Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

spendius wrote:

Well he would look silly eating sushi when there's roast highlands beef with Yorkshire pudding and gravy and roast King Edwards with sprouts to get his laughing tackle round. Sushi sound like peasant fodder tarted up with a fancy name for the skint poseurs.

I asked around and nobody has ever tried it nor knows anybody else who has. So it's fair to assume that Mr Bean has passed it by.

Do they play Johnny Cash music where it's dished up?

Leave Johnny out of this.

The Man in Black
K
O

0 Replies

R.L.
Why would you want me to answer questions about something that happened in the past, since you say science can't know anything about that type of stuff? Or Black Holes since you said science can't know anything about things that aren't observable?

Since I have already discussed both

For example: you said that there is no difference between a BH and the BB and asked this:
RL QUOTE:

Quote:

So, how are the concepts (BB vs. Black hole) different?

To which I pointed out.

Quote:

The tensor that describes a black-hole is asymmetric in time, i.e a black hole cannot be time reversed into a ?'white-hole' or big bang. Not that that little fact will make the least bit of difference to you.

You wouldn't even acknowledge the post.

I would assume it is so you have someone else to spend your time with since Parados has you cornered about not being able to show one thing that you agree with the Davis article on. And others have you trapped on the other threads. You apparently need a new tangent.

But, wait, you most recently said you wanted to talk about things we DO know. I know you were just being kind by including the rest of us in the ?'we'. So why don't we start there by you answering my questions to you that deal with the physics of the here and now. I've been waiting patiently for about 34 days now.

You certainly want to be EQUITABLE, so I don't think it is too much for me to ask for answers that I've been waiting for over a month for before providing a new tangent for you to hide behind. I can repost those questions I had if that would make it easier on you.

I have a funny feeling B.D. will have posted those picutres of himself standing next to the Ark before you will attempt to answer my questions. In that case you need to find yourself another tangent to latch on to.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't need to waste time disproving events. I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

OK, so prove that the supernatural does not exist.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

real life wrote:
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
the conservation law (real life) is touting didn't start to take effect until about 1x10EXP-35 seconds AFTER the big bang.

So you are very sure that the scientific laws that apply today DID NOT 'take effect' until AFTER the BB, eh?

To know this, you must know what the scientific laws were that DID apply then.

What were they?

What were the properties of the 'singularity' that produced the BB?

Where did it come from, of what was it composed and why did it BANG?

Why would you want me to answer questions about something that happened in the past, since you say science can't know anything about that type of stuff?

You claim that you are the guy with evidence, and I am not.

Therefore I would expect you to be able to support what you claimed to know.

0 Replies

So, Real, your saying you have no evidence for anything you believe in?

That sounds right for someone who believes in talking snakes.

0 Replies

Like I said either answer my questions...day 34 and waiting... or find somewhere else to hide.
ROFLMAO!!!!!! Laughing

0 Replies

xingu wrote-

Quote:

That sounds right for someone who believes in talking snakes.

You are just wasting your time xingu pulling that one out again unless you are making the assumption that you are addressing an unintelligent audience. I'm inclined to think that you are making such an assumption and you may well be right to do so.

If it is a metaphor you do not understand that will have to remain the case as I am not up for offering an explanation in this milieux but that should not be taken as meaning that I don't have one to offer.

Anyway- I'm only any good at it in the pub when there are examples around to serve as obvious examples.

Do you think the apple was actually a Cox's Orange Pippin or a Golden Delicious?

0 Replies

TCR will no doubt be "here for me" on that one.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I don't need to waste time disproving events. I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

OK, so prove that the supernatural does not exist.

You forgot the rest of the post.

Quote:

The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense.

Last, I said "God" not "the supernatural." If the supernatural was proven to exist (which I've seen no proof of yet), it would not prove that god existed too.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Maybe, but it would make you mighty suspicious.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense...

T
K
O

Actually - your "need" - much like other members who interact on the religion/spirituality thread, but do not believe even in the chance of God, is to have a safety net of sorts. No matter the case - you can default to; 'it's not my burden to disprove God...", therefore in your own mind - you can never lose.

0 Replies

Voltaire had something to say about that "never".

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense...

T
K
O

Actually - your "need" - much like other members who interact on the religion/spirituality thread, but do not believe even in the chance of God, is to have a safety net of sorts. No matter the case - you can default to; 'it's not my burden to disprove God...", therefore in your own mind - you can never lose.

I don't have to prove a negitive. That's the point. I don't have to disprove God exists, because the universe does not default to any truth.

I can certainly "lose," I just need to be presented with the evidence. So far, the evidence converges on the universe being ruled only by the laws of nature.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

the universe does not default to any truth

Including 'scientific truth'.

Diest TKO wrote:

I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense.

And miss most of the events of history, since there are relatively few things that can be 'scientifically proven'.

Diest TKO wrote:

I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

I agreed and you immediately backed off this statement, claiming that your ability to backtrack in the later part of the post:

Diest TKO wrote:

..........I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god.........

released you from the need to substantiate your view.

If you are going to maintain that the only tool you need is the scientific method, then you need to show that it can apply to all facts at all times. Your inability to 'scientifically prove' most ordinary events of life will prove a significant roadblock.

Can you 'scientifically prove' that your next door neighbor read the newspaper yesterday?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

...If you are going to maintain that the only tool you need is the scientific method, then you need to show that it can apply to all facts at all times. Your inability to 'scientifically prove' most ordinary events of life will prove a significant roadblock.

Can you 'scientifically prove' that your next door neighbor read the newspaper yesterday?

Spot on RL.

Furthermore:

Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

0 Replies

Quote:

Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

Sounds like a Seinfeld episode.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

Sounds like a Seinfeld episode.

Sounds like nervous laughter at an empirical truth.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Can you 'scientifically prove' that your next door neighbor read the newspaper yesterday?

Whether or not he read it wouldn't matter. It could be possible to demonstrate, scientifically, that his neighbor was in possession of the newspaper yesterday.

If you were worth a **** as theists, you should be able to prove that your boy "God" created the cosmos. That still wouldn't give us information about whether or not "God" gives a **** about the cosmos.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The universe does not default to any truth.

Let's have this again, because it is a significant point in this discussion.

As the universe has no default truths, anyone making any claim about the nature of the universe has to offer, at the least, a plausible argument. Some old white dude floating around in clouds attended by wingéd, naked infants (maybe your boy "God" is a pedophile, too) hardly qualifies as a plausible argument. Certainly, even that weak standard is not met by theists, never mind "proof."

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

Sounds like a Seinfeld episode.

The Seinfeld episode would be about not being able to prove the non-existence of nothing. Cool

Hope you're having a great day, farmerman.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know