Creationists: Here's your chance

[Peacewise]

Thank you to the few people who have enlightened me that a first cause is unnecessary in the scientific view point, this is a concept that I find difficult to understand and I would appreciate some few people explaining that view point please.

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

That quote of Charles Darwin a few posts up, and repeated in this post is excellent and to my thinking is a paraphrase of a bible sentence.

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools [ The Hebrew words rendered fool in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient. ] despise wisdom and discipline." NIV

If I may rework the above bible quote to explain my thinking on this...

To fear the lord, is to have less confidence in one's own judgment hence accepting that one is ignorant in some things, yet the immoral will despise wisdom and discipline and that despising is expressed as a confidence in their view point.

hence imo, Darwin is expressing something that is portrayed in the Bible, now that's pretty cool to me, because it reveals to me that excellence and accuracy in thought occurs in science and religion...

or so it seems to me.

 

[McBell]

Thank you to the few people who have enlightened me that a first cause is unnecessary in the scientific view point, this is a concept that I find difficult to understand and I would appreciate some few people explaining that view point please.

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

That quote of Charles Darwin a few posts up, and repeated in this post is excellent and to my thinking is a paraphrase of a bible sentence.

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools [ The Hebrew words rendered fool in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient. ] despise wisdom and discipline." NIV

If I may rework the above bible quote to explain my thinking on this...

To fear the lord, is to have less confidence in one's own judgment hence accepting that one is ignorant in some things, yet the immoral will despise wisdom and discipline and that despising is expressed as a confidence in their view point.

hence imo, Darwin is expressing something that is portrayed in the Bible, now that's pretty cool to me, because it reveals to me that excellence and accuracy in thought occurs in science and religion...

or so it seems to me.

Look up The Forer Effect.

 

[painted wolf]

Thank you to the few people who have enlightened me that a first cause is unnecessary in the scientific view point, this is a concept that I find difficult to understand and I would appreciate some few people explaining that view point please.

Science only deals with what can be tested...How would one test conditions before the universe existed? In the case of evolution, the theory only covers what happens to life over time... defined by biologists as "change in allele frequencies over time".

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

If time came into existence at the moment of the "big bang", then "before the big bang" is impossible.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If time came into existence at the moment of the "big bang", then "before the big bang" is impossible.

That's a bold statement. Why don't you prove it and go collect your Nobel prize?

 

[Jose Fly]

That's a bold statement. Why don't you prove it and go collect your Nobel prize?

????? How can the concept of "before" exist in the absence of time?

 

[tumbleweed41]

If time came into existence at the moment of the "big bang", then "before the big bang" is impossible.

That's a bold statement. Why don't you prove it and go collect your Nobel prize?

Not so bold.
It is a basic concept of quantum and cosmological physics.
See Einstein, Fienman, Higgs, Penrose, Hawkings, etc....

 

[johnhanks]

Give us a visual demonstration of a species evolving into a different species and then tell me evolution is a testable theory. I do not mean a gradual change within a species, I mean a new species.

Spartina anglica.

 

[McBell]

Spartina anglica.

I suspect that you are wasting your time.

The fact is that Danmac is not interested in anything that shows he is wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

Give us a visual demonstration of a species evolving into a different species and then tell me evolution is a testable theory. I do not mean a gradual change within a species, I mean a new species.

London Underground Mosquito
Heredity - Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations
Hawthorn Fly gave rise to the apple maggot fly during the 19th century, observational evidence was backed up by genetics recently
Chicago Journals - The American Naturalist

D.melanogaster evolved into D.pseudoobscura under long term experimental conditions.
Some papers on this: http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol525/Readings/Dodd_1989.pdf
Comparative genome sequencing of Drosophila pseudoobscura: Chromosomal, gene, and cis-element evolution — Genome Research
Chicago Journals - The American Naturalist

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

Not so bold.
It is a basic concept of quantum and cosmological physics.
See Einstein, Fienman, Higgs, Penrose, Hawkings, etc....

I agree that time as we know it within our own universe started at the big bang, but if the multiverse model turns out to be correct, it isn't a leap to conclude that each universe has its own perception of space/time. So time could have come up independently of each other throughout the past and present so to say.

 

[painted wolf]

but you also can't conclude that other universes existed before our own.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

I suspect that you are wasting your time.

The fact is that Danmac is not interested in anything that shows he is wrong.

Why have you finally come up with something?

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Yes, I can understand you have gotten off on irrelevant tangents,

No, I have been speaking right on subject with regards to God and his existence and design. Yes the resurrection was brought up, because a question was posed to me and if I remember correctly it was about my religion being the right one or not and how I could know. So I answered the question, if you want to call that a tangent, go ahead, but I was simply answering points and questions. Which I think is right to do. It shows progression in discussion and debate.

however you have not yet established intelligent design of any sort.

Yes I have. You have not established my points as wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

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 human body is complex. If we had none vital parts we could still survive, such as a finger. But a vital part which there are many, we could not survive without. So all those vital parts would need to be there or come into being at the same time in order for us to survive, otherwise we won’t survive. The brain, the heart, the intestines, the veins, any organs, all these vital parts we would need in order to survive. They would all need to come into being at the same time, that implies an intelligence would have to pull that off, chance could not do so, and if you say, chance didn’t do it, but something natural, well what is that natural? Is that just another fancy way of saying chance? Just hiding it?

 

[Jollybear]

Evelyonian

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.

If you cannot give me “tangible” evidence for macro evolution, then why should I give you tangible evidence for God? Also if you cannot give tangible evidence for gravity, and time, why should I give you tangible evidence for God?

Also by you dismissing my argument of the first cause, that is not addressing the argument. Remember, it’s not just me you’re trying to convince; you’re trying to convince some undecided listeners listening in on our conversation. There the judge, now think of a judge in court, if you just told him that you dismiss my argument, but won’t tell him why you do so, he would not take your statement seriously.

So, answer the argument or move on. It is worth responding to, both for the sake of your case and the listeners listening in and for my sake, because if you don’t answer it, I will flaunt that you keep dismissing it over and over and make your case look like it cannot answer something.

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.

Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this. No one has shown that a first cause is unnecessary; all they have shown is that no one knows with 100% proof what the first cause is, if any. And they have not proven that a cause is unnecessary. They just think a cause is unnecessary. That’s not a proven fact, that’s a view point. So, no, it has not been SHOWN by proof, it has only been shown by the view. The view has been shown, NOT the proof FOR the view. And then, even when I assumed the view was true and offered some questions to it, STILL NO ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS! You atheists and agnostics are something else.

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.

Yes, it is a get out of jail free card, because there is ONLY 6 views and NO MORE, and I predict never will be a 7. When your about 70 to 80 years old, please be on here, because I want to scrub it in your face that my prediction has STILL held the test of time that there never will be a 7th view on origins.

You still have yet to answer for the inherent contradiction in your complexity argument.

Something has to be a first cause, there HAS to be a first cause, for reasons I already told you, which you nor anyone addresses, but instead keeps dismissing a very valid point.

Plus, even if my position has a contradiction in it, then PICK the most plausible contradiction out of the 6 views because you will waist your whole life waiting for a 7th view to come to the table to be optional.

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.

BUNK!!!!!!! Wrong answer. I am NOT, I repeat I am NOT!!! Using the first cause argument as a COP-out so I don’t have to face a flaw in my line of reasoning. I am using it because there is a fatal flaw in the view that says energy or the universe is eternal! And I have shown repeatedly that flaw. I have shown by reason that a first cause has to be. I am not motivated by a cop-out, I am motivated by reason here.

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.

Or, maybe God set it up in such a way to where he wants’ an element of faith involved, but philosophically, he has shown that he is most plausible. Plus I did not say there was a contradiction in my view, the first cause saves my view. But I did say, IF there was a contradiction, then PICK which contradiction you wish to accept because there never will be a 7th view.

See, saying "It's my POVs or nothing."

You’re not listening to me apparently. It’s not my point of views, it’s the point of views that has been on the table through human history up to the present time, and it’s the ONLY points of views that are optional that are on the table. I know, I have studied. My point of view is the God view, the other views are views I don’t believe in, but they are the ONLY views ON the table. There is no 7! There is no question about it that there is no 7, the only question is, will there ever BE a 7? I PREDICT there will NOT BE. LET’S see if I am right. Let’s see if I am proven a fool, or let’s see if I get the chance in let’s say 60 or so years to rub it in your face the prediction. And mark my words, if I am alive in about 50 to 60 years from now, I will be on here and I will SURELY rub my prediction in your face. I hope your still on here by then. And if my prediction proves to be false, I will HUMBLY BOW my head in disgrace, DEAL?

 

[Jollybear]

is a claim of omniscience.

Then everyone claims omniscience then. Because you claim my view is wrong and that the other views are also none plausible, but you don’t KNOW that, but you claim it as if you did. And all others who claim to the other views, they are claiming omniscience. Also science makes predictions, religion also makes them, and I myself have made one, it is, there never will be a 7th view. So if you call that omniscience, then you’re calling science omniscience because it makes predictions. If that is what you want to do, go ahead. Call it whatever you want. But the reality is, it goes on. And there is nothing wrong with it, UNLESS the prediction is wrong, then there is something wrong with it. And the same goes for the views, there is nothing wrong with making them, unless the view is wrong.

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.

Dude, you got to be kidding me? You can’t be serious right? Look, I have studied, these are the only views CURRENTLY on the table, there is no more. There is no question. The question is, will there come to be more? I predict NO, what do you predict? Yes?

Plus I don’t take all 6 views seriously, I only take ONE of the 6 seriously, that’s the God view. So you don’t have to take all of them seriously, you just have to take ONE of them seriously and you have to seriously EXAMINE ALL of them. But, when I tell you these views are the only ones on the table, that statement you need to take seriously, because it’s a darn fact.

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

Why? Because it’s a point I am making based on the fact that no one has 100% proof one way or the other for any view, therefore it’s a valid question I have for you based on curiosity on how you would respond. The reason for my curiosity is I want to find out if you take the issue lightly or not. I want to find out if you show any concern whatsoever, or if you think you’re nice and comfy and ok. I am not at the moment saying you are going to hell, I am saying IF I am right (that there is a God and he is the God of the bible, and that he sends you to hell) and you’re wrong, what would your response be then?

It means nothing to me.

And this is what troubles me, is that you have no concern at all, YET you do not KNOW what the truth is by means of absolute proof. Yet your lack of concern in action asserts that you know with absoluteness that your ok and nothing bad will happen to you. That is troubling, and that is where your wrong, and that is where you need to show more concern. You can only display NON concern ONLY when you KNOW 100% that I am wrong. And that, you do not know, so therefore, why then do you not show concern?

It doesn't "shake me up". It doesn't make me fear your god. It just really irritates me.

Right….ok, why do you show no concern when you don’t know I am wrong?

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

Let me ask you, will we NOT ALL FIND OUT when we die? Won’t we?

But it’s not good to find out then, since the truth may not be in our favor. That is the point I am trying to make, we should be concerned, we should treat this issue with UTMOST MORE respect. We should treat it with greater sacredness, and NOT a lack of concern.

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

Find me a 7th view and I will examine it and tell you whether or not it is another way of saying one of the 6 views I mentioned. And I will examine it, and I will tell you the reason for my conclusion.

There is no 7, no question, the question is, will there ever be one? I PREDICT, NO.

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

That’s strange, because that would only mean your own people who believe in it don’t know the first thing about it, because this is what I read from them, their own words and their own explanations. I even heard Richard Dawkins say it was by many chances over time. I gauss Richard Dawkins knows nothing about evolution either then, huh?

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

There are no more than these on the table. Make me look like a fool and show me a 7th?

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 _____________

Show me a genuine totally unique view from ALL 6 of these views? Do NOT show me one of these 6 SAID IN A DIFFREN WAY.

If you can do that, I will bow my head in shame.

I know you will not be able to do it, and I am putting forth this challenge to you because I KNOW what is on the table and what is not.

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.

I agree

 

[Jollybear]

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?

There are two things wrong with your statement here.
1 I was not arguing whether or not the universe or earth was young or old.
2 God creating the universe is not magic, because God is SOMETHING, not NOTHING, if NOTHING creates SOMETHING, THAT is magic. At least when God creates something, he is creating it from his mind and his spoken command.

Looks like your left with accounting for the problem of the first cause.

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.

Your analogy does not work for I was not arguing for a young or old earth, but I was arguing that God created the universe period, nothing more or less added to it.

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

You’re not listening to me. Putting aside the scientists who don’t know much about their field, they just work there. Well taking into the equation the scientists who do know there field, there are two groups; both these groups disagree amongst each other. Now, that being said, scientist (A) disagrees with scientist (B) and yet they both know ABOUT their field quite well, but obviously ONE of them KNOWS there field TRULY, not just knows ABOUT their field, but they KNOW there field because they are right and the other is wrong.

Now, if the one guy who is wrong, but knows a lot ABOUT his field, how is he any better than the layman who agrees with the guy who happens to be right? He is NOT better, he is WORSE. And why is he worse? Because he is in the position to where he should KNOW BETTER and the layman is not in the position to know better, yet he does know better.

Here, this should get you started.

Evolution 101

So, you don’t understand your view on evolution enough to give me a simple answer to my question? You can’t tell me yourself what that natural means was that brought us into existence? If it’s not chance, as you said it was not, then what was it?

If you’re going to give me an article, give me a smaller one that gives a more simple answer to save time and progress the debate. But, if I must, I will read ALL of that stuff, but it will take some time. If you insist in not giving me the answer yourself, then I will read it and then I will come back with vengeance.

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

Yea, and that’s what all bad debaters say, they just like dismissing stuff. Instead of saying I don’t know what I am talking about, tell me why my point was wrong.

So what?

“So what” is not going to cut it. All mechanics agree that cars were built by someone, all biologists do not agree on origins.

Look man, it’s not just me you’re trying to convince, you’re trying to convince undecided listeners listening in and reading our conversation. THINK ALSO about them. Now if not all biologists agree on origins, that means some biologists are no better than a layman. The only way they would be better is in the sense of knowing how to work things in a lab just like any on the job training goes.

 

[Jollybear]

Dirty_panguin

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

You then apparently don’t understand the bible. When the bible talks about NOT testing God, it means in the sense of don’t test his patience, don’t be an *** hole. Don’t TRY to get him ******. Be humble, be nice. When it talks about TESTING God or testing the spirits, it means testing in the sense to FIND OUT if it’s God or if it’s another voice.

There’s the difference. And that is what the bible says, I know, because the bible is what I believe in and I know it well. I don’t believe in something I don’t understand.

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...1-post331.html).[/quote]

Ok, well I am not afraid to debate whether or not the earth is young or old, but I cannot do it now, since I am debating a few issues already. Debating the age of the earth will take a whole new thread by itself. There is a lot to that, dating methods and everything.

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

I can try to do so in the future, but I wish to finish the debates I am now doing.

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

What facts? Proven facts? Or unproven facts?

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

Yea, well I beg to differ, but I cannot debate it right now, you know why, I am debating other issues.

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

I have a hunch where you’re going with this, if I say carbon dating, you will say why trust that, it’s a dating method. To this I say, carbon dating can work up to a point. Going back further then Noah’s flood carbon is less, but after the flood, it was more abundant. So things before the flood appeared more older, things after the flood appeared more younger. But carbon dating a scroll is not the only way of dating something. We can trace it back by historical means. That means to look at how many times something is quoted and then keep tracing it backwards, and then count the time. That’s how we know and for the most part it is pretty accurate.

Good luck with that.

Rather, good luck with you or anyone else trying to refute my evidence.

If you can provide credible evidence for the resurrection you'd be the first.

No, I would be one amongst many.

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.

Wrong, and I keep telling everybody why and they won’t address it.

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

Just because you say “just because you doubt it doesn’t make it any less a fact” doesn’t make it any more a fact.

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

Umm….yea, I have. Just because you call it not evidence does not make it not evidence. AND, listen to this, this is the most important part, by calling it not evidence, you have not refuted it, all you have done is deny it.

Do some work and refute it, denying it is the lazy way out. Everybody wants a quick fix, well, not with me you don’t.

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_fly

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

What is it that makes those who say about others “what is it that makes those who know the least about a subject” speak the most authoritatively about that person and what they say, without refuting what they say?

In other words, why say I don’t know anything of the subject, why not instead be more helpful and respectful and say why I don’t know this or that, pin point it, and then say WHY I am wrong and why you are right.

Otherwise, move along.

If you truly understand what you believe, it should be easy to explain it, right? RIGHT!?

Darn rights.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" –

Knowledge begets more confidence, I disagree with Darwin.

He is backwards.