Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

Let's try this: are you familiar with Rastafarianism? O.K., Is Haile Selaissie God? There's been less time since his death than the time between the gospels and Christ's death.

I don’t know about Rastafarianism. But do they claim he rose from the dead?

Also how can you say in your first breath there was an original source for the gospels that does not exist, then say in your next breath that the time span between selaissie and when his account was written was shorter than the time span for Christ’s account? That is a contradiction.

It's a philosophical argument based on a premise, that the universe had a beginning. It doesn't appear that it did. Therefore it doesn't matter what you do with that premise--without a true premise, you can't get anywhere.

It doesn’t appear that the universe had a beginning? There is no appearance one way or the other, although up to date science says it had a beginning. But regardless of that IF there was a beginning, SOMETHING (not nothing) had to BEGIN IT.

Now if you want to go the road of saying the universe is eternal, or energy is eternal and took on many forms and now it is in the present form of the universe, then I have a few questions for you.
1 how would any events take place in the eternal history of the universe if it is eternal?
2 if all events happen at the same time, why is there motion then?

Otherwise, you sophistry that it had to have a beginning is just word play.

It don’t matter if it had a beginning at the moment in my philosophical approach right now. Can you answer the questions above posed to the eternal view of the universe?

I don't know how to get this across to you, but your statements don't make sense. They're like "green fog is loud." They're just strings of meaningless words. Yes, eternity. That's what I'm trying to get across to you, Jolly. The universe is eternal. Get it?

Ok, you saying my statements don’t make sense, is not an argument against the statements, it’s just denying them or saying you disagree with them. Ok, you disagree; now, can I have an argument against them? Imagine saying that to a judge in court, he would ask you for reasons why you disagree, and he would not accept your disagreement as an argument in itself.

Disagreeing is not an argument, it’s a position.

Also if you say the universe is eternal, then answer my questions posed against that view.
1 how would any events take place if the universe is eternal?
2 if all events happen at the same time, why is there motion?

Me and all the biologists in the world are delusional? Sorry, a conclusion is the opposite of an assumption. You don't even know that evolution is entirely compatible with your God. You're just deeply, deeply confused.

If you define evolution as being something pure simple creating the complex, then that is incompatible with my God. If you define evolution as something complex evolving into a different complex machine, whether it’s micro or macro, that is not incompatible with God, but it is incompatible with the bible in genesis. But I am not arguing for Genesis at the moment, I am arguing for God’s existence at the moment.

Also yes, you’re delusional. Also one’s conclusions are also one’s interpretations of facts, which means they are also assumptions if there NOT PROVEN conclusions.

Science is facts, data, and, most importantly, explanations. That's the point of the facts and the data. Theories. Scientific theories. Like gravity, evolution, germs and the big bang. That's what we do with data, we make theories.

Right, but a theory can be mistaken, facts are unmistakable. Explanations can be mistaken, but facts are unmistakable. Also my theories are different then your theories. But the theory that holds more weight is the one that is more plausible and can answer more questions.

You could certainly fool us.

How so? I read about science and I understand science and I understand data and facts. I even understand your theories, but I disagree with your theories and explanations of the facts. Does that make me not educated about science? Of course not, it makes me disagree with those scientific theories or explanations or philosophies.

A fair amount, thanks.

“You could certainly fool us”

You're about an inch away from an infraction. Now would you care to address the argument?

I addressed your arguments and asked for backup to your assertions, I am asking you to address my arguments now, which you have not done yet.

 

[Jollybear]

Hmmm. And yet you said it was ID itself. The ID. In the Dover trial, the leading ID proponents admitted as much under oath.

I was not talking about the Dover trial. But Intelligent design itself, not what someone says about it as a representative.

And what kind of science is Mr. Meyer a scientist in, Jolly? What scientific work has he published? In what peer reviewed journals? What has he discovered about how we get the proliferation of species on earth? What has he added to our knowledge of Biology?

Actually Stephen C Meyer has published papers in peer reviewed Journals. Check this source out showing that it’s true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

Also he has made a good case for intelligent design, showing why design is there. So basically he has added a BETTER theory then chance/evolution.

Also the science he has degrees in is physics and earth science and history and philosophy of science. It’s also on the same link I just gave to you.

Also I would like to make a point about publishing in peer reviewed journals. If the science community has standards against publishing intelligent design in peer reviewed journals, then of course no matter how hard someone tries to publish it, it won’t make it, but not because it’s not true, but because the science community has a standard against it. But just because they have a standard against it, does not make the standard right.

Try to focus on the issues, Jolly. ID is not about mechanism, it's only about the assertion that some things were designed.

That is false, intelligence IS a mechanism for the complexity that we have. Even if you want to call it an assertion that some things were designed, well that assertion would be a mechanism for the complexity that is here. My point is, it IS a mechanism. You have a different mechanism, which is that random changes and evolution is the mechanism for complexity and what is here.

Both these mechanisms are inferences based on what we observe in the world. The real question is what inference is the most plausible one? That is a philosophical question, not just a science one.

From the Dover transcript:

Rothschild: I don t think I got a reply, so I m asking you, you ve made this claim here, ?Intelligent design theory
focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.? And I want to
know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?

The mechanism for complexity IS intelligence. Do you understand?

Behe: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense
of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose.
Rothschild: And then further down the page at line 24 I asked
you, “In terms of the mechanism, it s just a criticism of
Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive
description of a mechanism.” And what did you answer,
Professor Behe?
Behe: I said “that s correct.”

I think Behe should have said something different than that. But thank you for quoting him, I appreciate that. But I think he should have said something different. He should have said this, this to me is more accurate. ‘Intelligence IS the mechanism. It criticizes Darwin’s RANDOM chance evolution theory that creates complexity. It criticizes that mechanism, and says intelligence is the mechanism. But how intelligence did it? That is another question. Intelligence could have spoke different parts into existence and then put them together intelligently with a crafty invisible hand, or this intelligence could have spoke the thing into being with all it’s parts already intact. That…..is the mechanism.

Tell you what. If ID is about discovering the mechanism by which living things were designed, what have they learned about that mechanism?

They have learned that this mechanism is intelligent.

They have also learned that if intelligence can create complexity, that means they also can invent complex things from their own intelligence by possibly learning or mimicking the intelligent designer or getting ideas from him by studying his designs.

What fact? You're debating atheism vs. theism. That has nothing to do with the scientific theory for the origin of the universe, species or anything else.

Yes it does have everything to do with the scientific theory for the origin of the universe. For if God made the universe, that is something to do with origins, if he did not, that has also something to do with origins. So yes, it does have everything to do with the scientific theory of origins.

This may be close to the source of your confusion.

Atheism isn't a fact, it's a philosophical position.

Ok, and so why is your philosophical position more plausible then the God view?

 

[Jollybear]

Now evolution, that's a fact.

I would say micro evolution is a fact, and I agree with it. But macro is not a PROVEN fact. But even if you want to call it a fact, by all means call it a fact, but it’s not a proven one.

But more importantly, why do you think philosophically speaking, that atheism is more plausible then theism or that God exists?

What I like about you, Jolly, is that you don't flee. You hang in there and try to respond to everyone. It's refreshing.

I’m glad you like it, some folk don’t like it.

So basically the entire field of Biology is a bunch of deluded liars and idiots?

No, not all biologists are liars and idiots, although some are. But the ones that are not idiots and liars, which I am sure there are many sincere ones, they are delusional. Delusional does not make someone an idiot or a liar necessarily. It makes them delusional, very deceived. Or brain washed, or they have fallen victim to not thinking critically. Now does it mean that everyone who believes there is no God is delusional? No, there are some who don’t believe in God because they don’t want to, in their case, it’s not delusional, it’s volitional. So they are thinking critically still, but their desire is getting in the way of their mind.

And science doesn't work? And we should all go back to reading the Bible as our source of knowledge about the world? Is that what you're saying?

No that is not what I am saying, your misunderstanding. It seems your hijacking science, that is anything that does not agree with evolution by random chances, both cosmic and biological evolution by random chances, is NOT science. But there you are wrong, there is a DISTICTION between scientific facts (data WITHOUT any interpretations added to it) and scientific THEORIES and scientific hypotheses.

Now you can say all day long that a theory means a fact in science, but the fact remains there is an obvious difference between PURE data and explanations OF that data. And that is just a given. However way you want to define theory matters not, there is STILL an obvious distinction between data and explanations of that data.

So my point is this, you need to stop hijacking science, science that is to say scientific facts or data does not BELONG to the evolutionary camp, they don’t OWN science, that is they don’t OWN the world as if they have a right to interpret the world and no one else does. They are mere mortal humans, they don’t own the earth or the cosmos. So, you need to stop hijacking science and saying that anything that disagrees with your scientific theories is then going OUTSIDE science, and there you are wrong, very wrong, the answer is, no, it is going outside YOUR SCIENTIFIC THEORY of the scientific facts! And that is a better way of putting it. Now all that being said, how do we find which scientific theory is most plausible? To get at that answer we have to dive into philosophy. And perhaps you are willing to dive into philosophy since you yourself said that atheism is a philosophical position.

What about Geology--also dishonest morons?

No, not perse dishonest, although I am sure some are, just like any field has honest and dishonest people in it. But those that believe the earth is not designed they are delusional. What needs to be done is to be taught the controversy, all the views, and their arguments for and against. Then allow scientists the choice to believe what they will and not threaten their jobs if they bring the intelligent designer to work with them.

And astronomy? And cosmology? And paleontology? And archeology? And anthropology? All a pile of baloney?

No, the data is PURE good. And only ONE of the interpretations of that data are good.

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_Fly

Turning the tables? You accuse the entire field of biology of "filling the gaps not with facts but with assumptions" and you think it's out of line to ask "How do you know"?

No, it’s not out of line for you to ask me that, but it is out of line for you to turn the tables, and here is why, everything I keep hearing over and over, even from articles in the mountains of them, is NOT PROOF, yet it is flaunted as if it was. So it is not out of line for me to ask how they or you really KNOW there claims are true.

Also to answer your question, how do I know they don’t know? Because I read their stuff, and none of there stuff shows me proof, it just shows me underlying assumptions.

Were you expecting everyone here to accept your accusation as unquestioned gospel? You feel absolutely no obligation to substantiate an accusation against an entire field of science? None at all?

I feel substantiated and justified to question this field of scientific theories that there is no design.

What "stuff"? Please be specific.

All the stuff I have read over the years from evolutionist websites.

I agree with natural selection, I agree with mutations happening, I agree that micro changes happen, I agree with all that stuff, I don’t see proof for macro evolution and common ancestry.

And look man, there is no need to doubt that I have researched, I have for about 4 years on the subject. In that span I have read mountains of stuff. Of course there is always more I could read, but it takes time, and yes I have read ENOUGH TO KNOW there is NO PROOF for it. Now get off the trip.

If I was to be specific, I would have to give you everything I ever read in those 4 years. I am being general. You give me proof of random chance evolution and that design is not real and I will tell you why I disagree with it. How about we start there, ok?

So your answer to the first question is "never".

Is there something wrong with you? “Never” does not mean I will NEVER go. And it does not mean I don’t get that information elsewhere on the net. Even if I never go, I still get informed by the net.

So your answer to the second question is "never".

Just because I did not FIND a biologist or did not cross the path of one, does not mean I am against it. And also, just because I did not talk with one, does not mean in order to be informed on the issues and know about the issues I have to talk with one face to face. That is baloney.

Don’t tell me that I cannot be informed accurately on the issues without speaking to a biologist. Give me a darn break.

But also don’t get me wrong, I am not against speaking to one, actually I would PREFER and LOVE to speak to one.

Most certainly. Back in the early stages of ID creationism, I debated Bill Dembski over at the old ISCID forums (before they banned all non-creationists). I've been debating ID creationists in all manner of forums for over a decade. I would venture I've read more ID creationist material than just about anyone here.

Well, I respect that and I think that is good. I have debated a geologist before on a science forum. And actually the debate believe it or not lasted for about a whole year, a whole bloody year, can you imagine that? And I am not exaggerating either, a WHOLE YEAR! And to be honest, there is STILL more to cover over there, but we parted.

As for you reading more ID material then just about anyone here, I don’t doubt that you have read a lot, but you sure don’t know if you have read more than anyone else here. And neither does it matter, it’s not how much you read, it’s how much you can refute.

So back to the subject at hand...if you've never gone through the biology journals to see what biologists are publishing about evolution, haven't attended any conferences to hear what biologists are talking about and debating, and haven't discussed evolution with any biologist so you could question their work, how in the world are you at all qualified to accuse them of....well....anything?

I have read biology articles. And from what I read, I have not seen proof, therefore I can accuse them of not having proof, yes I can. I am well qualified to do that, because I read enough stuff to know they don’t have proof. I am qualified to say that because I have a BRAIN. Ok?

Now if you want to show me the proof, then go ahead and then we can go through it. But don’t sit there and tell me I have not done my research, give me a break. I am sick and tired of foolish people making points like this, it seems to be a standard tactic that if you disagree with macro evolution or if you agree with ID then you have not done your research and you are ignorant, or you are dishonest. If you’re like that, get lost, I don’t have time for that.

 

[Jollybear]

And what do you think that says about you?

Oh so I am a bad guy in regards to this issue because I have not spoken face to face with a biologist? Do you hear yourself man? If you want to debate, let’s do it, make some points, valid ones, not stupid ones like you have been doing so far.

Trust me that I have done my research when I tell you I have, because, I have. Yea, I may not have gone to the library, but as I said already, you can get the same information many different ways. And regardless how you get that information, it’s still the same information, and I am informed.

Now, that being said, do you want to debate the issues? If not, then move along. If yes, then let’s get it on!

 

[Jollybear]

I'm glad to hear that a belief in ID hasn't closed you down to wanting to understand how the universe works.

Great, common ground we have, it’s wonderful isn’t it?

But, why accept a mechanic's word as to how a car runs? Why accept a electrician's word, or a plumber's, or a construction worker's word?

You can’t change the analogy, you just changed the analogy. By looking at the house, we know it’s designed, but by studying the house, we know how it works. By taking the word of the person who built the house, we don’t know how the house works, we believe this is how it works based on the one who knows and who told us.

I might say that I accept their word because they know more about the subject than I do.

But what about the evolutionary biologist? Is it possible that they know more about their field than me or you?

No, absolutely not. I work in a home improvement store and I know crap about home improvement. Just being honest. Plus some scientists believe in ID and some don’t, so that shows you they don’t all know there field better then the next person.

A biologist would tell you that a wing or an eye isn't designed. It arose by purely natural means.

Really? What is that natural means by which it came into existence?

They can show you how it works by explaining the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection.

Mutations don’t create new information and don’t create something better in evolution. Mutations destroy.

They can show you examples of how it's happened in the past by showing you the fossil record. They can show you evolution right before your eyes in experiments involving bacteria and other forms of life.

Really?...... I am amazed, I think I’ll convert now, NOT. I heard this stuff before. There is no macro evolution that comes from it and any mutations that come about are harmful.

Why trust the word of the mechanic, plumber, electrician, and construction worker; yet assume by default that the biologist is wrong?

As I said, you changed the analogy, God is the mechanic, plumber, electrician and construction worker.

All machanics agree that a car is build by someone.

All biologists don’t agree on origins.

There you go.

Noted for future reference.

That’s awesome.

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

Many scientists, who are far more knowledgeable than I ever hope to be, and far more skeptical than I ever care to be, seem to have come up with some idea of an original singularity. Is that not true? This is all theoretical after all, is it not?

So, that being the case, or not, then there is a common point between 'Creation' and 'Science' on at least one point. (Get it?) They both agree on an original singularity. From one - the scientific - there then arises a 'Big Bang.' From the other side there then arises a 'Big Bang' as well.

Well, there is one point. I suppose that there is another point that follows. (If I ever figure out how to work this forum).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Many scientists, who are far more knowledgeable than I ever hope to be, and far more skeptical than I ever care to be, seem to have come up with some idea of an original singularity. Is that not true? This is all theoretical after all, is it not?

So, that being the case, or not, then there is a common point between 'Creation' and 'Science' on at least one point. (Get it?) They both agree on an original singularity. From one - the scientific - there then arises a 'Big Bang.' From the other side there then arises a 'Big Bang' as well.

Well, there is one point. I suppose that there is another point that follows. (If I ever figure out how to work this forum).

Welcome to the forum. Don't worry you'll get the hang of it pretty soon.

As far as "creation" and "science"....one of the biggest differences is the ability and the wanting to test a hypothesis. In (christianity, judaism and isalam) ("God/El/Allah) by default can not be tested and it is forbidden and considered blasphemous to do so.

Additionally science welcomes change. Most religions do not. For instance....YEC (Young Earth Creationist, which these days we seem to have a bunch of them here at RF), contend that the earth is young. They disagree with the testing method used by scientist to determine the age of the earth while accepting hands down the same scientific methods that actually confirm some of the things in their bible. Back on page 34 of this thread I gave some brief information as to how we know for a fact the earth is very old but NO creationist responded. That is a common theme here at RF with creationist.

Another very big difference between "creationism" and "science" is creationism starts with an unchanging preconceived notion (God). Science starts with an idea but is subject to change based on the scientific method.

So now that we have determined without a shadow of ANY doubt the earth is very, very.......VERY....old... we can now move on to the other areas of uneasiness creationist have and that is "Evolution". Unfortunately there are so many threads here on evolution it's hardly worth repeating. Just search for ("evolution") here at RF and you will have no shortage of post to sift through.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Jolly, Danmac, etc.
Can we just keep the 'Gospels are real' and 'God is real' strawmen out of the debate?
And get back to any empiracle evidence for the literalistic interpretation of Genesis as scientific fact. Specifically, Creationism.
This thread, according to the OP, is for those who claim scientific validity of Creationism to present their case. Not for quoting gospel or vague accusations concerning atheism.

 

[Jollybear]

Dirty_panguin

considered blasphemous to do so.

Blasphemous by whom?

Back on page 34 of this thread I gave some brief information as to how we know for a fact the earth is very old but NO creationist responded.

I think I missed that post. Plus, I am working on responding to other posts, so I cannot get every post. Just because you get no response, does not mean it’s because you stumped anyone. Right there your making an assumption. I debated with a geologist for about a whole year on the age of the earth. I have no problem debating on that issue. But at the moment I am debating about the resurrection of Christ and the existence of God.

Another very big difference between "creationism" and "science" is creationism starts with an unchanging preconceived notion (God). Science starts with an idea but is subject to change based on the scientific method.

It’s not good to assume all people are the same, who happen to be in the same group. It depends on who you’re talking to. Some creationists are stuck on tradition, and some will go where they think the evidence genuinely leads.

So now that we have determined without a shadow of ANY doubt the earth is very, very.......VERY....old...

You might have determined, but it’s not without a shadow of doubt, you made no case at all. But, that is ok, I have two debates going on as it is.

But I just had to respond to this because you were being way overly presumptuous.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Jolly, Danmac, etc.
Can we just keep the 'Gospels are real' and 'God is real' strawmen out of the debate?
And get back to any empiracle evidence for the literalistic interpretation of Genesis as scientific fact. Specifically, Creationism.
This thread, according to the OP, is for those who claim scientific validity of Creationism to present their case. Not for quoting gospel or vague accusations concerning atheism.

What are you doing? All this time on this thread I have not been debating once whether or not Genesis 1 is a literal or symbolic interpretation. I have been debating for intelligent design and the existence of God, and just recently the resurrection of Christ with audodidact because there is evidence for that too.

As I said before it depends on what you mean by creationism, young or old or something else. All this time I was debating for intelligent design, which is a form of creation, but not necessarily young or old. Although I am a young earther, but that is besides the point, I was not arguing for it or making a case for it.

I believe in progressive debate, bounce back and forth arguments, make progression and see what happens.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes, I can understand you have gotten off on irrelevant tangents, however you have not yet established intelligent design of any sort.

 

[Jose Fly]

It should really be quite simple; point to something in the biological realm that you have determined to be "intelligently designed" and tell us precisely how you determined it to be so.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

]Yes….yes it does. Again, SOMETHING has to be eternal.

What do you mean what? Come on now, what I said is not fantastically hard to understand or grasp. Let me re quote what I said

I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t see the problem because something has to be a first cause, it’s either nothing (which is crazy) or it’s mindless energy (which is more plausible then nothing, but still not great because it needs to break the cycle of eternity to begin something) or it’s God (which is more plausible then the other 2 because he is something and he knows the cycle of eternity needs to break in order to begin something).”

In other words for something to BEGIN it cannot be eternal. IF energy is eternal, or the universe in some shape or form existed for eternity, then it would take an eternity for it to be in the form it is now, therefore it would never get in the form it is now, since it started from eternity, which means no starting point. And then if you say it all happened at the same time, then there would be no motion, but there is motion, so why is there motion?

You see, this point I keep making is ignored, and all you have to say to it is “cycle of eternity? What?” come on, you can do better than that can’t you?

Saying “what?” is not an argument and does not dampen my argument.

All right, that's enough. As far as I'm concerned this 'cycle of eternity' is just the latest in a long line of nonsensical things you've pulled out of thin air and, until you can produce real evidence that it's anything more than a fantasy, it isn't worth responding to.

Yes it does nullify that obligation

No, again, it doesn't. All you've managed to do is create a double standard.

The universe's complexity = design

God's complexity =/= design

You can scream first cause until your blue in the face but you've already been shown by others that, on a quantum level, a first cause is unnecessary. Plus, I'm still trying to get it through to you that "there must have been a first cause" is not a get out of jail free card. You still have yet to answer for the inherent contradiction in your complexity argument. So, as far as I'm concerned, your continued use of first cause is nothing more than a cop-out so you don't have to face the massive flaw in your own line of reasoning.

Now let’s assume for the sake of argument for the moment that I say my position has a contradiction, well that would mean ALL the positions have a contradiction. So, PICK your contradiction, because there is no 5th view, accept if you want to say the “I don’t know” is a position, or there is a 6th if you want to bring in the position that says the universe is not here, it’s a delusion, were not here. So, really, to be technical, there is 6 views, and NO MORE than that. And any other ones that people have mentioned on here are only variations saying the same thing of either one of the 4 main views in question.

Again with "It's my 4 views or nothing!"

Now, if all of the views you've posted contain contradictions, what does that tell us? Well, maybe there is, in fact, another view that you haven't found yet.

See, saying "It's my POVs or nothing." is a claim of omniscience. In order to make that claim it would mean that you would have had to search out all of the knowledge of the multiverse, that which we know and that which we don't, and found that these 4 views really are all there is. You do that and I'll take your '4 views' claim seriously.

So, PICK your contradiction that you want to accept, what contradiction is most plausible to accept? Here is the thing, pick one, because you’re not safe in the “I don’t know” position, take your gamble if you wish, but it’s not a safe gamble. And if you think it is, then your ACTING like you KNOW it’s safe, when in fact you DON’T KNOW. So be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID. Get shaken up out of your comfort zone of false safety. Your nice and snug in your agnosticism, little realizing that destruction is hanging over your head.

I've asked you nicely to stop with the eternal damnation garbage and yet you persist. Why?

It means nothing to me. It doesn't "shake me up". It doesn't make me fear your god. It just really irritates me.

Please, for the umpteenth time, drop the "you'll find out when you die." nonsense.

The God view is the most logical out of all of them, it is most plausible out of all.

No other views exist, get use to it, and remember my prediction, rehearse it once a day for the rest of your life, no other view will ever come to the table, EVER.

Except for the one (or more) you haven't thought of yet.

There it comes again, that same old tactic, if you don’t agree with evolution, that must = that you have not looked into it. I am getting tired of that old tactic. Seriously, it seems to be a standard tactic from those who believe in evolution by random chance against those who disagree with them.

YES I have looked into it. I noticed the same tactic was also used on Danmac that he should go learn some science. When will that tactic DIE? This tactic is more of a judgment then an argument. Seriously, if that is the best you got for evolution, you better well give it up and fast.

The fact that you used the words "evolution by random chance" shows me you don't know the first thing about it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Quite that, you nor anyone else has shown that there are other views beside the ones I mentioned. All you have said or others have said is a variation or a different way of saying one of the views I mentioned. There are no other views, I have mentioned them all. And there never will be any other views.

Except for the one (or more) you haven't thought of yet.

Because that is the only views on the table and that is the only views ever going to be on the table, mark my words, you will see that is true at your death bed. At your death bed, those same views will be the only ones STILL on the table, with no more added to them. You watch and see. Let me recap.

1: the universe is eternal in it’s present form:
A: variation, is that energy is eternal and took on different forms and the present form is the universe we now see.
B: variation, the universe expands, then contracts for eternity.
C: variation, the universe keeps expanding forever from an eternal singularity of smallness.
D: variation, fill in the line _____________

2: the universe made itself

3: the universe came from nothing and chance and long periods of time
A: variations, just fill in the line _____________

4: I don’t know position, but I know for some odd reason the other views are wrong. But, I don’t know how I know that.

5: The universe is not really here, it just looks like it is, but it’s just a big delusion.

6: God created the universe
A: variation, a polytheistic finite god or gods or goddesses created the universe
B: variation, Allah who is infinite created the universe
C: variation, the Christian triune God who is infinite created the universe
B: variation, fill in the line _____________

There you have it, there is no 7, never was, yes all these 7 views can come packaged in different words and ways, but they are still 6. And yes they can come with variations to them, but it’s still 6 and no more.

Except for the one (or more) you haven't thought of yet.

Good luck trying to find a 7…..you will never find it, on your death bed, it will still not be on the table. You will cry out of fear, as the bowls of hell await you (of course, you won’t know that 100% one way or the other until you die, but, that is the gamble you will take). But if after you die and you find yourself being escorted to hell, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Up here you will hate me; down there you will love me.

Again, see my last post regarding this.

You can’t change the analogy, you just changed the analogy. By looking at the house, we know it’s designed, but by studying the house, we know how it works. By taking the word of the person who built the house, we don’t know how the house works, we believe this is how it works based on the one who knows and who told us.

Okay, let's say that the electrician tells you the light switch works by magic. You, being curious, go in and look for yourself and you find no evidence of magic but a great deal of evidence of wiring, you'd know the electrician was wrong and learn not to trust his word again.

Now, we have a holy book that tells us the world is 6000 years old. We also have an enormous amount of physical verifiable evidence that it's at least 4 billion years old. That's not a trivial error, by the way. So, if the evidence points to the fact that the holy book is (extremely) wrong, what are we to do then?

We could close our eyes to the wiring behind the light switch and say, "No, the electrician said it was magic and the electrician must be right." but that is simply willful ignorance and doesn't change what's behind the switch.

No, absolutely not. I work in a home improvement store and I know crap about home improvement. Just being honest. Plus some scientists believe in ID and some don’t, so that shows you they don’t all know there field better then the next person.

So, the fact that some scientists disagree on certain things automatically means that they are no better versed in their field than a layman

Makes perfect sense :sarcastic

Really? What is that natural means by which it came into existence?

Here, this should get you started.

Evolution 101

Mutations don’t create new information and don’t create something better in evolution. Mutations destroy.

There is no macro evolution that comes from it and any mutations that come about are harmful.

These two right here are enough to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.

All machanics agree that a car is build by someone.

All biologists don’t agree on origins.

So what?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Blasphemous by whom?

Ahh yes..Your bible seems to indicate that you can test "God" but not "tempt" him. Even though (tempt) in that context was testing.......

I think I missed that post. Plus, I am working on responding to other posts, so I cannot get every post.

Yeah you may have missed it. No biggie. One striking point we have with creationist (some, not all) is that the earth is young. The universe is young. That's why I answered that here (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1970501-post331.html).

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1970501-post331.html Just because you get no response, does not mean it’s because you stumped anyone.

Never said I did. But I'm interested in you or any other creationist presenting evidence the earth is only thousands of years old.

Right there your making an assumption.

What assumption did I make? I was stating the facts.

I debated with a geologist for about a whole year on the age of the earth. I have no problem debating on that issue.

Regardless. All the credible and testable evidence points to a very old earth billions of years beyond what the creationists believe.

How do you know how old various scrolls of your bible are or how old are the Dead Sea Scrolls?

But at the moment I am debating about the resurrection of Christ and the existence of God.

Good luck with that. If you can provide credible evidence for the resurrection you'd be the first. I won't hold my breath on presenting evidence for "God"....your god has as bout as much evidence for him and any other god.

You might have determined, but it’s not without a shadow of doubt, you made no case at all. But, that is ok, I have two debates going on as it is.

Just because you doubt it doesn't make it any less a fact.

But I just had to respond to this because you were being way overly presumptuous.

So far you've presented no credible evidence for the resurrection nor any evidence "God" exist.............and you say I'm being presumptuous......

 

[painted wolf]

Mutations don’t create new information and don’t create something better in evolution. Mutations destroy.

obviously someone missed basic biology.

Long term evolutionary study of beneficial mutations in e.coli
E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site
Beneficial mutations creating new features in transplanted island dwelling lizards
Caribbean Lizards Evolve Independently
Beneficial mutations in humans
UMd-Led Team Discovers Gene Mutation for Milk Tolerance in Africans :: University Communications Newsdesk, University of Maryland

just as a couple of quick examples.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Mutations don’t create new information and don’t create something better in evolution. Mutations destroy.

What is it that makes those who know the least about a subject, speak the most authoritatively about it?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

What is it that makes those who know the least about a subject, speak the most authoritatively about it?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

 

[RedOne77]

What is it that makes those who know the least about a subject, speak the most authoritatively about it?

It's part of the "Dunning-Kruger effect" which states that those who know little about a subject are confident that what they believe is correct, while those who do know what they are talking about realize their limitations and thus suffer from illusory inferiority.