A Challenge To All Creationists

[Shad]

I gave you what I believe.

No you made a statement regarding realty. Backpedaling, nothing more

If you are not willing to tell me what you believe, fine.

You attempted to dodge your statement's burden by shifting the point to what I believe.

Don't wait. Unless you are willing to present your belief, this discussion with you is over.

I am not obligated to provide my position for your to support your own statements. Look up the burden proof.

If you want to criticize what I believe and can't disprove it, and are not willing to say what you believe, the ignorance is yours.

Again you state the classical argument from ignorance. Your idea is right unless I show it is wrong. You must show your own idea to be right. It is not automatically right because you state it is. Try again

At least I have enough intelligence to present a possibility.

You stated an absolute. You have no idea what a possibility is. Get a dictionary

Click on your own link and learn something.

I did. Maybe you should actually read it yourself.

"If you want to criticize what I believe and can't disprove it"

From the link

"X is true because you cannot prove that X is false."

Try again son.

 

[omega2xx]

The evidence for matter and energy being eternal is the fact they exist.
I mean, if that fuzzy "logic" is good enough for your god, it is good enough for the universe....

If that is what you believe, I couldn't care less. Since you can't prove what you say, you are in the same boat I am---FAITH ALONE

Interesting how you give your god a free pass from your standards for evidence.
Not the least bit surprising, but interesting none the less.

All I have done is say what I believe and ASK you and the others to do the same. That is not a free pass. So far you are the only one who has done so. IMO it is more logical to believe God is eternal than to believe matter, energy and life is,

 

[McBell]

If that is what you believe, I couldn't care less. Since you can't prove what you say, you are in the same boat I am---FAITH ALONE



All I have done is say what I believe and ASK you and the others to do the same. That is not a free pass. So far you are the only one who has done so. IMO it is more logical to believe God is eternal than to believe matter, energy and life is,

Fair enough.
However, why the need for god to begin with?

I mean, if something has to be eternal, why not matter and energy?
Why not matter, energy, AND god?
Why the need for a false dichotomy?

 

[omega2xx]

Fair enough.
However, why the need for god to begin with?

I mean, if something has to be eternal, why not matter and energy?
Why not matter, energy, AND god?
Why the need for a false dichotomy?

It is a dichotomy but it is not a false one unless you have a possibility other than God is eternal or matter, energy and life is eternal.

God is necessary if matter etc., is not eternal. Nothing can'tg be the source of something.
Because the processes of our universe work the same every time, it seem unlikely that that type of order could from disorder.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The evidence for a Creator is the universe, unless you have evidence matter, energy and life are eternal, have always existed. Otherwise, nothing can't be the source of something.

Now your turn. What is your evidence that supports what you believe?

The existence of the universe is evidence that a universe exists. That's it. The rest is just more empty assertions. What is nothing? How do you know it can't be the source of something? Maybe everything is eternal. Don't you think your god is eternal?

I have no idea where everything came from and have no problem saying so. And I'm not into making claims I can't back up or believing things that I have no good reason to believe. So I don't make claims about the origins of the universe.

 

[McBell]

God is necessary if matter etc., is not eternal.

Bold empty claim.
Why does there have to be an "eternal" anything?

And no, claiming that with no "eternal" something there had to be a nothing does not work.
There could very well have been numerous non "eternal"s....

 

[omega2xx]

Bold empty claim.
Why does there have to be an "eternal" anything?

DUUH. Because we have something.

And no, claiming that with no "eternal" something there had to be a nothing does not work.
There could very well have been numerous non "eternal"s....

 

[McBell]

DUUH. Because we have something.

You are the one claiming there has to be something eternal.
I ask why does there have to an eternal something.
You reply because there is something.
You completely ignore the other possibility I presented.

Seems you are not interested in honest discussion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that is what you believe, I couldn't care less. Since you can't prove what you say, you are in the same boat I am---FAITH ALONE

So "faith" is the excuse you give for believing something when you don't have evidence?

All I have done is say what I believe and ASK you and the others to do the same. That is not a free pass. So far you are the only one who has done so. IMO it is more logical to believe God is eternal than to believe matter, energy and life is,

Check the thread title.

 

[McBell]

It is a dichotomy but it is not a false one unless you have a possibility other than God is eternal or matter, energy and life is eternal..

Post #686

There could very well have been numerous non "eternal"s....​

Thus it is in fact a false dichotomy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ther eis absolutly no scientific reason to conclude the earth is billions of years old.

This is spoken out of complete ignorance. For one, the formation of planets as is understood using scientifically formed knowledge and examination would point to large-scale masses coming into stable orbital configurations and amassing greater mass via gravity over vast amounts of time. The process by which any of these masses become as close to spheroid as the Earth is, is then also an extremely long, ongoing process. To become spheroid, the Earth would have had to exist through many multiple millions of years of volcanic activity, earthquakes, accumulation of space mass, etc. Gravity pulls the mass inward, creating pressure, mantle/crust/fault-lines eventually succumbing to that pressure and releasing latent magma onto the surface. Earthquakes shattering current surface formations and making the playing field more level. This isn't a case of 3 times and you're done. We're talking events numbering in the millions to finish the job of making something as large as the Earth spheroid. So that's the conclusion one can draw using what has been scientifically evidenced as the natural means by which the Earth became spheroid. This process REQUIRES hundreds of millions to billions of years.

Or you can go the idiotic route and claim God poofed it into existence one day... with all the many, scientifically validated layers of geologic content, fossils, time-and-water-weathered rock formations, etc. all conveniently and instantaneously placed.

 

[omega2xx]

This is spoken out of complete ignorance. For one, the formation of planets as is understood using scientifically formed knowledge and examination would point to large-scale masses coming into stable orbital configurations and amassing greater mass via gravity over vast amounts of time. The process by which any of these masses become as close to spheroid as the Earth is, is then also an extremely long, ongoing process. To become spheroid, the Earth would have had to exist through many multiple millions of years of volcanic activity, earthquakes, accumulation of space mass, etc. Gravity pulls the mass inward, creating pressure, mantle/crust/fault-lines eventually succumbing to that pressure and releasing latent magma onto the surface. Earthquakes shattering current surface formations and making the playing field more level. This isn't a case of 3 times and you're done. We're talking events numbering in the millions to finish the job of making something as large as the Earth spheroid. So that's the conclusion one can draw using what has been scientifically evidenced as the natural means by which the Earth became spheroid. This process REQUIRES hundreds of millions to billions of years.

Or you can go the idiotic route and claim God poofed it into existence one day... with all the many, scientifically validated layers of geologic content, fossils, time-and-water-weathered rock formations, etc. all conveniently and instantaneously placed.

The usual evo rhetoric. Do you have any real evidence?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The usual evo rhetoric. Do you have any real evidence?

You originally stated there was "no scientific reason" to believe that the Earth is billions of years old. What I provided is a summary of the scientific account of how a planetary body becomes spheroid. And it can't take less than millions upon millions of years - unless one turns to non-scientific and non-observable ideas like the magical farts of God. In other words... make-believe.

 

[gnostic]

The evidence for a Creator is the universe, unless you have evidence matter, energy and life are eternal, have always existed. Otherwise, nothing can't be the source of something.

If that is what you believe, I couldn't care less. Since you can't prove what you say, you are in the same boat I am---FAITH ALONE

Ah...

...Finally, you have admitted (to Mestemia) that you have faith for what you believe in - God, and FAITH ALONE, and NOT EVIDENCEs.

If anyone has evidence for god, then even atheists and agnostics should be able to observe, measure and test god.

You don't have evidences. You never did.

You and shad keep blowintg smoke.

Actually you are the one who has been blowing smoke. You are the one has been claiming that you have evidences for god, but finally admitted that you have "faith alone".

 

[omega2xx]

You originally stated there was "no scientific reason" to believe that the Earth is billions of years old. What I provided is a summary of the scientific account of how a planetary body becomes spheroid. And it can't take less than millions upon millions of years - unless one turns to non-scientific and non-observable ideas like the magical farts of God. In other words... make-believe.

Actually you only presented a man's theory. It was interesting and may be true, but shining a flashlight on a wall is far from evidence, let alone scientific evidence.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Sorry, but I fail to see your point, which is, as far as I'm concerned, just another failure to make a convincing case for creationism without referencing evolution.


.

You're not trying very hard.

The 'argument from design' is extreme evidence almost to the point of outright proof for Creationism.
It has inspired countless achievements for many centuries. Not the least of which is Newton's laws.

So you think it would be more viable to create a computer simulation of a solar system by randomly typing keys on a computer,
than it would be to deliberately create/design such a model with conscious intent?

Perhaps you should go back to that first point where you decided to reject God, and
re-examine what your personal motives at that point were.
Those motives reveal a bias in your thinking towards the illogical.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Actually you only presented a man's theory. It was interesting and may be true, but shining a flashlight on a wall is far from evidence, let alone scientific evidence.

Actually, the process is the logical conclusion one would come to given observation of the geological events and ongoing real-world conditions of the Earth. Which means the "evidence" is everywhere. In weathered rock formations, in understanding volcanic and earthquake activities, even in erosion of coastal land and soil due to the ebb and flow of the tides - and it is all, more or less, self-evident.

Now... take something like the creation story and the ONLY place you can find ANY evidence is in a book written during a time that people were ignorant of all the above OBSERVABLE signs and evidence presented around them that belie the astonishingly broad age-boundaries of the Earth.

There is literally no contest. Observation wins, hands down. Unless one willfully denies the evidence, and their own eyes and understanding as you have.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you think it would be more viable to create a computer simulation of a solar system by randomly typing keys on a computer, than it would be to deliberately create/design such a model with conscious intent?

I just do not get how people can type things like the above with a "straight face". You can't possibly have any notion of how bodies in space react to one another making a statement like this. There are literally millions of "solar systems" out there - and more being formed ALL THE TIME - all with gravity nearly the sole activator in play. Even if God exists HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR A SOLAR SYSTEM TO FORM. He doesn't need to be present for galaxies to attract one another to collide. He probably doesn't even need to be present for life to form.

You likened the creating process to utilizing a computer, but it is clear you only use a computer to pour out inane and inadequate thoughts on the internet. I actually utilize a computer for quite a bit more, and if I were trying to make a "program" - a set of instructions - generic enough to make the processes I was coding be automated - that is, to function on their own and get the job done without me - then I am specifically trying to make sure that I don't have to be there for things to go on functioning. Extrapolate this to our universe, and let's pretend, for the moment, that God exists - the universe does MASSIVE amounts of work and is undergoing massive movement and change ALL ON ITS OWN. The physical rules governing the universe ensure that this is so. Now... if God created it to do that, then it was expressly because He then didn't have to be around for things to go on doing their work.

Now take the alternative case - the one in which God hand-tailors everything (which seems to be your thoughts on the matter). This boils down to complete idiocy if He has already put in place the "program" by which everything is automated for Him and behaves according to specific algorithms of activity (which the universe most certainly does!) It would be like taking the time to create artificial intelligence through rigorous coding and trial and error, only to have the robot with this extreme and autonomous faculty do nothing more that screw bolts into car frames on an assembly line. You talked about someone being "illogical"? Methinks you may need to go find a mirror - seems like it may have been a while since you last took a look.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I just do not get how people can type things like the above with a "straight face". You can't possibly have any notion of how bodies in space react to one another making a statement like this. There are literally millions of "solar systems" out there - and more being formed ALL THE TIME - all with gravity nearly the sole activator in play. Even if God exists HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR A SOLAR SYSTEM TO FORM. He doesn't need to be present for galaxies to attract one another to collide. He probably doesn't even need to be present for life to form.

You likened the creating process to utilizing a computer, but it is clear you only use a computer to pour out inane and inadequate thoughts on the internet. I actually utilize a computer for quite a bit more, and if I were trying to make a "program" - a set of instructions - generic enough to make the processes I was coding be automated - that is, to function on their own and get the job done without me - then I am specifically trying to make sure that I don't have to be there for things to go on functioning. Extrapolate this to our universe, and let's pretend, for the moment, that God exists - the universe does MASSIVE amounts of work and is undergoing massive movement and change ALL ON ITS OWN. The physical rules governing the universe ensure that this is so. Now... if God created it to do that, then it was expressly because He then didn't have to be around for things to go on doing their work.

Now take the alternative case - the one in which God hand-tailors everything (which seems to be your thoughts on the matter). This boils down to complete idiocy if He has already put in place the "program" by which everything is automated for Him and behaves according to specific algorithms of activity (which the universe most certainly does!) It would be like taking the time to create artificial intelligence through rigorous coding and trial and error, only to have the robot with this extreme and autonomous faculty do nothing more that screw bolts into car frames on an assembly line. You talked about someone being "illogical"? Methinks you may need to go find a mirror - seems like it may have been a while since you last took a look.

Here is a list of gravity simulators which I have created:
Gravity Simulator Download Software

Where are the gravity simulators which you created by such random typing?

Here is a graphic showing how I prove that
a solar system forms by the Sun's twin going nova

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here is a list of gravity simulators which I have created:
Gravity Simulator Download Software

Where are the gravity simulators which you created by such random typing?

Here is a graphic showing how I prove that
a solar system forms by the Sun's twin going nova

Then I misjudged the extent of your use of computers. That doesn't excuse your oversight on the automation bit. If anything, you should understand exactly what I am talking about and the reason you didn't address it in this reply is because it is uncomfortable when juxtaposed against your current ideology.

And why on earth would I need to create a simulator by randomly typing again? I'm a bit confused by that one. You obviously understand that the laws governing the bodies (which you are - let's be clear - only simulating) are applied in very SPECIFIC fashion. There is no "random" in the values and adherence to the forces in play (this is the reason you can simulate it at all, by the way). We're not talking about having the ability to go in and muck with the "code" of the universe and double the gravitational constant or something. We're talking hard and fast, immutable laws. That you assign God to the "keyboard" that "wrote the code" is, I'm sorry to say, a complete arbitrary assignment.