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

real life wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
Nobody said that the person hearing the voice of the supernatural had ever heard of a Christ or Christianity; he believes there is a Creator, that's all. (this is a Creationist thread, remember?)

You asked where I[/u][/i] would draw the line.

No he didn't.

He has asked you several times now to offer your opinion of a general concept. He's even provided a few examples.

0 Replies

So . . . how much proof for creationism has been offered so far?

None?

Well, somebody wake me up when the loons have something to say.

0 Replies

RL's just treddin water till all them thousands of "Bible SCientists" come up with something to back up the museum in Kentucky. Theyve found a triceratops with an old beat up saddle on its back. This was clear evidence that somebody rode triceratops in a fourth of july parade.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Nobody said that the person hearing the voice of the supernatural had ever heard of a Christ or Christianity; he believes there is a Creator, that's all. (this is a Creationist thread, remember?)

You asked where I[/u][/i] would draw the line.

No he didn't.

Actually, yes he did.

Look back a page where he asked specifically 'where do you draw the line?' and 'what would you do?'

I am a Christian. I can tell you what Christians in general believe and what I believe specifically.

But when Joe says he is referring to someone who is not a Christian, who simply believes in a creator (is he referring to a Jew? a Muslim? or who?), then what makes you think I can, or should, answer for them?

rosborne979 wrote:

He has asked you several times now to offer your opinion of a general concept. He's even provided a few examples.

I answered Joe's initial general statement only to be told that he wasn't claiming it was ALWAYS so.

So , it's not a general statement that he's offered anyway.

I've been very patient with the smoke and mirrors game that Joe plays, if only to show that he cannot defend his POV. And he hasn't. He has simply jumped from one unsubstantiated assertion to the next.

His 'general concept' also included the idea that it could or would lead to 'unethical' behavior. And he has run that rabbit trail as well , without backing up anything he said.

I am dealing with what he said, not what you wish he had said.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, somebody wake me up when the loons have something to say.

It appears you are going to be sleeping a long long time.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Actually, yes he did.

We seem to be at an impasse. I know what Joe is asking you, and I know you are not answering it. And I'm not alone. You and BadDog are the only ones pretending no to get it, and I think BadDog is just yanking your chain so we can all watch you dance.

0 Replies

The only answer that will satisfy you, ros, is one that concedes your (and his) premise.

You railed against 'organized religion'.

When asked why persons of like mind gathering together should bother you, you got confused trying to distinguish 'dogma' from 'beliefs'.

And then you stated that fundamentalist beliefs are 'dangerous'.

You couldn't back up your statement , although I asked you several times to do so.

You wiggled , well it wasnt the beliefs, you said, that were dangerous but the radical behaviors. I pointed out that if the beliefs were not dangerous then it must be those who go AGAINST the beliefs that are the problem.

Well, no you said, it was those who took the beliefs to an extreme.

Why? Because by definition they were 'extremists'. Laughing

Joe chimed in to say that belief that one may communicate with a supernatural Being is dangerous. Why? He explained in his next breath that it could lead to 'unethical' behavior.

I asked for his definition of 'unethical' and got a song and dance about 'illegal' instead.

I also asked for proof that such a belief is inherently dangerous, and Joe fudged 'well I didn't say it was ALWAYS dangerous'. Laughing

Anyone who reads the previous 7-8 pages of this thread can verify that that is how the conversation has gone.

You and Joe simply want to offer assertions without proof.

Is that your idea of a scientific view?

Your opinion or the highway, eh? Impasse indeed. Give it up.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The only answer that will satisfy you, ros, is one that concedes your (and his) premise.

How would you know? You haven't given us any answer yet, you've simply avoided the question.

And I can see by the rest of your post here that you've inaccurately paraphrased the whole conversation into meaninglessness.

I used to think that you were feigning confusion to avoid answering pointed questions, but now I'm wondering if you really are this confused. You don't work in an engineering based capacity do you?

0 Replies

Quote:

You don't work in an engineering based capacity do you?

Are you asking if he can recognize a choo-choo 2 out of 3 times. You can't remember his muddling thermodynamics into the absolutely unrecognizable and think this guy is an engineer? What the H*ll are you smoking ROS!!!

April 4th will be four months I've been waiting for my answers!

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

....you've inaccurately paraphrased the whole conversation into meaninglessness.

Specify what you are claiming is inaccurate.

0 Replies

No inaccuracies yet, eh?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So . . . how much proof for creationism has been offered so far?

None?

Well, somebody wake me up when the loons have something to say.

0 Replies

Good evening , echo. No thoughts of your own?

0 Replies

166 pages and still no proof from you real life.

Laughing

But if you want to let everyone know how little you can really contribute other than changing the subject every chance you get, OK. You changed the subject so let me put it back on track...

Still no proof from real life after 166 pages.

0 Replies

So it appears I didn't miss anything when I took a break from the forums. How predictable.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

166 pages and still no proof from you real life.

But if you want to let everyone know how little you can really contribute other than changing the subject every chance you get, OK. You changed the subject so let me put it back on track...

Still no proof from real life after 166 pages.

Actually I wasn't the cause of the present sidebar. If you will look back, you'll see that the present discussion was in response to Ros' assertion that 'fundamentalism is dangerous'.

Now in regard to 'proof', of course no matter what is said , you're going to claim 'that's not proof'.

Probably the best place to re-enter the discussion is with this discussion of the creation of the universe:

real life wrote:

We have overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe exists.

Scientific law (1st Law/Conservation) prohibits the universe from being created. (i.e. it is not possible for the universe to have formed using natural processes.)

Therefore, the universe was formed then using a supernatural (i.e. not natural) process or act.

----------------------------------------

The only alternative to this that has been put forth so far is that the universe (matter) was NEVER created (i.e . did not need to be created) because it is eternally existent.

Scientific law (2nd Law/Entropy) indicates that matter will, over time, become more and more disordered. Energy becomes less and less available for useful work.

The universe cannot have existed eternally since entropy has not taken the expected toll.

Therefore if the universe were eternal, it maintains a degree of order that is in defiance of scientific law.

---------------------------------

Hyper-naturalists are on the horns of a dilemma.

The 1st Law is on one side, the 2nd Law on the other.

But many of them will just look at the evidence of the universe in existence today and say, 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh where's yer evidence?'

Like a broken record.

0 Replies

Well, let's look at your argument, shall we?

real life wrote:

We have overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe exists.

Scientific law (1st Law/Conservation) prohibits the universe from being created. (i.e. it is not possible for the universe to have formed using natural processes.)

Therefore, the universe was formed then using a supernatural (i.e. not natural) process or act.

Except the first law describes the internal energy of a system. So firstly, the system has to exist and secondly, we're only talking about the internal energy, not the system itself.

Thirdly, you'll have to prove that the energy and matter of the Universe came out of nowhere. Before the Universe existed, there could have been another Universe, which collapsed in on itself to form the singularity from which our Big Bang occurred.

Fourthly, as the First Law describes the internal energy of a system, saying that the creation of the Universe violates the First Law is nonsensical if you do not know what is outside the Universe. To say that the birth of the Universe violates the first law, you must know the conditions of the system in which the Universe is contained.

I severely doubt you do.

I have thus shown that your argument is a strawman and is therefore not evidence at all.

Quote:

The only alternative to this that has been put forth so far is that the universe (matter) was NEVER created (i.e . did not need to be created) because it is eternally existent.

Scientific law (2nd Law/Entropy) indicates that matter will, over time, become more and more disordered. Energy becomes less and less available for useful work.

No, it doesn't. The Second Law states that entropy of a system will tend to increase over time, not that matter will become more disordered. Entropy is a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do work (and is thus related to processes) and has little to do with chaos or disorder.

Take, for example, a mass of individual amino acids in a solution of water. They are individual, thus they are moving about more chaotically. However, because they are individual amino acids, they are reacting with the water around them. Hydrophobic ones will form "crystal" lattices of water around themselves. Hydrophilic ones will bind to the water. Both will decrease the entropy of the water, by causing it to bind and clump together, instead of whizzing around randomly.

It is therefore thermodynamically favourable for amino acids to link up into a polypeptide chain, which then folds into a 3D globular protein. In doing so, the entropy of the "protein" will decrease, but the entropy of the system will increase and is thus favoured.

This is what the Second Law refers to.

Quote:

The universe cannot have existed eternally since entropy has not taken the expected toll.

See my above argument concerning Big Bang resulting from death of an old Universe.

Secondly, once again, you do not know what is outside the Universe. How do you know that energy isn't consistently being put into the Universe from outside, via naturalistic means?

But then again, what do I know? I'm no physics major.

0 Replies

The only broken record is you real life.

You can't present evidence for creationism so instead you try to poke holes in established theories.
This thread doesn't exist to poke holes in evolution. It exists to provide evidence FOR creationism.

Page 166 and still no evidence for creationism. Only attempts to disprove evolution.

Round and round and round real life goes and where he won't stop everyone knows. real life will NEVER provide any evidence for creationism.

0 Replies

Well, I did refrain from mentioning in my rebuttal that all RL posted was an absence of proof for naturalistic means. It's just, I didn't want to embarrass him too much.

Although, perhaps RL's logic could prove useful. I mean, using his logic, we could say that God is responsible for every single unsolved crime. Certainly, by the definition given to him by believers, he is certainly capable of being subjected to multiple life and death penalties.

So, does anyone have any unsolved crimes they think God could have been responsible for?

0 Replies

RL is back to his sh*it again. He is still attempting to use Galilean mechanics in a quantum mechanics regime. Yet I have been after him for five months to answer some basic questions about the laws of conservation and he can't so he has run away. He knows better than the experts he just can't answer basic questions. He can use classical physics to analyze the Big Bang but can't give some simple answers about those conservation laws he mischaracterizes ad museum.

So RL since you have brought your nonsense up once again. Is the thread where you will answer my questions or admit you haven't a clue? Or will you ignore them, or state that they aren't on topic, are a diversion, it isn't the right phase of the moon, Jupiter is in the wrong house, etc., etc. etc

ROFLMAO!!!!! Laughing

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know