Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

BCSpace

By BCSpace
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

longview Grand Master

longview

Posted
Posted

So, if I blow up a pile of lumber (Big Bang) how long will it take for it to take the shape of a house? :)

Have you seen this?   A two-headed dolphin . . .

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167055-tourists-baffled-found-two-headed-creature-somehow-survived-nature/

 

Since dolphins are so brainy, they just needed to start evolving into committees . . .

 

Wonder if there is a dual porpoise . . .

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Are you asking if God had to necessarily be involved in the creation or perpetuation of chickens and their eggs, or anything else in existence?

We're told that matter is eternal and I believe that matter has always existed in the form of chickens and their eggs, as well as other birds and their eggs, and bees and pollen and everything else there is now and always has been in existence.

Some people seem to think that at some point in the past there was only God and nothing else, while some others believe there was also some other forms of matter, like maybe just some dust or maybe some planets with some elements on and in them. Not many seem to realize that what there is now has always existed with all things going through various phases. Like how there have always been parents for all of the races or species of life as well as children for every parent, as well as some children or offspring who remain single and do not perpetuate their own species.

And no I am not saying that macro evolution happens.

 

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over time.

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over time.

 

He will not believe in Macro-Evolution because he has never seen big changes happen. He has not seen a duck giving birth to a crocoduck.   

 

but he has not seen God creating the animals literally out of the dust, but he believes that, and that is super evolution, from dust to animals in a fraction of a second. ID creationists believe what they like. 

I believe what the evidence tells me.  

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

He will not believe in Macro-Evolution because he has never seen big changes happen. He has not seen a duck giving birth to a crocoduck.   

 

but he has not seen God creating the animals literally out of the dust, but he believes that, and that is super evolution, from dust to animals in a fraction of a second. ID creationists believe what they like. 

I believe what the evidence tells me.  

 

I don't "believe" in Evolution. I just accept it as the best explanation, we have so far, as to how life changed once it got here. :)

 

To not badly mangle the statement on Talk Origins. The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that creation of this planet occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't "believe" in Evolution. I just accept it as the best explanation, we have so far, as to how life changed once it got here.

 

To not badly mangle the statement on Talk Origins. The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument.

 

It is very simple to explain.

 

However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that creation of this planet occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

 

1. The earth was not created in 7000 years.

 

2. According to Neil Tyson, our "best scientific theory", quantum physics, is contradicted by "reality" or observation by 10x120.  Why is our best theory "erased" by reality?

 

Our understand of the laws of the universe is only 6% of the total.

 

What's the point, my friend.

 

 

Edited by cdowis
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

I don't "believe" in Evolution. I just accept it as the best explanation, we have so far, as to how life changed once it got here.

 

To not badly mangle the statement on Talk Origins. The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument.

 

It is very simple to explain.

 

However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that creation of this planet occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

 

1. The earth was not created in 7000 years.

 

2. According to Neil Tyson, our "best scientific theory", quantum physics, is contradicted by "reality" or observation by 10x120.  Why is our best theory "erased" by reality?

 

Our understand of the laws of the universe is only 6% of the total.

 

What's the point, my friend.

 

 

 

 

Appeals to the supernatural are by definition not science.

 

According to Answers to Genesis man Ken Ham it was. Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way. So why bother to look for them?

 

We can account for about 4% of the matter and energy in the known universe. As such any claim other than we see the gravitational effect is an Argument from Ignorance. I guess if you want to claim that that 96% is God. How could I possibly contradict it?

SEE

Edited by thesometimesaint
danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

 

According to Answers to Genesis man Ken Ham it was. Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way. So why bother to look for them?

 

 

 

Curious why you are still repeating this lie? I linked to an article last time that debunked your claim. 

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted

Just saying it doesn't make it true. 

 

and just denying it doesn't make it false, and just saying "that is just your interpretation" doesn't make it true. u

 

DNA evidence proved Macro-Evolution, just like DNA evidence can prove who is your great grandfather. 

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

This DNA thing is actually an interesting dilema for evolution. I am curious as to the how and why that nature could produce a language system and then in that very program create a copy and repair mechanism for itself. As intelligent agents ourselves we are capable of doing such feats with computer and robot programs that basically mimick this same process. But what makes it interesting is that we write computer programs with a purpose to begin with that can rpeat processes and even detect errors. It is all done with an intelligent input though to begin with.

The odds that nature could write an intelligent program without an intelligent purpose driving it is one thing but for the program to write into itself an ability to copy itself and repair copy errors tells me there has to be an intelligent input. What are the odds that chemcials could form in such a way that they write a program that gives instructions for building purposeful intelligent designs into life and then also includes instructions that tell how the builder proteins are to be built and how the copy and repair process works? Do these improbable odds support the intelligent design theory?

1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yup. He doesn't claim that aliens are going to hell. So why claim that he says they are? 

 

"I don’t believe in aliens, so there will be no aliens in hell! "

 

Here is what I posted "Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way."

 

Keep reading my friend.

Edited by thesometimesaint
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted (edited)

and just denying it doesn't make it false, and just saying "that is just your interpretation" doesn't make it true. u

 

DNA evidence proved Macro-Evolution, just like DNA evidence can prove who is your great grandfather. 

 

I did not say that it did.  I only pointed out the weakness of your position. 

 

Nobody I know questions micro-evolution.

Edited by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted

Nobody I know questions micro-evolution.

 

Most people don't know what micro-evolution is. 

 

DNA Evidence proved Macro-Evolution, just like DNA evidence can prove who is your grandfather. 

 

Macro-Evolution has been proven, the evidence is simply too strong, that is a fact, not my interpretation. 

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Most people don't know what micro-evolution is. 

 

DNA Evidence proved Macro-Evolution, just like DNA evidence can prove who is your grandfather. 

 

Macro-Evolution has been proven, the evidence is simply too strong, that is a fact, not my interpretation. 

 

I think you are over rating your own intelligence and under rating others.  They may not know the term but would recognize it when told what it is.

 

No matter how often you reiterate it, it will not make it true.

 

There are some on this board who would disagree.  You were evidently not paying attention.  Go back and review the evolution threads.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

I know a few more than that.

 

So do I, but it is at least one. ;)

 

I see no good reason to present false dichotomies to argue over. There is no meaningful difference between micro and macro evolution. At the genetic level they are the same thing.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

I think you are over rating your own intelligence and under rating others.  They may not know the term but would recognize it when told what it is.

 

No matter how often you reiterate it, it will not make it true.

 

There are some on this board who would disagree.  You were evidently not paying attention.  Go back and review the evolution threads.

 

 I didn't see that as rating anyone's intelligence. Lack of specific knowledge is not the same thing as lack of native intelligence. The former can be cured, the latter not so much. If they don't know the meaning of words, or make them up as they go along, it is kinda hard to present evidence for what is said.

 

Technically it doesn't make it false either. So we are left with what is the evidence for any claim. In science we can only use what is natural physical matter and energy. The false dichotomy of micro vs macro evolution is evidence of the same process.

 

 I pay attention. I've responded to nearly every claim presented by supporters and critics alike.

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

Here is what I posted "Further he also claims that if there is life on other planets they are all damned to his Christianist Hell any way."

 

Keep reading my friend.

 

False. Here is what he said after the quote of what you think is an accurate quote. 

 

"I also challenge Salon.com to document where I actually said that I “called for the end of the U.S. space program,” and where I supposedly said that “if we found alien life it would be damned to hell.” I have made no such statements."

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

False. Here is what he said after the quote of what you think is an accurate quote. 

 

"I also challenge Salon.com to document where I actually said that I “called for the end of the U.S. space program,” and where I supposedly said that “if we found alien life it would be damned to hell.” I have made no such statements."

 

Incorrect. Here is what he said according to his own site. "I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel . An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam".

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

Incorrect. Here is what he said according to his own site. "I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel . An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam".

 

Right. He didn't make the statement you have been attributing to him. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...