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

Yeah, much easier than actually answering the question. Laughing

Don't worry. I laughed too.

(I think it hilarious when all you have left is the ad homs.)

0 Replies

Clased systems dont exist, according to wiki

BTW, that Ronald Reagan quote is priceless.
"I can't help but notice that people that haven't been born can't speak." A true beacon of stupidity.

0 Replies

<reminder>

Immaterial =! imaginary;

</reminder>

The idea that proving you love your mother is parallel to proving god exists is false. This is blurring the line between real and imaginary.

Plenty of things are real but immaterial. Take for instance commerce and athletics. They are played out with material things, but they themselves are not material. Love is played out with a number of exchanges between real people in a pattern which is typically consistent with that of their culture's standards for what love is.

The idea of god(s) however is inconsistent with this.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yeah, much easier than actually answering the question. Laughing

Don't worry. I laughed too.

(I think it hilarious when all you have left is the ad homs.)

Funny when all you have left is inane questions. I believe I asked you for evidence for creationism and defined a nice set of criteria. Apparently all you can do is attempt to set yourself up to criticize others. How cowardly Wink

.

I will gladly get into my views once I see that you or baddog1 possess the ability to do anything but expose your own silly incredulity.

0 Replies

Inane, eh?

No, the real problem is revealed by reading your earlier posts.

You were whining about being 'put on the defensive'. Wah.

My question was quite relevant, you just are uncomfortable with the discussion going in a direction you don't like.

The point I brought out was pertinent to the discussion of origins, but if you can't handle it, that's really too bad.

Far from simply expressing incredulity, I laid out several options and am glad to discuss why one can logically eliminate those that are unworkable.

Either matter/energy are/were eternal........

......or they are not.

There's really only two options there, and both can't be correct.

What is wrong with eliminating one? Not a thing.

All you can respond with is 'you're criticizing us'. Wah.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Inane, eh?

No, the real problem is revealed by reading your earlier posts.

You were whining about being 'put on the defensive'. Wah.

My question was quite relevant, you just are uncomfortable with the discussion going in a direction you don't like.

The point I brought out was pertinent to the discussion of origins, but if you can't handle it, that's really too bad.

Except the discussion is SUPPOSED to be about creationism which is NOT any origin but the origin as related in the bible.

Funny that you should mention someone being uncomfortable about the discussion while you refuse to deal with the question at hand.

0 Replies

yes, parados, you've told us (frequently) that you don't think that discussion of origins can be about anything except what you say is ok.

sorry, discussion doesn't work that way.

creation is about the universe having a beginning point. if you can make a really good case that eliminating the alternative ( i.e. there was no beginning point) is invalid, then make your case instead of whining. wah.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

And I've listed a definition that I'll stand by unless there is one proposed which is better. Is there any of that evidence for creationism? Are you capable of participating in debate after I've listed and defended said definition repeatedly with many of my counterarguments ignored?

There is no way anyone can consider discussion with certain individuals if they do not show them capable of anything but sophistry, either. Perhaps we're at an impasse: sophistry and unfounded suspicion vs. a simple question with an explicitly listed criterion.

We are clearly at an impasse, and although the reasons you provide are typically biased; I see no reason to continue. You will maintain that your definition of 'evidence' is sufficient - until which time/situation you feel it is not. Then you will alter your definition to fit whatever situation is in question at that time. That's been the theme of this thread so nothing has changed.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Creationism.

Not "origins."
Not whatever else you want to use to distract from creationism.

So to get back to the actual topic. It's "Creationism."

When you accuse others of not wanting to talk about a topic real life you undercut your argument completely since you do not want to talk about the topic of this thread. It's CREATIONISM.

0 Replies

from a mostly anti-creation article:

Quote:

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

sorry parados, you're sinking on this one.

even your own side uses the term as I've used it. give it up. Laughing

0 Replies

I dug back into this thread to find this stunning example of my wit:

neologist wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
neologist wrote:
The problem here is with the word 'evidence'.

Whether one believes in creation or in evolution, the evidence is the same.

The evidence is clearly not the same. You can't prove evolution and creationism to be true with the same evidence.
That is funnier than you may think.

Sure to produce an endless round of competing rhetoric.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Inane, eh?

No, the real problem is revealed by reading your earlier posts.

You were whining about being 'put on the defensive'. Wah.

Haha, whining? I suppose if that's how you put contempt for dishonest tactics... You know that dishonesty, even implicit, tends to be against the principles creationists are supposed to follow, right?

real life wrote:

My question was quite relevant, you just are uncomfortable with the discussion going in a direction you don't like.

Relevant? How is asking presumed noncreationists what their ideas are on cosmology relevant to creationists supplying evidence, exactly? I'm not uncomfortable in any way with going into it, in fact I offered to - after you show any capacity to recognize this thread's topic and offer a single piece of evidence for creationism.

real life wrote:

Far from simply expressing incredulity, I laid out several options and am glad to discuss why one can logically eliminate those that are unworkable.

Then do it. That would count under my evidence of creationism as a deductive argument.

As I believe I noted earlier, matter and energy do not by necessity constitute the entirety of the physical universe, and thus the question is merely whether the universe itself is eternal or not.

Sans God options:
If the universe is eternal, you get an infinite recursion.

If the universe is not, you get ex nihilo or something so complex and strange that it would bend our concept of what we call 'our universe' (we're exploring possiblities, after all).

With God:
If the universe is eternal, there's still an infinite recursion and God sure looks superfluous

If the universe is not, you can tie on God at the front as the causal agent.

However, by tying on 'God' as the creator, you've simply moved the issue back. Rather than being an immediately-acceptable answer, the question has moved back on step to: where did God come from?

If He is eternal, you get an infinite recursion.

If He is not, you get ex nihilo or something so complex and strange that it would bend our concept of what we call 'God'.

Have you noticed a pattern? The inclusion of God does nothing to the issue. And just to head off the ensuing nonsense about the Big Bang: the Big Bang says nothing about its own origin as ex nihilo or as having a precursor universe, etc. In fact, right now 'winding time back' results in the BB predicting a singularity in which things simply get very fuzzy. Fuzziness != God, or if it does you've likely just insulted your own beliefs Wink

.

There, now I've gone into your implied cosmological argument. Care to give evidence for creationism?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

We are clearly at an impasse, and although the reasons you provide are typically biased; I see no reason to continue. You will maintain that your definition of 'evidence' is sufficient - until which time/situation you feel it is not. Then you will alter your definition to fit whatever situation is in question at that time. That's been the theme of this thread so nothing has changed.

And you, my friend, are a liar. Good riddance!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

from a mostly anti-creation article:

Quote:
The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

sorry parados, you're sinking on this one.

even your own side uses the term as I've used it. give it up.

Creationism is creationism. It isn't creationism vs whatever the hell real life wants to drag up.

Creationism is creationism is creationism is creationism. The topic is NOT creationism vs evolution. The topic is NOT creationism vs the big bang the topic is "evidence of creationism." To bring up anything else to deflect talking about creationism is nothing but running away from creationism.

Although IF the topic were creationism vs evolution it would STILL require that creationism be discussed. The problem you have real life is that you REFUSE to discuss creationism at all.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
We are clearly at an impasse, and although the reasons you provide are typically biased; I see no reason to continue. You will maintain that your definition of 'evidence' is sufficient - until which time/situation you feel it is not. Then you will alter your definition to fit whatever situation is in question at that time. That's been the theme of this thread so nothing has changed.

And you, my friend, are a liar. Good riddance!

That's the mantra on here. When called on an issue - cry 'liar'. Classy move "my friend". Very classy!

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Have you noticed a pattern? The inclusion of God does nothing to the issue.

Incorrect.

An eternal universe has the problem of entropy. An eternal God does not.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

That's the mantra on here. When called on an issue - cry 'liar'. Classy move "my friend". Very classy!

Perhaps you earn the reputation. What should I assume when I repeatedly explain myself and my reasonings and you only show a propensity to repeat your original assertion, despite correction?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Incorrect.

An eternal universe has the problem of entropy. An eternal God does not.

An eternal universe has no entropy problem, the second law of thermodynamics is not necessarily operative before the Big Bang. And that's an important distinction, as all of this is philosophical.

If we ignore the Big Bang entirely and merely imagine a physical universe going back in time, it is also not necessary that the second law of thermodynamics applied to the universe as a whole for eternity, not reason to believe it *couldn't* reverse or that the existence of white holes, etc would counteract it. Essentially, a substantive uniformitarianism concerning the second law of thermodynamics is not guaranteed.

Additionally, even if we pretend the second law of thermodynamics did hold, a universe in the state of minimal entropy (extending infinitely) could hardly be called 'God' unless we are playing at sophistry and metaphor for which there is no reasonable justification. Such a thing demands no teleology, no personal relationships, no Jesus, no spirituality, no dualism, no anthropomorphizations whatsoever.

0 Replies

real life, this bears repeating:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

There, now I've gone into your implied cosmological argument. Care to give evidence for creationism?

0 Replies

Ah, as a final addendum to my argument concerning the cosmological argument, I should note that the second law of thermodynamics is... well, about thermodynamics. It is not necessary that it applied to the universe in the past, one which may not have had matter nor energy, etc, and for which explanations concerning free energy states would have no bearing.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know