The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

AtomicHorror · 27-02-2016 12:05PM

The Chieftain wrote: »

If the multiverse were ever to become accepted as a fact it would be the most revolutionary development in the history of science. And you say that is just semantics? I think that opinion deserves to be rubbished.

That is not my opinion. My opinion is that attempting to define miracles as a cause from outside the universe affecting something within the universe is not rescued by invoking the multiverse, because universe and multiverse, if proven, are both subject to empirical investigation.

You're straw manning big time here.

The Chieftain wrote: »

By the way, just who is the "we" you refer to?
- Are you undercover or undocumented royalty?
- Perhaps in need of medical treatment for schizophrenia or psychosis?
- Or is it indicative of the fact that these posts are by an organized grouping?
Do tell!

"We" means "scientists".

The Chieftain wrote: »

And finally, if this is your job who is paying you? I believe this is supposed to be a non-commercial forum.

Then report my posts and let the moderators take action as needed. I will not accept these sorts of accusations.

Delirium · 27-02-2016 12:27PM

The Chieftain wrote: »

And finally, if this is your job who is paying you? I believe this is supposed to be a non-commercial forum.

MOD NOTE

Firstly (presuming you're actually serious), if you believe someone is shilling, use the report button. Do not accuse them on thread.

Secondly, just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're shilling. Attack the post, not the poster.

Please bear this in mind in future postings.

Thanks for your attention.

Kiwi in IE · 16-05-2016 07:46PM

love humanity wrote: »

Atheists can't explain basic science, like the first and second laws of thermodynamics, or causality. They believe that the universe created itself out of nothing, despite that all systems of energy are finite. It's the equivalent of believing that dominoes will stand up in a row and then miraculously knock themselves over, without an external catalyst. Completely irrational.

There are an untold amount of things that we as humans can't explain. Atheists are generally happy to admit that we can't explain it, or search for answers, rather than filling in the gaps with the primitive interpretations of people who lived at least 2 millennia ago.

love humanity · 16-05-2016 07:47PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There are an untold amount of things that we as humans can't explain. Atheists are generally happy to admit that we can't explain it, or search for answers, rather than filling in the gaps with the primitive interpretations of people who lived at least 2 millennia ago.

Cop out

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-05-2016 07:49PM

love humanity wrote: »

Cop out

A bit like your own

love humanity wrote: »

Very easy, one word, hyperdimensionalism.

mickoneill31 · 16-05-2016 07:50PM

love humanity wrote: »

Cop out

Indeed. Much less of a cop out to make something up.

Kiwi in IE · 16-05-2016 07:54PM

love humanity wrote: »

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

And my last post was a 'cop out'?

steamengine · 16-05-2016 07:55PM

love humanity wrote: »

Atheists can't explain basic science, like the first and second laws of thermodynamics, or causality. They believe that the universe created itself out of nothing, despite that all systems of energy are finite. It's the equivalent of believing that dominoes will stand up in a row and then miraculously knock themselves over, without an external catalyst. Completely irrational.

Why should they even bother, if my time was limited to one life-time in the universe, I'd be trying to live life to the full as is possible, and not waste my time arguing with Christians. Unless of course we're dealing with agnosticism and not atheism.

It is interesting and I'm not going to link to gruesome Youtube videos here, but to the doubtful they might like to search 'Soul departing body'. Nothing is closed to an open mind.

solodeogloria · 16-05-2016 08:35PM

Good evening all!

I tried to stay away but I felt the urge to post this.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 08:52PM

steamengine wrote: »

Why should they even bother, if my time was limited to one life-time in the universe, I'd be trying to live life to the full as is possible, and not waste my time arguing with Christians. Unless of course we're dealing with agnosticism and not atheism.

It is interesting and I'm not going to link to gruesome Youtube videos here, but to the doubtful they might like to search 'Soul departing body'. Nothing is closed to an open mind.

If the existence of a soul could be observed and measured as it left the body then there would be ample evidence of this recorded in the scientific literature, and not just gruesome youtube videos

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 08:59PM

love humanity wrote: »

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

We should just apply occams razor here and conclude that if it is possible for anything to exist eternally and outside of time, that it is the universe itself, and not a supernatural entity.

The big bang was the singularity at the start of our portion of the universe, but it is perfectly possible that it had a cause through a physical process external to our own space and time.

The ontological argument comes nowhere close to demonstrating the necessity of a god. It is nothing more than an argument from ignorance

steamengine · 16-05-2016 09:22PM

Akrasia wrote: »

We should just apply occams razor here and conclude that if it is possible for anything to exist eternally and outside of time, that it is the universe itself, and not a supernatural entity.

The big bang was the singularity at the start of our portion of the universe, but it is perfectly possible that it had a cause through a physical process external to our own space and time.

The ontological argument comes nowhere close to demonstrating the necessity of a god. It is nothing more than an argument from ignorance

People must be blind if they can't see the inherent designs that are around us and come to the conclusion this all happened by chance. Many of man's inventions are replicated in nature and refined to a much higher degree. I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to a designer. Christians call this entity God.

gctest50 · 16-05-2016 09:35PM

steamengine wrote: »

People must be blind if they can't see the inherent designs that are around us and come to the conclusion this all happened by chance. Many of man's inventions are replicated in nature and refined to a much higher degree. I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to a designer. Christians call this entity God.

I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to evolution, all the ones with "spokes" too short/long/wide/narrow/strong/weak died off.

steamengine · 16-05-2016 09:43PM

gctest50 wrote: »

I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to evolution, all the ones with "spokes" too short/long/wide/narrow/strong/weak died off.

So where did evolution come from and why does it always work to improve ? What entity designed the process of evolution ?

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 10:02PM

steamengine wrote: »

People must be blind if they can't see the inherent designs that are around us and come to the conclusion this all happened by chance. Many of man's inventions are replicated in nature and refined to a much higher degree. I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to a designer. Christians call this entity God.

There are no inherent designs in nature. Animals and plants and 'other' evolved over eons through random mutation and natural selection. Humans can design things, but our design process also involves incremental improvements and adaptations over time. Human design requires incremental improvement because we are still exploring and learning. What is God's reason for incremental change over many many generations given his omniscience?

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 10:08PM

steamengine wrote: »

So where did evolution come from and why does it always work to improve ? What entity designed the process of evolution ?

Evolution doesn't always work to improve, it is random incremental changes where better adapted organisms spread more genes to future generations while harmful traits tend to die out. It doesn't always work out and this is why there are many extinct species

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 10:15PM

gctest50 wrote: »

I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to evolution, all the ones with "spokes" too short/long/wide/narrow/strong/weak died off.

Yep. Don't see too many penny farthings these days. Designs evolve in a similar but not equivalent way to natural selection. Humans choose specific purposes for our designs, nature only has one purpose, replication. It's not intentionally, but it's just a mathematical inevitability that well adapted replicators will thrive and mutation introduces variation that drives selection of the best adapted organisms

steamengine · 16-05-2016 10:25PM

Akrasia wrote: »

There are no inherent designs in nature. Animals and plants and 'other' evolved over eons through random mutation and natural selection. Humans can design things, but our design process also involves incremental improvements and adaptations over time. Human design requires incremental improvement because we are still exploring and learning. What is God's reason for incremental change over many many generations given his omniscience?

So where does the knowledge come from then if there is no design ? An engineer designs a camcorder for example. The equivalent - our eyes along with the lenses, retina and storage memory in the brain which have existed for millions of years didn't require to be designed ??? Really, this is harder to grasp that the notion of an intelligent design or designer.

looksee · 16-05-2016 10:30PM

steamengine wrote: »

People must be blind if they can't see the inherent designs that are around us and come to the conclusion this all happened by chance. Many of man's inventions are replicated in nature and refined to a much higher degree. I'll give you one of thousands - the wheel. Humans use just the necessary portion, two reciprocating spokes and just enough of a rim on each spoke. It all points to a designer. Christians call this entity God.

There are creatures with wheels?

steamengine · 16-05-2016 10:35PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Yep. Don't see too many penny farthings these days. Designs evolve in a similar but not equivalent way to natural selection. Humans choose specific purposes for our designs, nature only has one purpose, replication. It's not intentionally, but it's just a mathematical inevitability that well adapted replicators will thrive and mutation introduces variation that drives selection of the best adapted organisms

For a design to evolve it must be there in the first place, ie an original design just doesn't pop out of nowhere. A design is usually the product of intelligence and scientific knowledge.

steamengine · 16-05-2016 10:41PM

looksee wrote: »

There are creatures with wheels?

That's what legs and feet are, sections of wheels. Instead of going round and round they go back and forth - nature is very clever, full wheels aren't needed.

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 10:59PM

steamengine wrote: »

So where does the knowledge come from then if there is no design ? An engineer designs a camcorder for example. The equivalent - our eyes along with the lenses, retina and storage memory in the brain which have existed for millions of years didn't require to be designed ??? Really, this is harder to grasp that the notion of an intelligent design or designer.

It started with simple chemistry, chemical reactions transferring protons from acidic hydrothermal vents to alkaline salt water oceans, this created energy to fuel other chemical reactions which in time formed simple membranes which stabilised the reactions until eventually prokaryotic cells emerged.... This was extremely unlikely, but billions of years of chance will result in unlikely outcomes.

The_Valeyard · 16-05-2016 11:01PM

Did the A&A crowd migrate? :P

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 11:51PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Did the A&A crowd migrate? :P

We own the night

Especially when BBC is showing a cool documentary about Marie Curie

Akrasia · 16-05-2016 11:58PM

steamengine wrote: »

For a design to evolve it must be there in the first place, ie an original design just doesn't pop out of nowhere. A design is usually the product of intelligence and scientific knowledge.

Snowflakes look designed but they're just spontaneous creations emerging from random impurities in the water and the laws of physics

endacl · 17-05-2016 01:02AM

love humanity wrote: »

Cop out

'I don't know' isn't a cop out. 'Because god' kinda is.

endacl · 17-05-2016 01:07AM

steamengine wrote: »

So where did evolution come from and why does it always work to improve ? What entity designed the process of evolution ?

It doesn't always work to improve.

If you had half a clue you'd know enough to be embarrassed at missing the other half.

endacl · 17-05-2016 01:08AM

steamengine wrote: »

So where does the knowledge come from then if there is no design ? An engineer designs a camcorder for example. The equivalent - our eyes along with the lenses, retina and storage memory in the brain which have existed for millions of years didn't require to be designed ??? Really, this is harder to grasp that the notion of an intelligent design or designer.

See my post above...

steamengine · 17-05-2016 08:40AM

endacl wrote: »

It doesn't always work to improve.

If you had half a clue you'd know enough to be embarrassed at missing the other half.

It does for the most part, otherwise we'd still be in the sea somewhere. Evolution is the process whereby the world as we know it developed, but does not necessarily preclude a creator i.e. God. Many Christians believe in evolution.

It is interesting how many of man's later inventions were popped into place millions of years ago. Forty years ago, a bumble bee couldn't theoretically fly, weight to lift ratio and all that jargon. It can now be understood how it does, so are you trying to tell me that all that expertise just popped out of nowhere millions of years ago ? - or as I am inclined to believe, a designer was involved.

robdonn · 17-05-2016 08:42AM

steamengine wrote: »

For a design to evolve it must be there in the first place, ie an original design just doesn't pop out of nowhere. A design is usually the product of intelligence and scientific knowledge.

What has that got to do with nature? You've given no example of design in nature.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments