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
     Help Creationist in poll
       Help balance the poll result.

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

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You keep maintaining that particles do not pop out of existence.  The Casimir effect demonstrates that they do.  We both have the same evidence.


Well Apoapsis, I'll need more than that to understand quite what is going on with the Casimir effect so I'll have to have a look into it. All I can say is that you obviously like to think that particles pop out of existence and this satisfies you. As far as I'm aware, matter is neither created nor destroyed but can be converted from one form to another but when did I say anything about matter not popping out of existence (even if I don't think it can do anything but convert)? Which conversation are you referring to? I think the only thing that you can be referring to is my contention that matter has to come from somewhere. I don't believe I mentioned anything about anything popping out anywhere. The only thing that comes to mind when I read about the Casimir effect is something like the photoelectirc effect -only there photons disappear but are converted to energy so that is not the same thing.Please explain your point.

Wisp
None of them touched the subject of Evolution.


Maybe not as such but there are subtle ways that you may not have noticed. 'Millions of years ago...' is one very easy and frequent one. Who can possibly deny it, you hear it so often even on cartoons. What about the Flintstones -you must have watched that. 'Star Trek' -you can't miss it. There are so many contributing to your worldview and you think they aren't telling you something- over and over again?

I take it you'll play dumb and avoid answering my post in the thread Information?


I'm sorry I haven't got there yet. I have copy pasted your last long story onto my word processor because it's so long, my answer will be cut off before I get it done (bad connection here and very annoying when your post gets terminated). I'll try to work my way through it as soon as I can. I did start and then got sidetracked with something else.Apologies

I grew up in an environment of superstition and magical thinking.


That'll be why you are so opposed to the God of the Bible. The two ways are directly in opposition. It's like being cursed - it makes understanding more difficult for you. Sorry to have to mention it, but it's true.

The only reasoning person i knew as a kid was my father.


Mine is also a reasoning person - everything could always be explained by science and evolutionary explanations abounded. He still finds God a very confusing and unscientific thing - it's not like I don't understand why people think like that. My father is a biologist so I know how he got the way he is. There are far more atheists in universities than in the general populace -it's what they are taught but it's subtle and constant and difficult to escape. I never detected it naturally, it had to be shoved in my face before I realized that it was indoctrination. Luckily I have a mother that taught me about God - for many years I thought it was a load of unscientific claptrap. I really do understand how you think.




 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:39 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:04 AM on June 19, 2009 :


Evolutionists work on 3 basic principles:
1. Laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion.
2. Matter originated from nothing, and
3. Living things came from non-living things





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:02 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Apoapsis, quoting me explains nothing. I still need to know what the Casimir effect has to do with anything and where the matter and the the natural laws came from.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:12 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Casimir effect is a demonstration of particles popping in and out of existence.

If you want to say God spoke it all into existence that would be fine with me.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:30 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Apoapsis, like I've said, I don't know anything more  about the Casimir effect than what you've told me but what you're describing doesn't sound to me like a likely explanation since matter is neither created nor destroyed but I'll go read some more and see what is going on.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:51 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:51 AM on June 26, 2009 :
Well Apoapsis, like I've said, I don't know anything more  about the Casimir effect than what you've told me but what you're describing doesn't sound to me like a likely explanation since matter is neither created nor destroyed but I'll go read some more and see what is going on.


So you are rejecting all of quantum physics?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:24 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Casimir effect
According to modern physics, a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves of all possible wavelengths which imbue it with a vast amount of energy, normally invisible to us. Casimir realized that between two plates, only those unseen electromagnetic waves whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. As the gap between the plates is narrowed (to a few nanometers), fewer waves can contribute to the vacuum energy and so the energy density between the plates falls below the energy density of the surrounding space. The result is a tiny force trying to pull the plates together – a force that has been measured and thus provides proof of the existence of the quantum vacuum.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:45 AM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quantum Vacuum:

The cosmic singularity, that was the Universe at the beginning of time, is shielded by the lack of any physical observers. But the next level of inquiry is what is the origin of the emergent properties of the Universe, the properties that become the mass of the Universe, its age, its physical constants, etc. The answer appears to be that these properties have their origin as the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.

The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level.

The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.

The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.

In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence.

With respect to the origin of the Universe, the quantum vacuum must have been the source of the laws of Nature and the properties that we observe today. How those laws and properties emerge is unknown at this time.

Quantum Vacuum


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:02 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creation of matter from energy:

Breakdown of the vacuum by arbitrary external fields

T. Cheng, Q. Su and R. Grobe

Intense Laser Physics Theory Unit and Department of Physics, Illinois State University Normal, IL 61790-4560 USA

Received 31 October 2008, accepted for publication 13 March 2009
Published 17 April 2009

Abstract. We examine the spontaneous breakdown of the matter vacuum triggered by an external force. Based on the multi-particle counting numbers, which are accessible by experiment, we present a general theoretical procedure that permits the computation of the vacuum probability for sub- and super-critical fields with arbitrary spatial and temporal profiles. When the field is supercritical, the theory leads to the expected exponentially decay of the vacuum in the long-time limit. For the special case of an infinitely extended electric force field, we establish the validity of an effective decay constant obtained by averaging the Schwinger rate over the spatial force profile.

Breakdown of the vacuum by arbitrary external fields


New approaches on Laser Vacuum Breakdown for Pair Creation

New approaches on Laser Vacuum Breakdown for Pair Creation
I. Ploumistakis, I. Tsohantjis1 and S. D. Moustaizis
Dept. of Sciences, Institute of Matter Structure and Laser Physics
Technical University of Crete
Deligiannaki & Panagouli, 73100 Chania, Crete, Greece
Tel : 00 30 2821 0 28451 fax: 2821 0 28453
Abstract
The aim of this work is to present a complete and elaborated investigation on pair
creation for two new kinds of experimental configurations using ultra-intense laser beams.
The high pair production and ergonomic efficiency of the proposed experimental
configurations may facilitate future designed experiments on laser-induced vacuum
breakdown.
Introduction
Electron positron pair creation from strong fields-induced vacuum breakdown is one of
outstanding importance non-linear QED phenomena [1-9]. Recently there is an increasing
interest on experimental investigations concerning pair creation of (e+, e-) by ultra-intense
laser beam interaction with vacuum due to new laser facilities installation


(Edited by Apoapsis 6/26/2009 at 12:08 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:05 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

None of them touched the subject of Evolution.
Maybe not as such but there are subtle ways that you may not have noticed. 'Millions of years ago...' is one very easy and frequent one.
Well, that only goes against YEC, not in favor of Evolution directly.

But yeah, you're right... I mean, i don't normally see it that way because i see those just as harmonious facts, but i see your point.

Who can possibly deny it, you hear it so often even on cartoons. What about the Flintstones -you must have watched that.
Men with dinosaurs? That goes more along your lines.
'Star Trek' -you can't miss it. There are so many contributing to your worldview and you think they aren't telling you something- over and over again?
Hum... You're right. But they tell me what i had already told myself. They didn't convince me. Nature did.

I oftentimes corrected them.
I said "Hahaha, how stupid! They think that such and such!!".

I take it you'll play dumb and avoid answering my post in the thread Information?
I'm sorry I haven't got there yet.
Oh, sorry then. I really thought you were going to let it pass. I didn't realize it was long.

I grew up in an environment of superstition and magical thinking.
That'll be why you are so opposed to the God of the Bible.
Am i?

Not anymore than to Zeus, i'd say. But i'm not sure about what you mean by "opposed".

The two ways are directly in opposition. It's like being cursed - it makes understanding more difficult for you. Sorry to have to mention it, but it's true.
What two ways? Reason and faith you mean?

There are far more atheists in universities than in the general populace -it's what they are taught but it's subtle and constant and difficult to escape. I never detected it naturally, it had to be shoved in my face before I realized that it was indoctrination.
I think it's just too comfortable to call it indoctrination. It's the best way to explain away why the most educated and the smartest think different.

And i say it as a person who believes in God while knowing that the smartest and most educated tend not to.

I think they're wrong if they discard my version, but i'd never call that "indoctrination"...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:35 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe not as such but there are subtle ways that you may not have noticed. 'Millions of years ago...' is one very easy and frequent one.
Well, that only goes against YEC, not in favor of Evolution directly.


Well actually both the way I see it. A direct reading of the Judeo-Christian Bible gives you 6 days of creation and if you count your way through the very specific geneologies given, you'll only get to about 6000 years total. For me as a kid it was a dead giveaway that the Bible couldn't be believed because I knew about the millions of years from all the TV programmes. It was a total contradiction and I had a choice between my parents' various belief systems -neither forced me. I went with my father; thought my poor dear mother had lost the plot ( living happily in the land of myth.)Science seemed so much more respectable, lab coats, experiments and all. Mind you my mother also worked in plant physiology labs during the day but her worldview seemed to be in contradiction with 'reality'.

Men with dinosaurs? That goes more along your lines.


You're right there but then again it's the story of cavemen and long long ago that comes out most strongly. You don't even notice the 'scientific' contradiction with the dinosaurs.

As for Star Trek and all the science fiction type programmes, they promote the idea that since there is life on earth that evolved, there must be complex life out in the solar system that likewise evolved into strange,different forms.

They didn't convince me. Nature did.


What in nature convinced you though; what did you see that made you believe in things like common ancestors and change beyond the species level?

That'll be why you are so opposed to the God of the Bible.



Am i?

Not anymore than to Zeus, i'd say. But i'm not sure about what you mean by "opposed".

 
It comes out strongly in the things you say. I don't think you care about Zeus but I get the impression you blame the God of the Bible for a lot of bad things. It's very common amongst evolutionists though. They speak lightly about other 'myths' but they reserve a special bitterness for the God of the Bible. I'm sure they don't even know why. You should hear Dawkins on the Biblical God -anyone would think God had personally caused Dawkins a vast amount of misery.

The two ways are directly in opposition.


What two ways? Reason and faith you mean?


No the ways of God versus the ways of superstitious and magical thinking. There are things in the Bible that we are warned about -like talking to spirits and trying to foretell the future by various means, sorcerers, diviners, fortune tellers etc. In all the Bible stories, it comes out strongly that those sorts of things curse your life and makes God angry because it's by ignoring him and his advice that you end up doing those things and end up in trouble with bad advice from spiritual entities whose job it is to lead you away from your creator. Whenever the people worshipped idols there was a general downslide into evil. It's called worshipping the creation rather than the creator. Evolutionists do it all the time only now it's 'scientific', in those days it was 'pagan.'

I think it's just too comfortable to call it indoctrination. It's the best way to explain away why the most educated and the smartest think different.


I understand. I was comfortable with it too. It all made sense. I was smart and educated and so so wrong. I'd rather be uncomfortably politically incorrect than comfortably blind.

And i say it as a person who believes in God while knowing that the smartest and most educated tend not to.


The problem with your 'god' is that it is an idol, it's the 'god' that you feel most comfortable with, it is not the real God that you don't feel comfortable with. It's an invented god with all the traits that you prefer. That's what an idol is.

I think they're wrong if they discard my version


I think they're wrong if they discard the real creator. I wasn't sure I liked him much either but everyone has their reasons for what they choose.The God of the Bible didn't seem very prone to compromise which is a bit intimidating. I've realized that truth is not what you prefer to believe. It is the unchanging reality of what is.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:08 AM on June 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

The result is a tiny force trying to pull the plates together – a force that has been measured and thus provides proof of the existence of the quantum vacuum.


But what is this quantum vacuum? Is it something that didn't exist before? How can we know that? Some of what you have pasted makes sense and I do in general understand the basic theory of quanta and the electromagnetic spectrum.They seem to be talking about a portion of a quantum or a sub-photon (correct me if I'm wrong) but according to the theory, electromagnetic waves have a particle nature and photons are all or nothing. So where this comes in I'm not sure.

The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time.


This sounds all very theoretical to me and I have learned that mixed in with truth is often a lot of supposition and, excuse me but I have to be explicit, bullshit. Virtual pairs would not violate the mass/energy law if they in fact exist but that is the explanation or theoretical story, not necessarily the fact. It's like a mental invention designed to overcome otherwise insurmountable theoretical problems. Sometimes I notice scientists start to invent plausible explanations that go far from what is provable. The trick is to know enough to be able to stop them when they venture from fact into fiction. I don't 'believe' easily.

The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level.


Translation: so even in the beginning when there was nothing, that nothing was actually something. This makes it sound less wacky then when they say that there was a quantum fluctuation and from nothing came something. If nothing is actually something ie. a quantum vacuum, that apparently would solve the problem of the origin of matter. Now I feel much better!

The cosmic singularity, that was the Universe at the beginning of time, is shielded by the lack of any physical observers. But the next level of inquiry is what is the origin of the emergent properties of the Universe, the properties that become the mass of the Universe, its age, its physical constants, etc. The answer appears to be that these properties have their origin as the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.


There we go. See translation above. So that is exactly what they are implying.
Next translation (to further simplify): The 'nothing at the beginning of time had no witnesses. But ,we ask ourselves, where did matter come from? Where did matter and physical laws come from?The Casimir effect answers our question - they came from the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum, that something that exists in nothing!(if you can believe that)

The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing.


Of course.
This sounds like attempts to cover what origin of life and matter 'experts' have put their foot in before. They say everything came from absolutely nothing but now nothing has become something which apparently solves the problem and makes their miracle story look more 'scientific'.
The creationist's creation story has miracles but it also has a miracle maker.
The problem with the evolutionist's creation story is that they have miracles but no miracle maker so they make up for their miracles with 'scientific' explanations for them.  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:49 AM on June 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:49 AM on June 27, 2009 :


This sounds all very theoretical to me and I have learned that mixed in with truth is often a lot of supposition and, excuse me but I have to be explicit, bullshit. Virtual pairs would not violate the mass/energy law if they in fact exist but that is the explanation or theoretical story, not necessarily the fact.


Then where do the particle come from when you shoot a laser through a vacuum?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:46 AM on June 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:49 AM on June 27, 2009 :
The creationist's creation story has miracles but it also has a miracle maker.


So your basic answer is that the Casimir effect is a miracle.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:49 AM on June 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe not as such but there are subtle ways that you may not have noticed. 'Millions of years ago...' is one very easy and frequent one.
Well, that only goes against YEC, not in favor of Evolution directly.
Well actually both the way I see it. A direct reading of the Judeo-Christian Bible gives you 6 days of creation and if you count your way through the very specific geneologies given, you'll only get to about 6000 years total.
Yeah, but Evolution is not concerned with the biblical myth.

If some other religious myth said that the Earth is 3.5 billion years old, while denying Evolution, the fact that Geology concurs with the 3.5b would be seen (by the members of that cult) as evidence AGAINST Evolution.

For me as a kid it was a dead giveaway that the Bible couldn't be believed because I knew about the millions of years from all the TV programmes.
Yes, it goes against the literal interpretation of the Bible. But lots of things do. And pretty much everything supports Evolution in some way.

Let's see, the first thing that comes to my mind...
Cake!
Evolution can explain its sweetness, Creationism cannot.

Our craving for sweets comes from the time when we used to eat fruits all day.
If we were designed with a little foresight we would have a switch or something to STOP FUCKING EATING SO MANY SWEETS!

Our eating habits were developed in times of insufficiency. Famines were not that strange.

They didn't convince me. Nature did.
What in nature convinced you though; what did you see that made you believe in things like common ancestors and change beyond the species level?
Similarities, differences, vestigiality, mistakes, defects, mimicry, warning signals, fangs, claws, armors, venom, arms races, predation, parasitism, sexual strategies... You name it!
To me everything speaks of Evolution.


That'll be why you are so opposed to the God of the Bible.
Am i?

Not anymore than to Zeus, i'd say. But i'm not sure about what you mean by "opposed".
It comes out strongly in the things you say. I don't think you care about Zeus but I get the impression you blame the God of the Bible for a lot of bad things.
Seriously, i don't. I don't blame fictional characters for real things. When i say something against Yahweh, i'm just joking really. Just like when i say that the Devil must be quite dumb to challenge God. xD

It's very common amongst evolutionists though. They speak lightly about other 'myths' but they reserve a special bitterness for the God of the Bible.
I'd think that that bitterness is actually against people who oppose science.

Dawkins might seem mad to Yahweh from your perspective. But he's mad at the people who believe in Yahweh and act against reason.

The two ways are directly in opposition.
What two ways? Reason and faith you mean?
No the ways of God versus the ways of superstitious and magical thinking.
Oh...

But you say "God" meaning "Yahweh"... And to me Yahweh is a superstition. Angels, demons, witches, miracles, amulets, voodoo dolls, potions... All the same thing to me.

There are things in the Bible that we are warned about -like talking to spirits and trying to foretell the future by various means, sorcerers, diviners, fortune tellers etc.
Yeah, that would be eliminating the competition.

I think it's just too comfortable to call it indoctrination. It's the best way to explain away why the most educated and the smartest think different.
I understand.
Something tells me that you don't...
I was comfortable with it too.
You still are. Read again.
It all made sense. I was smart and educated and so so wrong.
Perhaps it came out wrong. I meant that what's comfortable is to call it "indoctrination", like you do.

I'd rather be uncomfortably politically incorrect than comfortably blind.
I believe that your beliefs give you more comfort than they take away from you.

And i say it as a person who believes in God while knowing that the smartest and most educated tend not to.
The problem with your 'god' is that it is an idol, it's the 'god' that you feel most comfortable with, it is not the real God that you don't feel comfortable with. It's an invented god with all the traits that you prefer. That's what an idol is.
No. Mine has no random conventional traits. Yours has. So yours is the idol. Mine is perfect. No whimsical traits or behaviors. Actually no behaviors.

I think they're wrong if they discard my version
I think they're wrong if they discard the real creator.
If an entity does something, it's out of need. There's no way around this. An entity with needs is not perfect and infinite. Yours is a flawed god.

To solve this some say that in the beginning the Elohims (bereshit baraelohim) created the Heavens and the Earth. I like this version better.

I wasn't sure I liked him much either but everyone has their reasons for what they choose.The God of the Bible didn't seem very prone to compromise which is a bit intimidating. I've realized that truth is not what you prefer to believe. It is the unchanging reality of what is.
Exactly. And your god is changing.

He started as a creator, walking the land, hanging around with the guys, handing out clear punishments, then communicating only through prophets, and then not at all.


(Edited by wisp 6/27/2009 at 12:55 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:53 PM on June 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:49 AM on June 27, 2009 :


This sounds all very theoretical to me and I have learned that mixed in with truth is often a lot of supposition and, excuse me but I have to be explicit, bullshit. Virtual pairs would not violate the mass/energy law if they in fact exist but that is the explanation or theoretical story, not necessarily the fact. It's like a mental invention designed to overcome otherwise insurmountable theoretical problems. Sometimes I notice scientists start to invent plausible explanations that go far from what is provable. The trick is to know enough to be able to stop them when they venture from fact into fiction. I don't 'believe' easily.


Casimir predicted this effect some 20 years before the technology was available to be able to measure it.  The measured value was within 5% of his prediction.  Explain how this was an "insurmountable theoretical problem".

Then you can explain how your computer will work without the quantum mechanics you are throwing away so casually.

We both have the same information.

(Edited by Apoapsis 6/27/2009 at 5:51 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:48 PM on June 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:48 PM on June 27, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:49 AM on June 27, 2009 :


This sounds all very theoretical to me and I have learned that mixed in with truth is often a lot of supposition and, excuse me but I have to be explicit, bullshit. Virtual pairs would not violate the mass/energy law if they in fact exist but that is the explanation or theoretical story, not necessarily the fact. It's like a mental invention designed to overcome otherwise insurmountable theoretical problems. Sometimes I notice scientists start to invent plausible explanations that go far from what is provable. The trick is to know enough to be able to stop them when they venture from fact into fiction. I don't 'believe' easily.


Casimir predicted this effect some 20 years before the technology was available to be able to measure it.  The measured value was within 5% of his prediction.  Explain how this was an "insurmountable theoretical problem".

Then you can explain how your computer will work without the quantum mechanics you are throwing away so casually.

We both have the same information.

(Edited by Apoapsis 6/27/2009 at 5:51 PM).


More discussion of the science.

Where is the "insurmountable theoretical problem", beyond successfully predicting reality?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:19 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
discinbob

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a video which proves Christ is real, though not really disproving evolution!!

You can be the judge.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 1:55 PM on July 22, 2009 | 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.