A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously?

It takes about an hour?

And let's see ...

1. A universe from nothing.

2. No laws of physics were broken by such an event.

Sounds to me like he's saying the laws of physics were present first.

But ... but there was no universe yet.

No wonder it takes about an hour.

You could always try to learn instead of making strawman arguments all of the time, at best. Of course learning is anathema to creationism. I have yet to meet an informed and honest creationist. Most seem to know that knowledge is a threat to their beliefs and avoid learning with a vengeance.

 

[lesliedellow]

what about richard dawkins, saying nothing created everything?

What about it?

Richard Dawkins may think he is arguing against Christianity, but fundamentalists invariably seem to miss the point that it has ALWAYS been the Christian position that the universe was created out of nothing.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not quite what is being said. Have you ever watched the video "A universe from nothing"? It goes over the physics of that and explains how no laws of physics would have been broken by such an event. I could link it for you. The video is about an hour long. It is entertaining, Lawrence, the narrator, gets his science across rather well. And people at all levels can learn from it. Just ask and I will post it.

if nothing did not create everything, then what did?

 

[createdtoworship]

What about it?

Richard Dawkins may think he is arguing against Christianity, but fundamentalists invariably seem to miss the point that it has ALWAYS been the Christian position that the universe was created out of nothing.

what about it? He seems to think that nothing, is something. Which is a contradiction. Even freshman in college understand that part. Do you understand the contradiction?

 

[createdtoworship]

You could always try to learn instead of making strawman arguments all of the time, at best. Of course learning is anathema to creationism. I have yet to meet an informed and honest creationist. Most seem to know that knowledge is a threat to their beliefs and avoid learning with a vengeance.

"you can always learn instead of making strawman arguments....of course learning is anathema to creationism."

you used a strawman, to refute a strawman.

 

[createdtoworship]

An eye with a blind spot. Seems id means idiot design.

if you don't like your eyes, you can always be a living organ donor. But again most of us don't put our money where our mouth is. talk is cheap

 

[createdtoworship]

Upsetting YECs doesn't make something blasphemous. There is a good chance that it makes it right.

what upsets this YEC'er is your profile picture, just rotate it for crying out loud.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if nothing did not create everything, then what did?

Poorly asked. But we don't know why the universe began. But not knowing why has never been a valid excuse to bring a god into the mix. When that has been done in the past it has been shown to be unnecessary. Whether it was Thor and his lightning, Apollo and his chariot or countless other old refuted gods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"you can always learn instead of making strawman arguments....of course learning is anathema to creationism."

you used a strawman, to refute a strawman.

Where? I have yet to meet a creationist that was willing to learn. You have been making strawman arguments. Where was mine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what about it? He seems to think that nothing, is something. Which is a contradiction. Even freshman in college understand that part. Do you understand the contradiction?

You do realize that was a dishonest video, don't you? He quote mined Dawkins. There is no way to know what he actually said since that small segment was taken out of context.

Quote mining is never proper. I can quote mine the Bible (well I can't do it seriously here since I would get in trouble). But if I did I could say: "the Bible says 12 times 'there is no God'". Now that would be a "true claim". Of course all of those quotes would have been taken out of context. In context them meaning is quite different in all of them than what the quote mine looks like. Why not use a longer quote with a link to the source? If there is no link to the source one can almost always bet that a person is being dishonest by quote mining. The last thing you want your opponents to see is what the quote was in context.

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

Poorly asked. But we don't know why the universe began. But not knowing why has never been a valid excuse to bring a god into the mix. When that has been done in the past it has been shown to be unnecessary. Whether it was Thor and his lightning, Apollo and his chariot or countless other old refuted gods.

So then you would not agree with richard dawkins?

 

[createdtoworship]

So then you would not agree with richard dawkins?

how do you know thor did not use lightening to create the world. Did you interview him? And look under every asteroid to make sure thor was not there?

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize that was a dishonest video, don't you? He quote mined Dawkins. There is no way to know what he actually said since that small segment was taken out of context.

Quote mining is never proper. I can quote mine the Bible (well I can't do it seriously here since I would get in trouble). But if I did I could say: "the Bible says 12 times 'there is no God'". Now that would be a "true claim". Of course all of those quotes would have been taken out of context. In context them meaning is quite different in all of them than what the quote mine looks like. Why not use a longer quote with a link to the source? If there is no link to the source one can almost always bet that a person is being dishonest by quote mining. The last thing you want your opponents to see is what the quote was in context.

dawkins says the same thing several times, not a quote mine.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize that was a dishonest video, don't you? He quote mined Dawkins. There is no way to know what he actually said since that small segment was taken out of context.

Quote mining is never proper. I can quote mine the Bible (well I can't do it seriously here since I would get in trouble). But if I did I could say: "the Bible says 12 times 'there is no God'". Now that would be a "true claim". Of course all of those quotes would have been taken out of context. In context them meaning is quite different in all of them than what the quote mine looks like. Why not use a longer quote with a link to the source? If there is no link to the source one can almost always bet that a person is being dishonest by quote mining. The last thing you want your opponents to see is what the quote was in context.

what they do is say "nothing caused everything", but then "nothing is not nothing."

so by removing the problem from one statement to a further away statement, that somehow the problem goes away suddenly. nope, problem still there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then you would not agree with richard dawkins?

In what way? You do realize that the video that you used was based upon a quote mine, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

dawkins says the same thing several times, not a quote mine.

Please, the Bible says "there is no god" twelve times, not a quote mine.

Do you see how your claim fails?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what they do is say "nothing caused everything", but then "nothing is not nothing."

so by removing the problem from one statement to a further away statement, that somehow the problem goes away suddenly. nope, problem still there.

Please, you can't tell what he said. Find the original video and then you might be able to make that claim.

You do realize that a "universe from nothing" does not break any of the laws of physics, don't you? Wait, you don't. This is the the video that probably led Dawkins to his statement. Watch the whole thing and we can discuss it. Please note any times where something is said that you do not understand:

 

[createdtoworship]

In what way? You do realize that the video that you used was based upon a quote mine, don't you?

put aside the quote mine for a minute, realizing that is your guy's greatest invention (the term quote mine), which is really not a term at all. Quoting out of context is very hard to prove. Misquoting is easier to prove. So I am curious as to how you prove this quote was out of context.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please, you can't tell what he said. Find the original video and then you might be able to make that claim.

You do realize that a "universe from nothing" does not break any of the laws of physics, don't you? Wait, you don't. This is the the video that probably led Dawkins to his statement. Watch the whole thing and we can discuss it. Please note any times where something is said that you do not understand:

so by your own admission you believe something can come from nothing.