What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[GodsGrace101]

So what if he asked the audience. Do you think that there were any there?

It has clips from Tour and explanations of how he had to know that he was lying.

LOL
I think so...normal persons go see this stuff?

Anyway, thanks.
Will watch it on my TV.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I barely skimmed that video and saw that question. There were none in the audience. What Tour did was quite often an argument from ignorance. He could not understand how a particular step occurred so he assumed it was impossible. He does not seem to realize that the works that he was criticizing went through peer review. That means that at least some of the people that checked it had the knowledge that he thinks he holds a patent on. The processes were explained in a way that did not violate chemistry. Then after publication the same works would have been checked by countless other scholars. If they saw flaws they would have brought them up.

Tell me, if Tour is so sure that he is correct why doesn't he approach this properly? One does not do science in front of a an audience of lay people and then claim "There! I disproved it.". If Tour was so sure of himself he would refute the papers by publishing papers himself in well respected peer reviewed scientific journals. That is how one does real science. That he did not is rather damning.

I agree.
But how do you know he did NOT go through peer review?

 

[solid_core]

Re-read what you just wrote. It's internally inconsistent. By stating there is a first cause, it automatically means "not everything requires a cause."

There are things that exist just because something lead to their existence, like an apple or the universe.

There are things that exist by the necessity of their own nature, like numbers, asbstract ideas and God.

 

[pitabread]

There are things that exist just because something lead to their existence, like an apple or the universe.

There are things that exist by the necessity of their own nature, like numbers, asbstract ideas and God.

Why couldn't the universe be in that second category?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You have to put the whole story together from various places in the bible. For example, the serpent/devil/Lucifer was telling Eve to do the same things that it had done in the original rebellion, that is to take what one sees and desires over revelation (God's words). Snakes don't do that.

Eve was created from the 'substance' of Adam, not from the dust of the ground, just as Lucifer was specially created, and clearly was superior to the other angels. The (re)creation of the (surface of) earth and that of man mirrors the creation of the original Eden and that of the angels. And implicit in that are worlds of understanding about our nature and history.

Hey OldWiseGuy,
I love the story of Adam and Eve and am most willing to learn anything new about it. There is so much to glean from the story.

But, this just isn't the place....
I'm confused to tell you the truth....
Was the snake an angel that became a snake?
Do we not know what it was?

I DO understand that the snake represented evil in those times...

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL
I think so...normal persons go see this stuff?

Anyway, thanks.
Will watch it on my TV.

Yes, all of the time. Odds are that it was a church group that paid for that talk. It is unsurprising that there was not anyone that could refute him there. My main complaint with most creationists is that they are not looking for answers, they are looking for excuses to believe. If the answers tell them that they are wrong they do not seem to want to hear them.

 

[solid_core]

Why couldn't the universe be in that second category?

Because its possible for the universe not to exist.

 

[46AND2]

There are things that exist just because something lead to their existence, like an apple or the universe.

There are things that exist by the necessity of their own nature, like numbers, asbstract ideas and God.

How does one determine that god is not an abstract idea?

 

[46AND2]

Because its possible for the universe not to exist.

Then it is also possible for numbers and abstract ideas to not exist.

 

[solid_core]

How does one determine that god is not an abstract idea?

Abstract idea cannot cause anything.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You do not seem to understand, having a deity does not answer any more questions. It only raises new ones. It has no explanatory powers.

And no, science can go back only so far before the sciences as we know them break down. The last I saw they can calculate to roughly 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that is a big unknown. I just watched a physicist explaining that yesterday. I don't know if I could find that. But he si not the only one that I have heard make that claim. He pointed out that there are speculations about the time before that, but that is what they are at this point. Mostly speculation.

I agree with your time,,,I've heard the same.

Maybe having a deity doesn't answer questions and creates more, but we shouldn't be lazy about it and not consider it.

I honestly don't understand why science seems to bent on not considering God at all. Science always took God's existance, or I should say the existance of a God, into consideration until maybe the past couple of hundred years. Newton believed in a god.

BTW, we know about gravity, but we still don't know WHAT IT IS or HOW it works. We only know that it exists.

Science does not have all the anwers.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey OldWiseGuy,
I love the story of Adam and Eve and am most willing to learn anything new about it. There is so much to glean from the story.

But, this just isn't the place....
I'm confused to tell you the truth....
Was the snake an angel that became a snake?
Do we not know what it was?

I DO understand that the snake represented evil in those times...

Or he could have been the Satan of the Old Testament--God's left-hand man, a trickster as he was in the story of Job. Like the Coyote of Southwest Native American mythology or Loki in the Norse pantheon.

 

[solid_core]

Then it is also possible for numbers and abstract ideas to not exist.

Can you prove that?

 

[46AND2]

Abstract idea cannot cause anything.

So? It has not been determined that god has caused anything. It is merely an assertion.

 

[46AND2]

I agree with your time,,,I've heard the same.

Maybe having a deity doesn't answer questions and creates more, but we shouldn't be lazy about it and not consider it.

I honestly don't understand why science seems to bent on not considering God at all. Science always took God's existance, or I should say the existance of a God, into consideration until maybe the past couple of hundred years. Newton believed in a god.

BTW, we know about gravity, but we still don't know WHAT IT IS or HOW it works. We only know that it exists.

Science does not have all the anwers.

Which god should science take into consideration? How should his involvement in observations be measured?

 

[Speedwell]

I agree with your time,,,I've heard the same.

Maybe having a deity doesn't answer questions and creates more, but we shouldn't be lazy about it and not consider it.

I honestly don't understand why science seems to bent on not considering God at all. Science always took God's existance, or I should say the existance of a God, into consideration until maybe the past couple of hundred years. Newton believed in a god.

Yet God does not figure in his theories.

BTW, we know about gravity, but we still don't know WHAT IT IS or HOW it works. We only know that it exists.

Science does not have all the anwers.

Nor does it claim to. In particular it does not claim that there is no God.

 

[solid_core]

So? It has not been determined that god has caused anything. It is merely an assertion.

If God did not cause anything, we would not exist, because we have to have a cause.

 

[46AND2]

Can you prove that?

I'm merely following your lead. If it is possible for the universe to not exist, then it is possible for abstract ideas to not exist...because there would be nobody to think them.

 

[solid_core]

I'm merely following your lead. If it is possible for the universe to not exist, then it is possible for abstract ideas to not exist...because there would be nobody to think them.

Universe and abstract ideas are different categories. The universe is physical. Abstract ideas are not.

 

[46AND2]

If God did not cause anything, we would not exist, because we have to have a cause.

Unsupported assertion, and does not logically follow.

 

[46AND2]

Universe and abstract ideas are different categories. The universe is physical. Abstract ideas are not.

Doesn't matter. How can abstract ideas exist if there is no universe for them to exist in?