Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Wiccan_Child]

Entirely based on Faith.


Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.


It's the law.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

False. QV Relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

[USincognito]

Wikipedia is not nature, just as the Koran is not God. Try again.

Last edited by Doveaman; 23rd October 2011 at 03:17 PM.

Wow. If you thought this "response" was better than what you'd typed previously, I'd hate to have seen what it was.

Your non-sequitor doesn't even try and address the information I have provided you. It explains how all the beings in the picture you posted were related. Try at least to learn what is really going on before you respond to it in the future.

I won't be holding my breath though...

 

[Doveaman]

The effects of Dark matter and energy have been physically observed. It's called "dark" because it hasn't been seen physically in the electromagnetic spectrum. A person can feel and observe the effects of "wind". Have you ever seen wind? Have you ever seen gravity? Understand?

The effects of God-Energy have been physically observed. He is called "Spirit" because He hasn't been seen physically in the electromagnetic spectrum. A person can feel and observe the effects of "wind". Have you ever seen wind? Have you ever seen gravity? Understand?

You and I experience God-Energy everyday, right? But we know nothing about this "dark" stuff. Why rely on the unknown even though what is known can account for all the observations? God-Energy is known. So let's remember Occam.

 

[Split Rock]

The effects of God-Energy have been physically observed. He is called "Spirit" because He hasn't been seen physically in the electromagnetic spectrum. A person can feel and observe the effects of "wind". Have you ever seen wind? Have you ever seen gravity? Understand?

You and I experience God-Energy everyday, right? But we know nothing about this "dark" stuff. Why rely on the unknown even though what is known can account for all the observations? God-Energy is known. So let's remember Occam.

I don't experience this God-energy stuff... I think God-energy is for the Birds.... DOVEaman....Birds.... get it?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

 

[Doveaman]

Your non-sequitor doesn't even try and address the information I have provided you.

I reject your information in favor of my own:

It explains how all the beings in the picture you posted were related.

My information explains that too.

Try at least to learn what is really going on before you respond to it in the future..

Okay.

 

[Loudmouth]

I reject your information in favor of my own:

Leave it to a creationist to not know the difference between evidence and assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

The effects of God-Energy have been physically observed.

This should be good.

He is called "Spirit" because He hasn't been seen physically in the electromagnetic spectrum.

The correct word here is "Non-existent".

A person can feel and observe the effects of "wind". Have you ever seen wind?

Yep. You can see it every time you see clouds moving through the sky.

Have you ever seen gravity?

Yes. Gravity bends light so that you can see gravity.

You and I experience God-Energy everyday, right?

Show us the evidence.

But we know nothing about this "dark" stuff.

Actually, yes we do. We know that it is not charged, does not emit or absorb photons, and has mass. We know this because dark matter bends light through gravity.

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

We can actually map the location and density of dark matter in the universe by observing the way light interacts with it.

Why rely on the unknown even though what is known can account for all the observations?

Dark matter is observable, and has been observed. The same can not be said for this supposed "God-Energy".

God-Energy is known.

Evidence please.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't experience this God-energy stuff...

You don't experience the "dark stuff" either. So?

I think God-energy is for the Birds.... DOVEaman....Birds.... get it?

I sure do.

"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." (Matt 6:26).

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't experience the "dark stuff" either.

With the right telescope, yes you do.

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

 

[Split Rock]

I sure do.

"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." (Matt 6:26).

Does that include "fowled bats?"

 

[Doveaman]

This should be good.

Yup.

The correct word here is "Non-existent".

If that makes you feel better.

Yep. You can see it every time you see clouds moving through the sky.

Yes. Gravity bends light so that you can see gravity.

Seeing the effect is not the same as seeing the cause. You know that, right?

Show us the evidence.

Okay

Actually, yes we do. We know that it is not charged, does not emit or absorb photons, and has mass. We know this because dark matter bends light through gravity.

And we know about God-Energy. We know that it is not charged, does not emit or absorb photons, and has mass. We know this because God-Energy bends light through gravity.

We can actually map the location and density of dark matter in the universe by observing the way light interacts with it.

And we can actually map the location and density of God-Energy in the universe by observing the way light interacts with it.

Dark matter is observable, and has been observed. The same can not be said for this supposed "God-Energy".

God-Energy is observable, and has been observed. The same can not be said for this supposed "dark-energy".

 

[Loudmouth]

Seeing the effect is not the same as seeing the cause.

Wind is the movement of gasses in the atmosphere. Clouds are gas. They are water VAPOR. They are moving. That is wind.

And we know about God-Energy. We know that it is not charged, does not emit or absorb photons, and has mass. We know this because God-Energy bends light through gravity.
And we can actually map the location and density of God-Energy in the universe by observing the way light interacts with it.
God-Energy is observable, and has been observed. The same can not be said for this supposed "dark-energy".

Please cite the experiments that support these claims.

 

[Doveaman]

Wind is the movement of gasses in the atmosphere. Clouds are gas. They are water VAPOR. They are moving. That is wind.

So rain clouds are wind? That's new. Thanks for the lesson.

Please cite the experiments that support these claims.

The same experiments that support your claims.

Since we can only observe the effects and not the cause, than that cause can be God-Energy instead of dark-fantasy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So rain clouds are wind? That's new. Thanks for the lesson.

I'd say it's refreshing to see an open-mind from one who floats amidst the Creationists and conspiracy theorists... but something tells me you're being sarcastic. Regardless, he's right: rain clouds are wind, since they are, and are formed by, segments of the atmosphere which move. If they didn't move, they wouldn't form.

EDIT: It gets even better when I see you're still discussing 'seeing is believing', yet your faith icon is still 'Christian'.

The same experiments that support your claims.

Since we can only observe the effects and not the cause, than that cause can be God-Energy instead of dark-fantasy.

It can also be unicorns and fairy dust. We say dark matter because we can see gravitation from matter which has no effect on EM radiation - i.e., dark matter. You say *ahem* "God-Energy" because that is your presupposed religious belief (notice that no scientist ever hailed from the ancient Dark Matter religion, nor prayed in Dark Matter churches*). No one says unicorns or fairy dust because they're so blatantly false. God, it seems, is the only myth left to be ridiculed - and his doom is swiftly coming.

*If you say CERN or Fermilab are churches to dark matter, you just prove my point.

 

[Doveaman]

I'd say it's refreshing to see an open-mind from one who floats amidst the Creationists and conspiracy theorists... but something tells me you're being sarcastic. Regardless, he's right: rain clouds are wind, since they are, and are formed by, segments of the atmosphere which move. If they didn't move, they wouldn't form.

Fine by me.

I only mentioned “wind” in response to a poster who mentioned it referring to “air”.

EDIT: It gets even better when I see you're still discussing 'seeing is believing', yet your faith icon is still 'Christian'.

After all this time you are still not aware we can see by faith?

It can also be unicorns and fairy dust.

Yup.

We say dark matter because we can see gravitation from matter which has no effect on EM radiation - i.e., dark matter.

Please be honest and admit you are not seeing “gravitation from matter”. This is an assumption.

Some scientists see EM fields from plasma. Another assumption.

We then go with the scientific assumption that is consistent with observations.

You say *ahem* "God-Energy" because that is your presupposed religious belief

We all have our presupposed beliefs.

(notice that no scientist ever hailed from the ancient Dark Matter religion, nor prayed in Dark Matter churches*).

If your community is giving glory to the creation rather than to the Creator, then it’s a religious community.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." (Rom 1:22-25).

No one says unicorns or fairy dust because they're so blatantly false.

Which reminds me of the "dark-mathemagic" that supposedly holds the universe together.

God, it seems, is the only myth left to be ridiculed - and his doom is swiftly coming.

I predict failure on your part.

*If you say CERN or Fermilab are churches to dark matter, you just prove my point.

Actually, I was thinking CERN or Fermilab were like Satan to your dark mythology.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Since we can only observe the effects and not the cause, than that cause can be God-Energy instead of dark-fantasy.

Just because a cause is not yet know doesn't mean we should assign a deity to it. Gods are no longer needed to pull the sun across the sky. They no longer need to be appeased to prevent volcanic activity. Simply admitting ignorance and labeling the cause "dark" is far more intellectually honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because a cause is not yet know doesn't mean we should assign a deity to it.

Unless said Deity leaves a Note saying He did it.

 

[rikerjoe]

Unless said Deity leaves a Note saying He did it.

Correct, then there would be cause to consider that. Do you happen to have such a note?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you happen to have such a note?

Yes -- and I'll bet you do too:

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Unless said Deity leaves a Note saying He did it.

That would indeed be nice. The first problem is that all that seems to exist are a bunch of different writings by men of antiquity. If I had to point to the first "modern" example it would probably be Zoroastrianism. Everything that followed seem to be variations on a theme. From Zoroastrianism to Scientology it all appears to be the same supernatural "god of the gaps" type belief system. No matter where you place the needle on the record of theism it all sounds the same.

Sure, some of these writers claim to be inspired by some deity or another but, to be honest, I don't trust them any more than I trust the psychic down the street. Which brings me to the second problem; All of these texts have been shown to be greatly inaccurate when viewed in the light of modern scientific knowledge. It seems that the people who wrote this stuff down, or whatever inspired them, didn't really know much.

Wherever we find a gap in knowledge it seems that someone is there to attribute magic. Don't know what the sun crosses the sky? Assign a god to the task. Don't know why volcanoes erupt? Assign a god to the task. Don't know why there is more gravity than there should be? Assign a god to the cause. I don't think it's been proven to be a very accurate methodology over the years.

So, when faced with another choice between supernatural belief and scientific theory, it's only natural that a reasonable person will side with science. When faced with this kind of choice I will assert that it's better to simply reserve judgement and admit to ignorance before positing a god or magic. Anyone who tells your different is probably selling you something.