proving evolution as just a "theory"

[BradB]

It's still special pleading. You're arguing the necessity of a creation but then exempting the creator from that necessity.

I am saying that God tells us He is infinite. Since we have no ability to observe infinite things we can only understand them through mathematical theory. In theory we understand that a number line that runs infinitely in either direction has no beginning or ending. However we do have the ability to observe finite things. And what we observe is that finite things require a source for their formation. We observe the universe to be finite and therefore logic dictates "creation" had source. We not only know that this source is infinite in nature based on the Bible but on sound logical reasoning. If finite things fit the definition of being finite then the universe could not have been the product of something else finite. That is because it would require that thing whatever it is, to have a source and so on and so on. Even if the current universe were birthed from a billion previous universes we are still left with the same problem creating the first universe in the line. It requires an infinite source to have existed because if ever "nothing" existed then there would be "nothing" now. But we know there is not nothing now but rather something. Therefore an infinite source must exist from which the current universe sprang. Something infinite by mathematical theory does not ever have a beginning point and thus would not require that something else formed it...Him.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not at all, not even one tiny little. The Bible is every bit as exact and precise as one of my son's mathematical formulas. The God that created the Universe and the Laws of the Universe gives us His written word that contains all of the exactness and precision you could ever want or ask for.

Whut?? Where is this in the Bible?? You know it was Men who derived and proved these formulas, right?

 

[Jimmy D]

If you consider that evidence, you are in worse shape than I can imagine.

I consider that is an admission you can't provide any evidence for evolution.

No, I was just wondering why you felt the need to resort to lying about Darwin.

 

[Jimmy D]

In fact, the full quotation demonstrates Darwin's thoughts on the matter to be quite the opposite

Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. I just wanted to see if Omega was actually going to post that tired old nonsense.

 

[Jimmy D]

I am saying that God tells us He is infinite. Since we have no ability to observe infinite things we can only understand them through mathematical theory. In theory we understand that a number line that runs infinitely in either direction has no beginning or ending. However we do have the ability to observe finite things. And what we observe is that finite things require a source for their formation. We observe the universe to be finite and therefore logic dictates "creation" had source. We not only know that this source is infinite in nature based on the Bible but on sound logical reasoning. If finite things fit the definition of being finite then the universe could not have been the product of something else finite. That is because it would require that thing whatever it is, to have a source and so on and so on. Even if the current universe were birthed from a billion previous universes we are still left with the same problem creating the first universe in the line. It requires an infinite source to have existed because if ever "nothing" existed then there would be "nothing" now. But we know there is not nothing now but rather something. Therefore an infinite source must exist from which the current universe sprang. Something infinite by mathematical theory does not ever have a beginning point and thus would not require that something else formed it...Him.

Yeah, as he said, special pleading.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I am saying that God tells us He is infinite. Since we have no ability to observe infinite things we can only understand them through mathematical theory. In theory we understand that a number line that runs infinitely in either direction has no beginning or ending. However we do have the ability to observe finite things. And what we observe is that finite things require a source for their formation. We observe the universe to be finite and therefore logic dictates "creation" had source. We not only know that this source is infinite in nature based on the Bible but on sound logical reasoning. If finite things fit the definition of being finite then the universe could not have been the product of something else finite. That is because it would require that thing whatever it is, to have a source and so on and so on. Even if the current universe were birthed from a billion previous universes we are still left with the same problem creating the first universe in the line. It requires an infinite source to have existed because if ever "nothing" existed then there would be "nothing" now. But we know there is not nothing now but rather something. Therefore an infinite source must exist from which the current universe sprang. Something infinite by mathematical theory does not ever have a beginning point and thus would not require that something else formed it...Him.

You have no evidence of an infinite anything, just a claim written down in a book. Also, theoretical calculations on some models of the cosmos indicate a Multiverse, which could be infinite... it's just the local presentation of our Universe that 'appears' to be finite... Occams razor would cut out the need of a complex anthropomorphic magical being that lives outside of time and space and then we're left with a non-living multiverse rather than a sentient and infinitely complex intelligence...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. I just wanted to see if Omega was actually going to post that tired old nonsense.

Of course, he didn't disappoint - and of course, I couldn't let it slide either...

 

[BradB]

I don't think the institute says anything of the sort. Because I am not a scientist and don't use a bunch of science-y words I just do what I can. From what I understand from the institute, and I just listened to a podcast today, they are saying what I am saying only in a more elliquent fashion. They too believe in creation.

Just to clear some things up for everyone here. There is a big difference between Biblical Creation theory and Intelligent Design. The confusion comes because in a lot of ways the two employ the same methods and also one picks up where the other leaves off. That line is kind of blurred between the two. ID theory is just the theory that the natural universe and life was all designed by an intelligent source...(Period). That's the end of ID. It doesn't try to claim who or what is the designer it merely points to the amazing design structures observed in the make up of the universe, life, and even the laws of physics. ID leaves the argument over who or what is the designer up to the theologians. Biblical Creation theory however is the theory that upon examining the natural universe and comparing it to the claims made in the Bible about its formation, both will harmonize. Basically Biblical Creation employs the same methods but it also picks up where ID leaves off and says that these observations agree with the Biblical description strongly validating the claims that the God of the Bible is that designer.

This then would of course mean that all Biblical Creationists must be IDists. But does not necessitate that all IDists be Biblical Creationists.

 

[Jimmy D]

ID theory is just the theory that the natural universe and life was all designed by an intelligent source...(Period). That's the end of ID. It doesn't try to claim who or what is the designer it merely points to the amazing design structures observed in the make up of the universe, life, and even the laws of physics. ID leaves the argument over who or what is the designer up to the theologians.

Pull the other one Brad, it's got bells on it!

 

[BradB]

delete

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Just to clear some things up for everyone here. There is a big difference between Biblical Creation theory and Intelligent Design. The confusion comes because in a lot of ways the two employ the same methods and also one picks up where the other leaves off. That line is kind of blurred between the two. ID theory is just the theory that the natural universe and life was all designed by an intelligent source...(Period). That's the end of ID. It doesn't try to claim who or what is the designer it merely points to the amazing design structures observed in the make up of the universe, life, and even the laws of physics. ID leaves the argument over who or what is the designer up to the theologians. Biblical Creation theory however is the theory that upon examining the natural universe and comparing it to the claims made in the Bible about its formation, both will harmonize. Basically Biblical Creation employs the same methods but it also picks up where ID leaves off and says that these observations agree with the Biblical description strongly validating the claims that the God of the Bible is that designer.

This then would of course mean that all Biblical Creationists must be IDists. But does not necessitate that all IDists be Biblical Creationists.

so you haven't seen this smoking gun out of Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?

"Inexorably Linked" comes to mind, but don't bother asking those 'Cdesign proponentsists'...

 

[BradB]

You have no evidence of an infinite anything, just a claim written down in a book. Also, theoretical calculations on some models of the cosmos indicate a Multiverse, which could be infinite... it's just the local presentation of our Universe that 'appears' to be finite... Occams razor would cut out the need of a complex anthropomorphic magical being that lives outside of time and space and then we're left with a non-living multiverse rather than a sentient and infinitely complex intelligence...

And in the "theoretical model" Star Trek the Star Ship Enterprise had "hyper drive." It was real neat too. But here in the world of science we only allow things that are based on what we actually observe as opposed to whatever model we tweak to make it present. Here we have only observed a finite universe... one. And there is no scientific observation that says it was the product of a multiverse. And I already beat you to the punch here anyways. But you just ignored it. What started the very first universe in the line? It doesn't solve the problem it only pushes it under the rug. You still need something to exist that is infinite in nature. And you need this infinite thing to posses intelligence in order to explain the existence of the specificity that we observe in the universe and life.

 

[bhsmte]

And in the "theoretical model" Star Trek the Star Ship Enterprise had "hyper drive." It was real neat too. But here in the world of science we only allow things that are based on what we actually observe as opposed to whatever model we tweak to make it present. Here we have only observed a finite universe... one. And there is no scientific observation that says it was the product of a multiverse. And I already beat you to the punch here anyways. But you just ignored it. What started the very first universe in the line? It doesn't solve the problem it only pushes it under the rug. You still need something to exist that is infinite in nature. And you need this infinite thing to posses intelligence in order to explain the existence of the specificity that we observe in the universe and life.

Looks like you dont know the scientific meaning of; 'theory'.

 

[BradB]

so you haven't seen this smoking gun out of Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?

That trial doesn't matter. The condition of the state of ID as it stands today only does. Two things can exist at the same time that have strong similarity without requiring one be the product of the other. Who invented the car? In 1886 Karl Benz made the first one in Germany. However just ten years later Henry Ford built his first one. So did Ford steal his idea from Benz? Probably not at all. Did some Creationists try to use ID and by passing off creation disguised as ID? Could be... so what? That doesn't in anyway define ID theory. This may shock you but most Muslims are creationists but they are not Biblical creationists. Most Christians are creationists but they are not Koranical creationists. However all categories of creationists are IDists. This proves that ID cannot be religious in nature.

 

[BradB]

Looks like you dont know the scientific meaning of; 'theory'.

Or I was only being coy.

 

[bhsmte]

Or I was only being coy.

Ah, so you know then, that scientific theories, require evidence.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And in the "theoretical model" Star Trek the Star Ship Enterprise had "hyper drive." It was real neat too. But here in the world of science we only allow things that are based on what we actually observe as opposed to whatever model we tweak to make it present. Here we have only observed a finite universe... one. And there is no scientific observation that says it was the product of a multiverse. And I already beat you to the punch here anyways. But you just ignored it. What started the very first universe in the line? It doesn't solve the problem it only pushes it under the rug. You still need something to exist that is infinite in nature. And you need this infinite thing to posses intelligence in order to explain the existence of the specificity that we observe in the universe and life.

This is in its entirety another bald and unsupported assertion. How do you know something is required to 'start' the universe let alone know that it required an intelligence of some type, how many universes have you seen being put together & fired up? How can you rule out an infinite Multiverse?

We, the intelligent life in this universe, which is a product of this universe, the derivative of all the properties of physics, chemistry and related interactions, rules of time and space, themselves properties of this universe too - then somehow decide that 'Intelligence', this emergent property of this universe, is required to have existed in some 'pre-universe state' (that if exists as we suspect, couldn't support this emergent property of this universe we call 'Intelligence') to have somehow created this universe to give rise to this emergent property in this universe...?

As circular as circular can be. How many minds have you evidence of that exist without a physical form it relies on for existence?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That trial doesn't matter. The condition of the state of ID as it stands today only does. Two things can exist at the same time that have strong similarity without requiring one be the product of the other. Who invented the car? In 1886 Karl Benz made the first one in Germany. However just ten years later Henry Ford built his first one. So did Ford steal his idea from Benz? Probably not at all. Did some Creationists try to use ID and by passing off creation disguised as ID? Could be... so what? That doesn't in anyway define ID theory. This may shock you but most Muslims are creationists but they are not Biblical creationists. Most Christians are creationists but they are not Koranical creationists. However all categories of creationists are IDists. This proves that ID cannot be religious in nature.

What a Farce! What 'Intelligent Designer' wouldn't be the God of the ID proponent's religion? Not that I know too many ID proponents that aren't Christian (I'm sure there are some) - ID was borne of the need to get 'Creationism' into the hearts and minds of the next generation, and as the Kitzmiller vs Dover case showed, Creation Science failed to get into public schools because it was religious and so it literally changed to 'Intelligent Design' overnight. It was sold as being a 'non religious' science - but of course it was demonstrated to be exactly the wolf in sheep's clothing it is, so you're exactly wrong on that point. It was also found to be 'Not' Science too. Do you want me to show you the findings of the Court about ID, or can you read it yourself?

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court​

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

incorrect. the evidence clearly show that there is no gene remains of this alx3 gene. so you are the one who base his evidence on belief, were i used a fact (this gene is totally missing).

No, it Doesn't. The Authors of the very study you reference disagree with you on this. Do you know more than they do about their study?

 

[xianghua]

Irrelevant. It still shows that "wheels" aren't "conserved" among airplanes. Your don't really have an argument here, you just don't want to admit it.

its very relevant if about 99% of all planes have wheels.