Defender OF Faith wrote: » I don't really agree with the Bible description of god creating man in his image being a student of comparative religion I find the Quran description of God better:"there is nothing like Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things)."(42/11) "No vision can grasps him, but he grasps all vision. He is the most courteous, the well-acquainted with all things" (103/6)
Chunners wrote: » Not so, gravity should be causing the expansion of the universe to slow down when in actual fact it is speeding up which means one of 2 things. 1. that the conditions inside our universe are changing (one theory is "Dark gravity" is being created somehow) or 2. the conditions outside our universe are changing (kind of like bringing a balloon on a plane and taking off and the higher you go the less dense the air outside the balloon becomes so the more the balloon expands, crap analogy but for this it will suit the purpose). Dark gravity is a theory like dark matter
housetypeb wrote: » I'm not going to claim I'm a scientist like J c -I barely manage to get the turf cut in time as it is- but there is no outside. The definition of the Universe is that it contains everything. If something was outside the Universe, it would also be part of the Universe too. The expanding is speeding up but as yet they haven't figured out why.Dark energy and dark matter may have something to do with it.
5uspect wrote: » He has had evolution explained to him many, many times. Yet he continues to misrepresent it. So either he incapable of understanding it or he's being dishonest. Why continue to attempt to debate with someone like this?
housetypeb wrote: » Why would they bother? They've got a perfectly good book written by sheep herders that explains everything.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » This is what pope palpatine was on about with his trolling comment. That adds nothing at all to the discussion, it's just a silly little attack - something you're very quick to criticize the rest of us for.
irish coldplayer wrote: » For anyone that is genuinely interested in the science disproving creationist "pseudo science" this is an excellent resource with links to peer reviewed papers and explanations. Its a pretty exhaustive list. talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html had to delete the www part, as I am a new user and so cant post links
Brian Shanahan wrote: » On the off chance that if we don't somebody gullible will start listening to him and take his lying bullshit as the truth. I know it's a fairly small chance, as those who believe in creatardism are weaned on it from birth and heavily insulated against reality by their criminally irresponsible and maliciously negligent families and communities, but the chance still exists that there are people out there genuinely interested in finding out, yet not in possession of a bullshit detector good enough to find JC and his rotten and corrupt ilk out.
J C wrote: » Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Forgive me but I don't seem to fully understand what your saying if you meant that if we discovered gravity we simply sat down and didn't bother delving deeper into it because it would be impossible for us to understand, then this doesnt contradict what I said because gravity is in our universe and is possible to understand.
Chunners wrote: » Is this your attempt at the Stalin version of Godwin's Law? to be honest it just all comes across as an attempt by you now to get this thread closed by implying basically the same thing that Godwin's deals with
EoghanIRL wrote: » Most Christians = normal Creationism = extremist He also raises a good point . Creationism is mostly forced from birth through schooling and community . If creationist were allowed believe what they want from birth then how many do you think would adopt creationism beliefs . I think it would be pretty low.
J C wrote: » The point is that science doesn't delve any deeper into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.That is OK ... in so far as willful ignorance of anything is OK .. but what is not OK is that scientists who do scientifically investigate the evidence for God are bad-mouthed and name-called and asked for peer-reviewed papers ... when such papers and such peer review is actually banned by conventional science, in the first place.
J C wrote: » As a matter of fact I was an Evolutionist ... before I became a Creationist ... and most Creation Scientists I know were the same. I also don't 'force' Creationism on anybody ... including my children ... I encourage them to look at all the evidence for and against evolution and creation ... they can then make up their own minds, from a position of knowledge. We have been over the 'extremist/normal' stuff already. I have a well-founded difference of opinion on where we have come from and where we are going ... and I believe in tolerance, love and respect for everyone, including those with whom I disagree ... nothing 'extreme' about that.
EoghanIRL wrote: » Does god allow genocide for his own amusement or is there some other reason?
EoghanIRL wrote: » Why did you change to creationism ?
J C wrote: » God allows Humans free-will ... sometimes they use it for noble purposes ... and sometimes they use it for evil purposes. It wouldn't be free-will if God stood over everyone with a big stick, jumping in every time that free will was used for evil.
J C wrote: » The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.
Squeedily Spooch wrote: » So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.
Squeedily Spooch wrote: » Source? or purely because trying to prove the supernatural is wasting funding?Any scientist worth their salt proposing something would be asked for peer reviewed papers, and rightly so. Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method. Can't you as a "scientist" see this? If there was any evidence for ID worth reviewing scientists would do it, but there's none. Not a bit. At all. Nobody has it in for you, you're just a ****e scientist.
Squeedily Spooch wrote: » Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method.
J C wrote: » I agree with the thrust of your argument that funding mus only be provided to worthwhile projects ... but the 'kicker' is that conventional science doesn't allow any research, irrespective of its potential, into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science. ... so we never actually never get to the point of conventionally reviewing any of the evidence for ID ... because research into any cause that isn't 'natural' is banned. ... and 'natural' has been defined to exclude intelligent causes as well.
