77
   

Why does the Universe exist?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2018 06:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Our disagreement was about what you said the Bible specified as the age of the earth.

I’m still waiting for you to cite the chapter and verse where it says that.

These other claims may well be true but they are irrelevant to what the Bible says. To cut to the chase, are you in agreement with the fundamentalists who say that the Bible claims the universe was created in 6 literal earth days?

If that’s your deal, ok. I just think the argument that the Bible is 100% literal is too silly to debate. I mean it clearly says that much is written as parable and simile.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2018 07:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Science does no such thing.


hes right sorta. SCience merely discounts a god (or two), and had you been here in the earlier days, much of that debate was with Frank Apisa xcept he got his argument almost sounding like hysteria. science merely rules out a god in the mix because there is no way to evidence it . It makes reseaarch almost impossible.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2018 07:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
And just where did you look up this amazing fact?
In a Biblical Contxtual rsource through Yale Divinity. The Fundamentalsit view stated that the earth(and then Adam and EVe) was created in 6 days and then we add up all the patriarchs that followed, to Abraham .Therefore the age of the earth, to the Fundamentalists was about 6000 years (the Plus or minus was for when the first patriarchs were counted after Adam.It was assumed that the next patriarch was assumed to be within Adams lifetime so there are a few years that would need to b clipped off..
Of course its BS but it IS there in Genesis , Several Fundamentalist ministers , starting with Archbishop Ussher computed it.

Im surprised youve not heard of it (unless youre just trying to bait me)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2018 07:30 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Science moves forward by finding fault in all theories
Theres quite a huge gap between mere "finding fault to dismiss" and "seeking completeness in a theory"

In science, when something is found incorrect for lack o evidence or from misappropriated evidence, Its ultimately dropped like a rock. Look at something like the theories of geosynclines as continental drift became strongly evidenced and experimented with. ORR, how bout Piltdown Man, it took many yars of diligent work after the first lacquer application and possible errors in the jaw were noiced. Today, Piltdown remains as an effort that science made to uncover a fraud.

ID "science" has made no real contributions to the reserch regarding here it "faults ere discovered". In fact, one of the key features of modern ID "theory", noteably IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY, has been debunked nicely by grad students under McKay back in the pre-Dover days.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 12:04 am
@Leadfoot,
You're not debating because of a bona fide desire to improved the theory. Instead you're arguing in bad faith, to destroy the theory, reason for which you keep failing.

Now tell me a story about marine mammals' testicles...
bunnyhabit
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 12:06 am
so i got place to live is only reason I found logical
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 11:08 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You're not debating because of a bona fide desire to improved the theory. Instead you're arguing in bad faith, to destroy the theory, reason for which you keep failing.

I've make no secret of my position on evolution. As an explanation for life emerging and diversifying into what we see, it is amazingly elegant.
But it is based on the belief that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to account for every speciation event from day 1. I simply reject that conclusion, not on religious grounds, but scientific ones.

Quote:
Now tell me a story about marine mammals' testicles...

I gave you sufficient background on the evolutionary problem with the whale testicles. It’s time for you to defend how evolution could have done that if you can. If you can’t, it is you who are arguing in bad faith.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 11:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
As an explanation for life emerging and diversifying into what we see, it is amazingly elegant. 

Good for you to recognize that. I was worried about you being so focused on nitpicking evolution that you would miss the wonder of a constantly evolving world, which is far more beautiful than any static world could be.

Quote:
I gave you sufficient background on the evolutionary problem with the whale testicles. 

No, you didn't. What seems to be the problem with whales testicles?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 11:26 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
But it is based on the belief that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to account for every speciation event from day 1. I simply reject that conclusion, not on religious grounds, but scientific ones.
It is a conclusion based upon best evidence availble. What are the scientific grouns that make yoou add more events to nt selection, mutation?? How about earth's own catclysmic changes or mankinds screwing with and creating new ecosystems?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 11:38 am
@Leadfoot,
WHales testicles sounds like it could be a Ken Ham invention (kinda like "polystrate fossils", "irreducible complexity" or"specified information"

Remember that, no matter what you cry out, ID is predicated on causes that are entirely supernatural( Whether Gods did it directly or whether they "trained buncha chemicals to react the way they do").
Once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there int any more reasons to continue looking for natural explanations because our anwer is right there.
Everytime you seem to try to "own" data as supportive of your ID claims, its not really. Its merely supporting a counterclaim that merely says
"Oh yeh, well prove me wrong"
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 11:58 am
@farmerman,
Dude. I'm looking forward to a meaty discussion about whales balls, some of which can weight half a metric ton.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 01:30 pm
@Olivier5,
Sperm whale?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2018 02:41 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
I gave you sufficient background on the evolutionary problem with the whale testicles.

Oliver replies:
No, you didn't. What seems to be the problem with whales testicles?

You have verified that you don’t know enough to discuss evolution as regarding whales.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2018 12:21 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
you don’t know enough to discuss evolution as regarding whales.

You mean you're NOT going to try some of your half-backed god magic on me? You might as well not, for your sake, but I'm gona miss a big laugh about whales testicles... :-(
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2018 04:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Whale's evolution.
https://whaleevolution-meaghanferguson.weebly.com/timeline.html
Helloandgoodbye
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2018 05:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
OR:
https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2018 05:44 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
You must first accept the fact that homosapiens also evolved.
Quote:
The species that you and all other living human beings on this planet belong to is Homo sapiens. During a time of dramatic climate change 300,000 years ago, Homo sapiens evolved in Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2018 05:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I love the artistic trees and graphs like those links provide. Thx for the info.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2018 06:28 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
You're welcome.
0 Replies
 
Aetherian
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 05:36 am
@TuringEquivalent,
This was the question by a friend who worked with George King during the formative days of The Aetherius Society. Being psychically endowed he was able to receive a visit by the Master to give the answer to the question, "Why does IT create"?
George King was a master of yoga and even in the flesh was able to access cosmic consciousness under any condition within two minutes as demonstrated before the TV cameras and is available on a youtube video.
Reaching the highest level possible in meditation in the After Life he was able to get an answer which was given in the form of a single word "Curiosity".
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2018 at 10:18:05