Evolutionism CRUSHED by Creationism

[Looncall]

These are just guess estimates of things with similar traits, it doesn't mean they are related to a common ancestor. And this doesn't show the split where it turns from one species to another.

You should have some hard words with the pastors at your church. You have been lied to by villains.

 

[JosephThomas]

Oops.I poost
aka. read the damn summary

 

[McBell]

A summary.

There must be a beginning, all things have an origin.

So, what is gods origin?

Because it left a mark. and your ignorance is not a forgivable sin after hearing these words.

You are far to impressed with yourself.
Perhaps if you pretended to be one of us super mega ignorant atheists and read the above from that particular PoV you might see how in your super mega genius you have most obviously left out big huge chunks of your thought process in the above.

No worries though.
All you needs do is connect the statements with the no doubt unintentionally left out vital pieces that will make all the above actually make sense outside your head.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JosephThomas]

God is not a thing. Everything has an origin. God is beyond physical. And thus the physical must originate elsewhere. With Reason to give it function and laws.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

God is not a thing. Everything has an origin. God is beyond physical. And thus the physical must originate elsewhere. With Reason to give it function and laws.

"God is not a thing." Lol, then what is it?

 

[Skwim]

God is not a thing.

Okay, so he's a person---as opposed to a thing or place (other exemplars of nouns), does this difference really exempt him from having an origin?

Everything has an origin. God is beyond physical.

Are you claiming then that this precludes him from having an origin? If so, why? Do all things beyond the physical, e.g. thoughts, emotions, dreams, also lack origins?

And thus the physical must originate elsewhere.

Okay, the physical has its origins in place X, god's origins in place Y, and thoughts, emotions, dreams in place Z. Now what?

 

[Parsimony]

There is so much wrong with this thread that it hurts.

 

[McBell]

God is not a thing. Everything has an origin. God is beyond physical. And thus the physical must originate elsewhere. With Reason to give it function and laws.

You do realize you just shot your whole argument right in the very foot you thought it stood on, right?

Interesting all the bold empty you claims you make.
You started with the thread title and then snowballed the bold empty claims by supporting your bold empty claims with nothing but even more bold empty claims.

Perhaps it would be a really good idea for you to go back to the drawing board with the information provided in this thread and work out those little details that those who are not already members of your choir have pointed out is wrong with your OP and try again after you have ironed out at least some of the wrinkles?

 

[JosephThomas]

According to Skwim's methods God is in fact closer to place z, but God's place of Origin is not comparable to place X. in God's place of origin every fathomable notion exists simultaneously without manifestation. Nothing does not exist where God is. Every moment in Time that has not occurred, there, exists. Things that could not be have reason to exist there, and God, self aware, chose for himself a perfect image to express himself, This Word he used, this tiny Gate to his expression, the Light of his Glory, is Jesus: The Lord God, who is perceivably our creator, friend and savior, The Grim reaper, but is not the Father.

You all show a clear misunderstanding of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. I can't image how you interpret mythology.

This is embarrassing. Summon me back if this forum is hopeless.

 

[Ouroboros]

God is not a thing.

There is is. God is nothing.

Everything has an origin.

Light is not a thing. Neither is gravity, kinetic energy, or heat. They're not "things". So they don't have an origin then?

God is beyond physical.

Emergent properties aren't physical either. They're what emerges beyond physical. Yet they have origin in physical, so being "beyond physical" is not an excuse of not being something.

And thus the physical must originate elsewhere.

So non-physical can produce physical, but physical can't produce non-physical? How can you be so sure about this?

With Reason to give it function and laws.

What's the reason for the function of a quasar? Start with explaining what the function of a quasar is. Not what it does, but what is it's practical function and purpose.

 

[Ouroboros]

You all show a clear misunderstanding of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. I can't image how you interpret mythology.

Wow. That's rude. You know barely anything about me or anyone else, and already you've done such a judgment. "Judge and ye shall be judged," or something like that.

This is embarrassing. Summon me back if this forum is hopeless.

:areyoucra Well... based on how you phrased it, I can tell that this forum is never hopeless, so you'll never be summoned back.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

God is not a thing. Everything has an origin. God is beyond physical. And thus the physical must originate elsewhere. With Reason to give it function and laws.

If God is not a thing, then that would mean, by your own definition, that God is nothing. hmmmm....:sarcastic

 

[johnhanks]

... is the only reason people do not rape children...

Are you really telling us that if your god-book hadn't told you not to, you'd be out there raping children? You needed to read a book to know this was wrong?

... that humans do not have a sexual mating season like every other animal known to exist

Gibbons, among other primates, do not have a mating season. Continuous sexual receptivity is a primate trait associated with long-term pair-bonding.

 

[metis]

God is not a thing. Everything has an origin. God is beyond physical. And thus the physical must originate elsewhere. With Reason to give it function and laws.

It's just so amazing that some feel that they can describe God and yet we can't even establish that God exists using objectively-derived evidence.

Secondly, even if one blindly accepts that God is "beyond physical", exactly how does that translate out to God cannot have an origin? How could anyone possibly know that?

This is not to say that it's wrong to believe the above, but one shouldn't elevate their beliefs to the slam-dunk fact level.

 

[Skwim]

According to Skwim's methods God is in fact closer to place z,

Only because it isn't X. Y and Z both share the quality of non-X.

but God's place of Origin is not comparable to place X.

So you've said.

in God's place of origin every fathomable notion exists simultaneously without manifestation.

Excuse me but this claim sounds as though it was plucked out of thin air. So, unless you have some evidence backing it up I'm going to take it as a complete fabrication.

Nothing does not exist where God is.

Or put more simply, something exists where god is. Okay, but what is your point?

Every moment in Time that has not occurred, there, exists. Things that could not be have reason to exist there, and God, self aware, chose for himself a perfect image to express himself, This Word he used, this tiny Gate to his expression, the Light of his Glory, is Jesus: The Lord God, who is perceivably our creator, friend and savior, The Grim reaper, but is not the Father.

Irrelevant blather.

You all show a clear misunderstanding of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.

Whereas you have a perfect understanding. Which flies in the face of your fanciful explanations of god and his origins.

I can't image how you interpret mythology.

And that's okay because I don't think anyone here has asked you to.

This is embarrassing. Summon me back if this forum is hopeless.

Well, your posts certainly demonstrate considerable hopelessness. Care to come back and make sense of them? Or is your statement here simply an excuse to flee the conversation?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Everything MUST have a source of origin.

Then what created God?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

~ Christianity = acknowledging God through the LIGHT, or Word, or IMAGE of himself which he had provided; is the only reason people do not rape children,

Ewww...Speak for yourself.:areyoucra If the only thing keeping you from raping children is the belief in your Judeo-Christian god, then perhaps you might need to seek professional help. I don't need a god to tell me that is disgusting. That's where the concept of "common sense" comes into play.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

the first day states.

Light, which is electricity, is the beginning of time.
The movement of matter, electricity , IS in fact time. CHECK

Can you clarify what you mean by the above.

 

[chlotilde]

In defense of crhode verbiage (not his/her thinking)

Originally Posted by crhodes9898
First Cosmic Evolution; the origin of time, space, and matter, (i.e Big Bang). Secondly, Chemical Evolution; the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. Thirdly, Stellar and Planetary evolution; origin of stars and planets. Fourthly, Organic Evolution; origin of life. Fifthly Macro-Evolution; Changing from one kind of animal to another. And lastly Micro-Evolution; Variations within kinds. These first five, are purely religious and have never been observed.


The term "Evolution" usually refers to what is called Biological Evolution, not Cosmic Evolution or Chemical evolution and such. It's a fallacy of equivocation.

It is only a fallacy of equivocation if one appeals to some Dictionary Gods. Not being legalistic in word usage myself (getting one's point across is more important) the word "evolution" has EVOLVED (just ask the social scientists). Darwin terms a noun of "Evolution", that evolves into a verb of "evolution" in essence meaning an action of cause/effect=change, which evolves back into another noun of "Evolution". When speaking to a science audience, I'd be legalistic in the terms I use, e.g. physicist=cosmological terms, chemists=reaction terms, biologists=genes/evolution terms...but in a general audience...meh.

What is ironic though is that modern day creationists (MDC) appeal to the wordings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic Jesuit priest who was trying to put evolution into a Christian perspective. And in the end, MDC reject Chardin's thinking.

 

[Ouroboros]

In defense of crhode verbiage (not his/her thinking)


It is only a fallacy of equivocation if one appeals to some Dictionary Gods. Not being legalistic in word usage myself (getting one's point across is more important) the word "evolution" has EVOLVED (just ask the social scientists). Darwin terms a noun of "Evolution", that evolves into a verb of "evolution" in essence meaning an action of cause/effect=change, which evolves back into another noun of "Evolution". When speaking to a science audience, I'd be legalistic in the terms I use, e.g. physicist=cosmological terms, chemists=reaction terms, biologists=genes/evolution terms...but in a general audience...meh.

Sure.

But taking that into account, he's still wrong since there's not only 5 or 6 evolutions, but a million. The evolution of the computer. The evolution of toothpaste. The evolution of cars. The evolution of transportation in general. The evolution of woodwork. The evolution of manga. The ...

In general, when someone puts "evolution vs creationism", we're not talking about evolution of most of the other evolutions, but usually more specifically about the evolution of life.

Anyway, it's a minor issue and not worthy to get into a dispute over.

What is ironic though is that modern day creationists (MDC) appeal to the wordings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic Jesuit priest who was trying to put evolution into a Christian perspective. And in the end, MDC reject Chardin's thinking.

True.