Fairytale?

[FoeHammer]

Bingo! And FoeHammer's comment was in a response to Aron-Ra's comment above.

It was not as you say, you were wrong about that. With regards to faith = trust I am right and not simply because I say so. look back over the posts and tell me; why do you think I was wrong to make this claim?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

He didn't imply that they went together, and they didn't have to to make the point.

Of course he implied they went together by posting them together.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

.....

Even Foehammer describes "God Did It" as something man can not describe. If you can't describe it it isn't an explanation, plain and simple.

You should have a look at what I actually said.

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

He didn't imply that they went together, and they didn't have to to make the point.

Of course he implied they went together by posting them together.

FoeHammer.

No he didn't.

 

[NailsII]

Oh, kind sir, please do tell me of what you speak! Perhaps I should first put on a befitting garment for this flogging.

I was merely attempting to remind you that the bible cannot be relied upon as evidence, even if it was dictated word-for word by god himself. Too much time elapsed for the writing to be an accurate description of real events.
However, once it was written it was copied with greater fidelity than DNA is inside our cells - but there is a very good reason for that....

And where is thy mountain, oh man?

I have, on many occasions, posted links to hard evidence - and this has been refuted on the grounds of it only being a link (admittedly not by yourself, if memory serves).
So let me refresh your memory - evidence that contradicts the idea that humans were created genetically perfect less than 10,000 years ago. I will summarise for clarity, if you would like links to the actual research then please ask - I will provide these if needed.
1. Human remains older than 10,000 years, cave paintings, jewelry etc.
2. The oldest human mummified remains (c3,800BC) show no such digression from our current form, so weaknesses such as bad backs, weak joints and cartlidge trouble, inefficient immune systems etc. are all still evident.
3. Genetic evidence - Viral introns, non-functioning or redundant genes (such as Vitamin C synthesis), vestigal organs, and not forgetting poor design of eyes, spine, soft tissue joints, urethra. This evidence is in direct support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

For this I thank you kindly, but I am unaware of such embarassment on my end? Though it may be imagined by others. I am not embarassed by by what I do not know. I am not embarassed by what I do know. And I am not embarassed by what others know more than I. And while I find all of that here, I also, am aware that I know more than others on some issues, which also, does not embarass me.

Whilst your dogged determination to defend your faith is admirable, I fear it is misplaced.
I feel you would earn more repect from others if you took the time to study such evidence and realise it poses a real problem for literal interpretation of the bible. With this in mind, it is still perfectly acceptable to hold onto your faith and beleifs, despite the obvious conclusion that the evidence suggests that a god is improbable and unnessesary.
Most people are outstanding knowledgable in at least one area, the wise among us tend to refrain from jumping in to discussions when they are not in possesion of the facts.
While I am not labelling you as 'unwise', I am merely suggesting what I feel would be a more successful strategy for you to pursue.

And on this matter that I have been discussing no evidence has been demonstrated to me, either. Would you not agree? No, of course, you wouldn't. But that's ok. No problem here.

Let's look at this again when you have appraised my summary 'mountain' above.

 

[NailsII]

Perhaps I should first put on a befitting garment for this flogging.

Hmm, intersting proposition.
What do you have in mind? (maybe we should continue this by PM.....
I wonder if your husband (or my wife for that matter) would object?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I made the prediction in my post # 544, and included a link to the BBC in my explanation of how cosmologists do not believe in "something from nothing" the way creationists do. Then in post #675, immediately after that explanation, you proved that you hadn't even read what I wrote by saying that you thought I was talking about abiogenesis. Then when I corrected you, you said you couldn't find it. So I told you which post to look at and pointed out the BBC link to make it easier to find since the link was in a different color.

In the second paragraph of post #544 you said “Of course common sense allowed me to predict the example you would give.” (emphasis added). “Allowed”, past tense, so where, prior to this post, did you make that prediction? It was you who first mentioned the big bang and not I, I simply responded to it once you had given it.

You're so predictable. I made my challenge in post # 497 knowing you would refer to "something from nothing", and that that would be your reference to big bang cosmology despite the fact that you actually believe everything really was conjured out of nothing via the incantation of magic words.

Incidentally I take the BBC less seriously than I do you, posting links to them therefore is pointless.

Unlike you, I prefer to substantiate the things I say. So I put in references so that you can see that I'm right, and not just making baseless assertions like you do.

Well, they don't make up things that aren't there and then worship them. But no, that's not quite what I mean. It is no longer possible for humans to live without science. It is what gave us our 3rd greatest advantage over all other animals, and we can't go back to living without it now.

Hardly consistent with rational thought and logic.

How would you know it was or not?

To suggest that we are so far removed from nature that we are no longer capable of surviving without that which we never needed for our survival during 99.9% of our alleged evolutionary development is nonsense were it not then I would have to conclude that the evolution of the human capacity for “science” was a major disadvantage and should never have been selected for.

Every specialization requires a tradeoff. The most basic forms are the hardiest and the most advanced are also the most specialized, and dependant on much stricter conditions.

Natural selection obviously can't relate to abiogenesis since it relies on successive generations of inherited traits from which it determines which random mutations will be selected nd which ones won't be continued.

My original statement began as follows:

The more you respond to me with stuff like this the more convinced I am that you are wrong with regards to mans evolutionary origin. That a chance chemical reaction triggered a mindless process of mistake after mistake, plus natural selection (whatever that is supposed to mean),

The chance I referred to was in the chemical reaction that allegedly “created” the first life form to which you replied that it wasn’t chance by not paying attention you have confused matters.

You're not paying attention, and that's why you're confused. That, and you're determined not to understand any of this. You complain about this "mindless chance of mistake after mistake" because you're still working from the very wrong perspective that evolution is necessarily atheistic and that if the fables in Genesis aren't true then God can't be true either. Then you reveal your ignorance of "natural selection (whatever that's supposed to mean)" when what that means is a deterministic process. I admit it is evidently "mindless" and could be described as a series of "mistake after mistake" because that's what trial-and-error is. But trial-and-error is also a system of continuous improvement. Consequently, most Christians see evolution as a divine concept.

Because you and I have very different definitions for that word. Mine is 'something which seems true, but you can't be certain about.' You're obviously using a dictionary who's definitions aren't available where I can find them.

Try dictionary.com

I did. It, like every other definitive source proved my point that faith is a confidence in others, or a trust or belief that is not based on proof, but which is an obligation to, and observance of religious beliefs in God and theology as well as cultural or political ethics. However, Dictionary.com holds that faith relates to belief in God and Christian theology specifically, but of course one can have faith and not be Christian, and not every religious belief includes a god. Different dictionaries give variable definitions. So it is necessary in a case like this to get a consensus from every definitive source and not just the collective of all available dictionaries. In that case, then faith is more precisely defined as a stoic conviction that is both assumed and maintained independant of evidence.

Faith is an unquestioned assumption which is embraced without reservation.

Mine isn’t.

You've just proven my point. You don't realize it, but then, by definition, you couldn't realize it.

My apologies, it should have read: mine wasn’t.

OK, so it wasn't an unquestioned assumption, but it is now?! How does that even relate to the point?

Can you give me any reason to believe that physics or mathematics were any different at any point in the past than they are now? Because otherwise, uniformitarianism at least allows us to figure some things out, and I think that's the real reason you're opposed to it. You're not remotely interested in inquiry. You don't want to know whatever is really; you just wanna believe what you want whether you think its really true or not.

Uniformitarianism is an un-provable assumption and as such anything it allows you to “figure out” about the past is also un-provable and must be accepted by faith.

Forensic science is determined by evidence, not faith. Now again; Can you give me any reason to believe that physics or mathematics were any different at any point in the past than they are now?

I said that was his opinion. Arguments from authority are worthless, remember?

That depends on the authority.

No it doesn't.

I said Christians have admitted they will lie to defend their belief. You asked for an example of that, and I gave it -proving my point. So now you're trying to distort it into an excuse to pretend that it doesn't count.

Your original statement:

….. while religion tends to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything all the time, and even admit they will lie to promote what they "just gotta believe" no matter what. So what choice do I have?

How can I twist what wasn’t there? There is no mention in your original statement of Christians in particular only religion in general. You really should take more care, read and re-read before submitting a reply.

So are you now trying to say that Christianity isn't a religion?

If your god exists then it is entirely his fault that I cannot believe in him. Because not only has he concealed all evidence of himself in every capacity, but he has already shown me a lifetime of profound evidence against everything his supporters claim. That, and he has made sure that his most obvious proponants are all willfully ignorant and/or deliberately dishonest charlatans and confidence men basing all their claims upon falsehoods and perpetuating fraud in the name of your god and other gods just like him.

More unsubstantiated claims.

You yourself substantiate those claims.

I mean, c'mon even other Christians begin to question their faith when they listen to you!

I hope so.

See? That's what annoys me most about creationists; their lack of sincerity.

Your kind is doing a tremendous service to my cause. Is that "by design" too?

To make an idiot of oneself is a strange cause to have but if I'm helping and you're happy.....

You're going to have to do better than playground-level mentality if you want to get a rise out of me. Of course what I meant is that your arguments are at once so rude, so repugnant and so stupid, that thoughtful, good-hearted Christians would rather not be associated with people like you. Your sort of vile idiocy and willfull caustic incredulousness has been a most effective tool in the advancement of secular thought.

Having myself been designed to think analytically, then your god stacked the deck such that I could not believe as you do without having to forfeit my reason and forget everything I know and can show to be true about science, politics, history, humanities, and sociology. Even then I might also need to suffer a severe stroke or blunt force trauma to the brain in order to believe as you do. If your god exists, then this is the only option he permits me to have.

On the day of judgment you’re going to be one of those who will blame everyone else and ultimately God Himself for your failure.
You are without excuse.

You can't make me fear your hallucination. Every aspect of your belief defies all logic on every level. Even if we pretend that this djinn you dream of were really real, why would it care if we believed in him? Why would it demand that we forego all reason and common sense to believe in him without reservation even without evidence, especially in defiance of all the evidence he errected to the contrary? Because the way you zealots present this, if we don't worship the ravings of some Bronze-age scribe, then we face a fate worse than death with this oh-so loving god of yours. And of course if we give power to the priests, then they promise all manner of wealth which they'll never have to produce, and we will never see, and your god wouldn't really offer under those conditions anyway. Its all too stupid to seriously believe.

obviously, if something is conjured into existence, then it didn't exist before, right? It had to be conjured out of non-existence. I mean, it wasn't changed, existing in one form and then another. No, it went from not existing at all to (poof) there it is. That is, in every respect, something from nothing -even if your favorite magic imaginary friend really did it.

Ignored due to terminology.

Who are you trying to kid? You're ignoring this because you know you can't answer it without admitting that you believe in something from nothing, which you also said was impossible, and you know that admission would only prove my point again.

The fact that you creationists always duck-and-dodge so is proof that on some level you all know you're full of it. If you really believed in your position, you wouldn't fear any truth the way you all do, you wouldn't rely on logical fallacies and ridiculous parodies, you wouldn't need mobile goal posts, false dichotomies and misrepresented data, and you would neither require nor desire faith.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course he implied they went together by posting them together.

FoeHammer.

And FoeHammer's comment was in a response to Aron-Ra's comment above

I have bolded the word "a" in my sentence. It was not my intention (as I already explained) to imply it was a direct response to Aron's quote.

 

[Split Rock]

It was not as you say, you were wrong about that. With regards to faith = trust I am right and not simply because I say so. look back over the posts and tell me; why do you think I was wrong to make this claim?

FoeHammer.

You're sophistry is getting repetitive. You claim that science = faith because of "trust" in other peoples' research and because (get this) it's conclusions are tentative. Then you claim your belief in Creationism is not faith, because you know you are right and when it comes to understanding what God did, you are infallible. If you cannot see where you are wrong in any of this, then you are beyond hope.

 

[NailsII]

You're sophistry is getting repetitive. You claim that science = faith because of "trust" in other peoples' research and because (get this) it's conclusions are tentative. Then you claim your belief in Creationism is not faith, because you know you are right and when it comes to understanding what God did, you are infallible. If you cannot see where you are wrong in any of this, then you are beyond hope.

bravo.
The whole concept of science is that it lacks infallibility, everything is to be questioned.
Admitedly it must be hard to see your life's work overtaken by a new, more accurate set of data and interpretation, but that's life.
If Newton were alive at the turn of the last centuary I hope he would have applauded Einstein's work (but i doubt it - from what I have read of the man he was a bit of an egotistic maniac) - but Einsten's work has, in general, withstood the test of time. Yes, there were things he was simply wrong about and they have been superceded - and that is the beauty of science.
So, when overwhelming evidence becomes available that Darwin was wrong, text books will ahve to be re-written.

Until that day, evolution by natural selection stands as king of its hill.

If only everyone could see this as the logical course of action.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Siddharth Gautama the Shakyamuni Buddha

Warning, it may take two whole minutes to download this even with a broadband connection.

Well, somewhat knowing the source, we have no doubt of that.

Well did it work for you? What did you think?

Hello?

 

[Renton405]

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively. And since there are no magic spells or talking animals in any aspect of evolution, as there are in most fairytales including Genesis, then exactly what do you think qualifies evolution as a fairytale? And do please be specific.

Lets go even farther back..

Explain where the big bang came from??

Explain how something can come from absolutely nothing

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Lets go even farther back..

Explain where the big bang came from??

Explain how something can come from absolutely nothing

Whoever said the Big Bang is 'something from nothing'?

Also, since when was the Big Bang at all related to evolution?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Lets go even farther back..

Explain where the big bang came from??

I already did that in posts 678 and 735 of this very thread.

Explain how something can come from absolutely nothing

You tell me, because I don't believe that, but apparently you do.

 

[Inan3]

All the evidence implies that the galaxies are flying apart now. So there had to be a single cosmic expansion at some point in the past; and quantum mechanics suggests that it was the sort of singularity which would exceed anything possible even of atoms deprived of all their internal 'space'.

But the question is WHAT caused this expansion and WHY and HOW and WHERE did the "materials" come from that went "BANG"???

You mean like who created God? And who created the guy who created God? And what was God doing sitting alone in the dark for eternity before creating the universe? No, its nothing like that.

God always was and always will be. Just because we have a beginning and that is all we know, it is not hard to understand or believe that there is a Being who did not. He wasn't sitting in the dark. This universe is not all there is nor all that there will be. I know you can think farther than the limitations of this universe.

Whether you're talking to string thoerists or Taoists, it was two different amorphous extracosmic entities in contact which prompted the rift. Myself, I think that if a rupture in the space-time continuum really is the answer, then it might be that our universe erupted from it like a bubble seems to appear in the bottom of a nearly boiling pot of water, along with myriad others just like it. That's another analogy, but at least its mine. It really doesn't matter to me what the orgin of the universe is. If we were 'destined' to know all things, then it wouldn't be this way. But we don't appear to have any 'destiny', and I think we'll all be extinct before anyone really knows the answer you're pleading for. That's why I prefer to concentrate on what I can know and can show to be true, like evolution, the topic you're trying to avoid.

Well you have your analogy and I have mine and seeings these quantum physicists and you yourself have admitted that you don't know than my analogy is as logical as your. My analogy is that when God spoke it into being that it was with such force (BTW just as He intended by His discretion) it stretched out or expanded the heavens.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

And sure it matters what the origin of the universe is because if God did it than you would have to rethink a few other things but then that is a good thing.

Obviously you don't understand the analogy. I do, but I won't pretend to understand quantum mechanics. I know a whole lot more than you. But quantum physicists know a whole lot more than I, and they've admitted to me that even they don't really know what they're talking about. No one does.

My point exactly, so that one analogy is as good as another. But to add to that GOD KNOWS what He is talking about and it would behoove us all to listen or at least try to.

Where do you believe all matter in the universe came from then? If you don't believe God "spoke" the universe into existence, then how do you think it happened?

While I think FH had more issue with your taunting term "incantation", regardless of how you say it. God spoke it into being. Further answered above.

I do think it is impossible to live without science. It is possible to live without faith however.

Without getting into terminology of what you just said, I will say, yes to that, but not eternally.

Meaning that everything came from nothing as a result of a magic invisible man chanting an incantation spell.

God is not a man. He is Creator of man. Man is made like God ..... BUT God is not a man. And however you care to term it, God did speak all things into existence and upholds them all by the power of His word..... BUT it was not nothing in this case it was filled with power and energy and life!

I did strongly prefer the 'steady state' universe until I tried to defend it before a couple of astrophysicists. They effectively proved their point, forcing me concede that a big bang eruption was in fact the only option supported by any evidence at all, and there is a lot behind it. But that isn't what you pretend it is. Its more related to the string theorists' idea that I mentioned before. So I will go with a fourth option; all mass, energy, space itself, and even time -erupted into this dimension from a quantum singularity, which may have been caused by rift in the space/time continuum. Although I would happily entertain any other explanation which has both evidenciary support and explanatary power at least equivilent to current cosmology.

And where did that mass, energy, space itself, and even time, come from that erupted into ths dimension. I submit again. The Creator of all that exists as we know it and the One true Intelligent Designer, God Himself!

I already did that in posts 678 and 735 of this very thread.
You tell me, because I don't believe that, but apparently you do.

We don't believe that. We just want you to tell us WHERE the stuff came from and WHY it all went BANG! We believe that in the beginning GOD .... spoke it all into existence because He is a Word Being and all things derive from Him. He is AWESOME God!

 

[Vene]

But the question is WHAT caused this expansion and WHY and HOW and WHERE did the "materials" come from that went "BANG"???

Nothing went bang. Instead it was the change of energy to matter (e=mc^2) which forced the universe to expand. As for where that energy came from, I don't know and I doubt anybody does. But it is being worked on by people with a lot more knowledge in the subject than me.

 

[Split Rock]

What evidence??? If there was evidence then you would know it occured. It would no longer be tentative. You accept it because it fits the evidence but you don't know if occured???? Hello? Physicists theorize, but they don't claim to know either??? So why is it taught. And why bother to accept it if it's only tentative especially since it's unknown????? Sounds like the "Theory of Grasping for Straws to Hide the Real Issue that We Must Deny the Existence of a Creator at All Costs to Man's Intelligence".

I must say you are on the same page with FoeHammer on this issue.

You claim is there is evidence, then you know it occurred? Really? Ask me to defend any idea or theory, and I will provide you with evidence for it... even contradictory theories. Evidence does not have "and this proves it" written on them. Evidence is nothing but facts or data. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need trials in our justice system to interpret the evidence. Also, we may find evidence in the furture that we do not have today. This is why science is always tentative. If you wish to reject science and the technology it is the basis for because it is tentative, then I guess you should stop using your computer and go live in a cave somewhere. Otherwise, you are accepting that which you claim is "grasping at straws."

Because God tells us how it happened and we shouldn't ignore it. It's just plain dumb to do so.

But God didn't write the Bible! Fallible Men wrote your Holy Book, and it is only because you which to do so that you hold it as God's Infallible Word. If we all believed as you do that the Bible is "God-breathed," then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all! If we are being "dumb," then why don't you prove that the Bible is indeed God's Infallible Word. It should be easy, if it is just "dumb" not to do so, as you claim.

Yep, even limited human intelligence is enough to recognize that there is an intelligence behind all of creation.

Well, this is the main premise behind "Intelligent Design," is it not? Yet, so far, ID advocates have failed to provide any real evidence to back up such assertions. Can you provide the evidence that the Discovery Institute has missed?

 

[Inan3]

Hello?

LOL I'll have to get back to you later. I'm going as fast as I can when I'm here. Not ignoring you. Just haven't got here yet. Be back later this PM before the World Series, I hope, other than that it will be later.

TTFN and keep smiling.

 

[FishFace]

But the question is WHAT caused this expansion

I have no idea. Do you? Do you have any evidence for that?

and WHY and HOW and WHERE did the "materials" come from that went "BANG"???

They were presumably already there, albeit not as matter.

God always was and always will be.

Will he now?

Well you have your analogy and I have mine and seeings these quantum physicists and you yourself have admitted that you don't know than my analogy is as logical as your. My analogy is that when God spoke it into being that it was with such force (BTW just as He intended by His discretion) it stretched out or expanded the heavens.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

That sounds like he stretched the sky out like a tent.

And sure it matters what the origin of the universe is because if God did it than you would have to rethink a few other things but then that is a good thing.

We would, if there were any evidence.

 

[TheOutsider]

God always was and always will be. Just because we have a beginning and that is all we know, it is not hard to understand or believe that there is a Being who did not. He wasn't sitting in the dark. This universe is not all there is nor all that there will be. I know you can think farther than the limitations of this universe.

Why is it that you are willing to say that God "always was and always will be", but you are not willing to say the same for the universe? I mean, we have evidence that the universe actually exists. Adding an extra entity just complicates things.