to answer for you?
Yea . What was Unreality like? Or maybe I should ask, what is it like? :}


Hahaha, dodging another question you can't answer.
What question?



It didn't.
Why is it called the Big Bang then?



OK, from here:
GentryDebunked
On Gentry's New Redshift Interpretation, this page tears it apart, thoroughly debunking it.
Read it if youwant, but here's the conclusion:
"While Dr. Gentry's model apparently escaped criticism by whatever review went on before being published in MPLA, upon further examination it is seriously lacking. Despite claims to be a static solution to the Einstein Field Equations, the NRI, in fact, is not. Even while assuming the simple Hubble Relation as an initial condition it fails to match the observed linearity in variation of redshift with distance. While its elements may persist for a short time in the configurations that Dr. Gentry describes, the matter inside the hydrogen shell and the insufficiently massive hydrogen shell will significantly diverge from their initial positions in less than a Hubble time. Lastly, the NRI completely fails to account for the observed light element abundance. This all makes Dr. Gentry's preprint claim to have found the "Genuine Cosmic Rosetta Stone" in his NRI seriously questionable."

You have no idea what science is. Scientist are suppose to argue . Talk /origins is an atheistic political organization. So what if they present an argument. Galileo was not well accepted either.
Because some disagree does not discredit anything , certainly not  the person himself.
You ad hominem atttack show your complete lack of morality.

[quote[
On the formation of the elements, you said:
" That is a fairy story."
Why elemental formation is well supported and NO scientists doubt it.  
.

I would like to know if the average evolutionist here think much of you for calling me a LIAR everytime you disagree.
Gentry is a scientist and He disagrees. I can give you a long list of others as well.
you really are a mental midget to say in one sentence a brilliant scientist is discredited and then say not one disagrees.

No I don't I just have to show it's a much better explaination thatn "Goddidit" and I
have.
I disagree. Just because you say it is better means nothing.



That's already been done, just because you refuse to accept it because you want to remain ignorant and superstitious, doesn't falsify it.  Evolution is valid, it has been tested continually for 150 years and has not been found wanting.  It is the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth that is scientifically defensable.

There are many scientist that provide a defense for it. Because you disagree does not mean anything.

And they still accept evolution.  Like I said, 99.9% of the biologists in the U.S. alone accept evolution and many of them are christians.
Dr. Damadian invented the MRI . He holds the patent for it.
He believes that Genesis is history and evolution is destroying society and is a scurge on the planet.
Therefore you are wrong. There are brilliant scientist who think evolution is a crock.
Christ was the creator God. Saying you are a Christian that believes Jesus Christ was a liar is a contradiction in terms. You can say anything.
You are the one that stated there was an origin, a start to reality.
[/quote}
Nope, I said there were a couple of different theories, all of which were better than "Goddidit".  Let me reitterate, for the dim witted, the universe could have been uncaused or it could exist in a greater, eternal reality.

Do to your obvious denial of the truth I will post it again. Your words :

One thing science will never be able to explain is the [b]very
start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.[/b] How many times will you bold face lie and deny you said this? If you did not believe it possible you would not have said this.
To put it in context you often say the mere fact that scientist are studying something makes it fact.
In this case you made it up, there are no scientist stupid enough to study this or any organization stupid enough to pay for it.
You are special .
the concept only exist in your mind.


You're the only one talking about unreality...
Answer the question, why is it more logical for God to be eternal than reality being eternal?
One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.

Again:
One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.

Again:One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.
Is that enough?



Again:

It proves that everything that begins doesn't need a cause, which proves you wrong!
How does it? Because you say it does.

You say lots of stupid things.

Again:One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.
Again:
One thing science will never be able to explain is the very start

Why not?  There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.













-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:36 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok you ignoured the major point of my post. How demon explained the existance of all the elements of the earth, IS CORRECT! and you shrug it off as a fairy tale, you are mis informed. Learn some basic science then come back.

Oh, and learn some asturology history, what I described is how people used to think the stars were.

Evolution goes against the BIBLE! It does NOT go against GOD!

Oh and I agee with demon, it is no one that agree's with you.

Also why is it called the big bang? for god sake, learn a theory before you try to disprove it. It was a phrased used by the discredited Fred Hoyle, the one you like the quote. The big bang infact didn't go bang and it wasn't that big.

(Edited by Peter87 5/31/2005 at 3:21 PM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:18 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if u go against the Bible then u go against God at least that what i believe


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 3:47 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The bible is NOT the only acount of God. There are many religions in this world all with as little eviodence as you. If you disagree with the bible its still not hard to belive in a god, I could go get first hand evidence about this from a Muslim friend of mine if you want.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 5:03 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 5:03 PM on May 31, 2005 :
The bible is NOT the only acount of God. There are many religions in this world all with as little eviodence as you. If you disagree with the bible its still not hard to belive in a god, I could go get first hand evidence about this from a Muslim friend of mine if you want.

And you point is? If you want to debate the Koran start a new thread. Or would you prefer the Hadeeths?
The Korans version of Creation is no tthat different .




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:07 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it was a reply to skins post, saying if you go against the bible you go against god.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:34 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i believe that the god like allah and other gods from other religions are not the same God i worship.  I believe that the Bible was written by God inspired men.

U may try and say that they are the same God but they are not.  Religions like Islalm and Christanity are very different in what they believe.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:40 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can you people stop saying "at least that is what I believe." Because if someone disagrees with you, they are probably inclined to not really care about what you believe.

And I'm proud to note that God is understandable, and that if you are not a Bible literalist, he won't make you burn in hell. But apparently, skins n' peddler here feel a bit differently about that >.<...."At least that is what I believe, because apparently as long as I believe something it must be true *wink**wink*"...

AND PLEASE, PLEASE make A FRIKIN EFFORT TO TYPE CORRECTLY, your opponent is not going to take you seriously if you don't even capitalize...
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:42 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 3:18 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Ok you ignoured the major point of my post. How demon explained the existance of all the elements of the earth, IS CORRECT! and you shrug it off as a fairy tale, you are mis informed. Learn some basic science then come back.
Long ago and far far away is not science. He presented no rational explanation for why the elements appeared. There is none.

Oh, and learn some asturology history, what I described is how people used to think the stars were.
Your beliefs started with a seance in the 1600's . Read about Emmanuel Swedenborg. These are all scenarios not facts.

Evolution goes against the BIBLE! It does NOT go against GOD!
It was designed to destroy Christianity. The belief in the God of the Bible.
The belief in a creator God.
Just because you can create a god that agrees with evolution does not mean he exist.
Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’

Oh and I agee with demon, it is no one that agree's with you.
Then your all agreeing that Say So is all you have. Tell me what existed before reality or you are as brainless as he is.


Also why is it called the big bang? for god sake, learn a theory before you try to disprove it. It was a phrased used by the discredited Fred Hoyle, the one you like the quote. The big bang infact didn't go bang and it wasn't that big.

Discredited ? Do you even know what that word means? Because talk/origins said so?

Tell me how reality started or I will conclude you are just a mindless follower.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:41 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.