32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 04:03 am
@FBM,
please mate! do some research firts next time!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 10:49 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
research firts


Ok. I did the research and it seems to explain a lot about you Q.

Quote:
Firt
Farting during the act of flirting.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 02:14 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
which of the laws you think is being violated
     IMV the question sooner is: is there any law of physics that is not violated by the Big Bang 'theory'?
     So, tell us what is the order of the energy of the Universe - make some guess, or calculations or inferences by analogy, as you wish.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 02:19 pm
@Herald,
So in other words you don't know what the laws are or how to calculate them.

You stated it violated a certain law. I asked which law. You have failed to provide that law. Instead you just deflect with more silly statements.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 02:23 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
I've already posted a large number of facts from science
     You are continuously posting some references from casual pseudo-scientific talks that are performed in connection with something else and have very weak correlation to the themes discussed here. Why don't you simply answer to the questions with your own words, using your own reasoning ... and understanding of the Big Bang 'theory' and of the world? Where has the Big Bang taken all that energy from to create the mass of the Universe -> E = M.c^2 where M is the mass of the present day Universe, c is the speed of light in vacuum and E is actually some part of the energy of the Universe that the Big Bang has taken out of the sleeve to 'create' (for you don't even know whether the Universe has been created or has not always existed) the Universe .
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 02:25 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So in other words you don't know what the laws are or how to calculate them.
     How much is the rate of expansion of the Universe right now?
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 02:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I am not yelling...I am not emphasizing.
     F., so and so you cannot stop writing in boldface, why don't you tell the people here how much energy will the Big Bang need (as a minimum) to be able to create the Universe out of zero-D 'gravitational continuum'?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 02:35 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I am not yelling...I am not emphasizing.
     F., so and so you cannot stop writing in boldface,


Who says I cannot stop writing in bold face?

Quote:
why don't you tell the people here how much energy will the Big Bang need (as a minimum) to be able to create the Universe out of zero-D 'gravitational continuum'?



Don't have the slightest idea...but since that does not impact on what is being discussed here...what difference does that make?
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 03:01 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
F., so and so you cannot stop writing in boldface, why don't you tell the people here how much energy will the Big Bang need (as a minimum) to be able to create the Universe out of zero-D 'gravitational continuum'?


Create? That is very funny? I alwasy have been taught that Biggie Bangies don't create but make a lot of chaos! Wink
How on earth can they 'create' then?

Errrr They can't Wink
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 03:26 pm
@Herald,
How do you think the rate of expansion applies to the 3 laws of thermodynamics?

Now you are just deflecting more and not answering the question of which law is violated.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 06:44 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

...Why don't you simply answer to the questions with your own words, using your own reasoning ...


Because your questions are nonsense in the first place. Also, unlike you, I acknowledge that there are people who know more about this than I do. I use my reasoning to select the relevant evidence, bring it here and link you to it. If you spin off into manic denialism as a result, that your weakness.

Why don't you simply answer the questions about the evidence for your god with your own words, using your own reasoning? Why so evasive and intellectually dishonest? Fear? Ignorance? Something else?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 09:41 pm
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 11:01 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Because your questions are nonsense in the first place.
      ... and second it is not called nonsense but rather invalid questions, in which case a justification is provided why the question is invalid. That is the scientific approach, and if you are such great scientist as you are presenting yourself to be, you will say at least why the question How much is the rate of expansion of the Universe? is invalid to the theme of the Big Bang 'theory'?
FBM wrote:
Also, unlike you, I acknowledge that there are people who know more about this than I do.
      ... and you are not at a level even to understand what they are claiming ... and why.
FBM wrote:
I use my reasoning to select the relevant evidence, bring it here and link you to it.
     No, this is called easy-makering. Some day you may make a great career in your sciences (whatever they might be), but you will never start understanding the things and the processes driving our Universe and our life - never, and there is a huge difference.
FBM wrote:
If you spin off into manic denialism as a result, that your weakness.
     Speaking about' 'maniac dinialism' what does the term 'atheism' mean?
FBM wrote:
Why don't you simply answer the questions about the evidence for your god with your own words, using your own reasoning?
     Aha, I see what is your porblem - you are simply a negative generator ... or perhaps even negative gamma ray burster and you need something to destroy. You cannot even construct anything without a references to some casual talk irrelevant to the blog.
FBM wrote:
Why so evasive and intellectually dishonest? Fear? Ignorance? Something else?
      Around people like you one may start understanding much better even some claims from the Bible, like for example: Like 6:41 'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 11:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Who says I cannot stop writing in bold face?
      ... for a continuous period of time was the context there.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 11:22 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
FBM wrote:
If you spin off into manic denialism as a result, that your weakness.
Quote:
Speaking about' 'maniac dinialism' what does the term 'atheism' mean?


The "a" part means 'not' or 'without' and 'theism' means belief in a god or gods. Nothing manic or denialist about it, because neither you nor anyone else has brought credible evidence forward for us to deny. Nor is there anything manic or denialist about pointing out and refuting logical fallacies.

Quote:
Around people like you one may start understanding much better even some claims from the Bible, like for example: Like 6:41 'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?


You came here attacking science without taking the time to logically analyze your own position first. Had you done so with intellectual honesty, you would see that you have nothing more substantial than blind faith at the foundation of your god hypothesis.

If you've got something better than the scientific approach, bring it. Still waiting.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2014 05:02 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Who says I cannot stop writing in bold face?
      ... for a continuous period of time was the context there.


Ahhh...you were wrong...so rather than acknowledge that you were wrong...you change what you "meant."

I guess there have to be people like in every Internet forum...and on behalf of the group, I thank you for being ours.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2014 06:10 am
http://www.theonion.com/articles/biologists-confirm-god-evolved-from-chimpanzee-dei,35755/

Quote:

Biologists Confirm God Evolved From Chimpanzee Deity
NEWS • Religion • God • Animals • News • ISSUE 50•14 • Apr 10, 2014


Researchers say today’s Lord Almighty shares many traits in common with the chimp deity, including color vision and omniscience.

BERKELEY, CA—Challenging long-held views on the origins of divinity, biologists at the University of California, Berkeley, presented findings Thursday that confirm God, the Almighty Creator of the Universe, evolved from an ancient chimpanzee deity.

The recently discovered sacred ancestor, a divine chimp species scientists have named Pan sanctorum, reportedly gave rise over millions of years to the Lord Our God, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

“Although perhaps not obvious at first glance, there are actually overwhelming similarities between the Supreme Being of today and this early primate deity who preceded Him,” said Dr. Richard Kamen, a leading biologist who also heads Berkeley’s paleotheology department. “The holy chimp moved around on all fours, but its descendants eventually began walking upright to expend less energy while foraging across the infinite reaches of the universe. This of course led to the bipedalism of modern-day God.”

“In fact, you can see a distinct likeness to God in the chimpanzee deity’s skeletal structures, not to mention its prototypical expressions of vengeance and wrath,” Kamen continued. “The great-ape god was, however, considerably smaller in stature, having not yet developed the capacity to occupy all space and time simultaneously.”

According to experts, divine life began as a single-celled all-powerful organism roughly 3.6 billion years ago, eventually evolving into a multicelled, sponge-like deity that bobbed and floated across the chaos of the early universe. Kamen explained that over hundreds of millions of years, the godlike life form became more complex, with limbs that allowed for locomotion across the endless expanse of the heavens, and sophisticated photoreceptor cells capable of seeing all things.

Based on newly obtained evidence, the Pan sanctorum is thought to have first experimented with creation ex nihilo around 7 million years ago. Kamen noted that the chimpanzee deity made several early attempts to produce rudimentary solar systems, but on each occasion was spooked upon inadvertently creating fire, which is said to have caused it to screech loudly, angrily swat away the newly formed sun, and then scamper across the universe to hide from the flaming sphere.

“Natural selection played a huge role in the evolution of divinity, and in this regard, the adaptive value of Pan sanctorum’s immortality proved critical to its survival,” said Kamen, adding that with its opposable thumbs, the divine ancestor was eventually able to fashion primitive tools for creating crude oceans and basic mountain ranges. “Today’s Lord Almighty actually still has a small bony protuberance in the small of His back, the vestigial remains of a tail we believe was used by an even older, monkey-like god to facilitate climbing, allowing it to escape into the heavens when faced with danger.”

“That potential for threats made it an evolutionary imperative for the primate god to develop omnipotence,” Kamen continued. “As well as sharp claws and pointed incisors.”

Though its smaller brain limited its cognitive abilities, the chimpanzee deity is believed to have possessed not only self-awareness, but also spatial intelligence, object permanence, and a rudimentary capacity for knowing all that is, all that has been, and all that ever will be.

However, it was only relatively recently that the heavenly species developed the intellectual capacity for higher reasoning, critical thinking, and infinite wisdom, according to Kamen. For Pan sanctorum, he noted, the passage of divine judgment was “purely a matter of primal instinct.”

“While complex speech would not emerge until the evolution of the Cro-Magnon god from Pan Sanctorum, the chimpanzee deity was capable of using grunts and hand gestures to convey basic emotions such as happiness, anger, or the forgiveness of sin,” Kamen said. “However, it appears that the chimp deity often exhibited extremely aggressive behavior, in some cases unleashing its divine wrath with little if any provocation toward the mortal chimps it created in its own image.”

He added, “It is our understanding that these creatures lived in a kind of jungle-like forerunner to the Garden of Eden, until a day came when their enraged creator cast them out, flinging feces at them as they fled.”
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2014 06:38 am
Maybe some people here have to read this beautifll book:
https://dillsnapcogitation.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/bicameral.jpg

Quote:
What is human consciousness, where did it come from, and how does it determine who we are and how we live in the world? At the heart of this book is the theory that human consciousness did not develop over time--that, in fact, ancient peoples from mesopotamia to Peru did not "think" as we do and therefore were not conscious. Drawing on laboratory studies of the brain and clos examination of archaeological evidence, the author concludes that consciousness is not a product of evolution but of catastrophic events in our own history, events that occurred as recently as three thousand years ago.


won'tbe easy for evolutionists to comprehend. Wink
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2014 06:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
typing in bold does make one appear a a bit of a flake. so if you embrace that, who am I?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2014 06:53 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

typing in bold does make one appear a a bit of a flake. so if you embrace that, who am I?


There have been several people who used bold in A2K...and I never saw anyone ever even mention it to them. I wonder why people are getting their knickers in a twist because I am doing it.

In any case, I cannot for the life of me think why anyone would consider anyone doing so to be a flake for it. Seems like a statement like that says more about the person saying it...than about the individual to whom it is directed, FM.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 03:39:52