Come on, Creationists!

[Audie]

Do I have to explain the obvious? We are obsessed with the supernatural because we have an internal prompt telling us there's something beyond the physical. That should not be if we live in a universe created by chance. We should not even care about music and art and love.

"We"?.
Im not.
Obsessions are unhealthy, not something
to celebrate.

 

[Wildswanderer]

"We"?.
Im not.
Obsessions are unhealthy, not something
to celebrate.

Sure that's why you a debating on a religious forum. If the supernatural means nothing to you you are wasting your time being here.

 

[Audie]

Sure that's why you a debating on a religious forum. If the supernatural means nothing to you you are wasting your time being here.

What a weird thing to say.

 

[viole]

This is a common misconception. What we see in quantum physics is that our process of measuring particles interferes with the results. It's very easy to confuse this as nothing more than a slight re-wording of what you just said, but there is a difference.

This is a common misconception. Measuring things does not interfere with the results.
Actually, the very sentence makes no sense since the very meaning of results comes from measuring.

And I have a very good knowledge of linear algebra. So, what is your evidence?

Please no internet links. I do not debate links, and here is a mile high pile of crap out there when it comes to QM (Prof. Susskind words).

So, use your words, math formulas and wit, or whatever you can throw at me.

What have you got, that we can submit to rational analysis?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Are you suggesting scientists can believe in the laws of nature, creationists can believe in the laws of God, but I'm not allowed to believe in a wholly random reality?

You can believe in anything you want to believe as I would never deny anyone that even if I could.

 

[metis]

....Even two sides of the same coin?

That statement is not even remotely logical based on what I posted.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That sounds like a no true creationist argument. No?


I don't know why you think that. The orders of events are in direct conflict with one another.


The fact that the bullet point below was necessary and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, would say that you are demonstrably wrong about that.

**

[That sounds like a no true creationist argument. No?]

Um, that's the argument you made first, that our side is misrepresenting/misinterpreting your side.

. . . I disagree about the order except for the obvious Earth before the Sun, which also sounds like a movie, "In a world where the Earth is Before the Sun, only Will Smith and Halle Berry can team up with Bruce Willis and Patrick Wilson to make a two-hour movie that will redefine the BB for this generation . . . "

Again, BB aligns POWERFULLY with Genesis, and not just lay persons have noticed the comparisons.

 

[cladking]

That statement is not even remotely logical based on what I posted.

Read your post again. I'm not going to try to explain what you said.

The expression "two sides of the same coin" merely says that the same thing looks different from different perspectives.

 

[ppp]

[That sounds like a no true creationist argument. No?]

Um, that's the argument you made first, that our side is misrepresenting/misinterpreting your side.

Not that part. The bolded part,

I do agree with some of what you wrote--other items are misstatements of born again doctrine, showing you may want to learn some more about us.

I took that to mean that there they are not the real creationists, but that there is an "us" who does.

I retract my assumption. What did you mean?

. . . I disagree about the order except for the obvious Earth before the Sun, which also sounds like a movie, "In a world where the Earth is Before the Sun, only Will Smith and Halle Berry can team up with Bruce Willis and Patrick Wilson to make a two-hour movie that will redefine the BB for this generation . . . "

I would go see that movie! But only at a theater that served adult beverages.

Again, BB aligns POWERFULLY with Genesis, and not just lay persons have noticed the comparisons.

I assume you mean all of the processes of reality that have lead up to life on earth today. And not just the Big Bang.

They have the same stuff on their lists, but align? No.

 

[metis]

Read your post again. I'm not going to try to explain what you said.

The expression "two sides of the same coin" merely says that the same thing looks different from different perspectives.

I did, but it's still not remotely logical based on what I posted. Oh well.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What a weird thing to say.

Think about it.
I certainly would not spend my time debating that Easter Bunny's don't exist on a forum where most people believe they did.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is a common misconception. Measuring things does not interfere with the results.
Actually, the very sentence makes no sense since the very meaning of results comes from measuring.

And I have a very good knowledge of linear algebra. So, what is your evidence?

Please no internet links. I do not debate links, and here is a mile high pile of crap out there when it comes to QM (Prof. Susskind words).

So, use your words, math formulas and wit, or whatever you can throw at me.

What have you got, that we can submit to rational analysis?

Ciao

- viole

So we don't really know anything about reality?
After all if energy can change into matter and vice versa, seemingly on a whim, what basis do we have for saying we know how matter should act? Perhaps nothing is what It seems.

 

[Audie]

Think about it.
I certainly would not spend my time debating that Easter Bunny's don't exist on a forum where most people believe they did.

Exactly! You would only debate people who agree with you!

 

[Audie]

Sure that's why you a debating on a religious forum. If the supernatural means nothing to you you are wasting your time being here.

First, we dont all " obsess" about anything.
Obsession is an unhealthy state of mind.

As for " suoernatural" i did not say it
"Means nothing".
I dont debate the existence of god. You
believe, I dont.
Reasons that people do ir dont believe may be
weird, often are.
I challenge religionists' weird n wacky ideas about science.
What are YOU doing in a forum that encourages a range of views, even ( shudder) from atheists?

There are sheltered forums where you can
be safe from such threats. Why risk being here?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Exactly! You would only debate people who agree with you!

No, I would not waste my time, because it would not matter. If all I am is an intelligent ape, why would I even care about anyone claiming a supernatural being exists? I would care about nothing but filling my belly and propagating the species.

 

[Audie]

No, I would not waste my time, because it would not matter. If all I am is an intelligent ape, why would I even care about anyone claiming a supernatural being exists? I would care about nothing but filling my belly and propagating the species.

What a shame, but its your prob.
Meanwhile, atheists in our millions are getting along fine.

 

[viole]

So we don't really know anything about reality?

Reality is a misleading term. What do you mean with that?

After all if energy can change into matter and vice versa, seemingly on a whim, what basis do we have for saying we know how matter should act? Perhaps nothing is what It seems.

That is nonsensical. What do you mean with "energy changing into matter"? Matter is energy. There is not changing into.

My personal recommendation to people asking those questions is: either get yourself a deep education in fundamental physics, which would require several years of study of mathematics, physics, etc. or just stop asking those questions, since the answers are not possibly accessible at their cognitive level.

In case of the latter, belief in God is what people usually deploy to fill the hole. For their own comfort. God, the greatest and cheapest shortcut to understand the state of affair in the world.

Which is OK, as long as they do not use it for something more than that. Or the results would be embarrassing.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly! You would only debate people who agree with you!

Sort of like reading your own opinions back to yourself and agreeing they are genius.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Think about it.
I certainly would not spend my time debating that Easter Bunny's don't exist on a forum where most people believe they did.

Are you saying some peoples opinions don't count just because they oppose consensus? Or should it be based on the validity of a position?

 

[ppp]

Think about it.
I certainly would not spend my time debating that Easter Bunny's don't exist on a forum where most people believe they did.

You would if people were trying to justify their hare-brained behavior against others under the Conie Cultural Commandments, and force you and your children to adhere to their Bunny Doctrine by legal and martial force.