What if there is no God?

[Gibberish]

So you would rather take a chance of going to hell rather than standing next to a Christian? That is a very strong feeling.

You would have to assume tecoyah believes in the same hell as Christians and also believes Christians he will be standing next to are not going to this hell.

Christians speak loud but their history echo's around them.

 

[justone]

You would have to assume tecoyah believes in the same hell as Christians

Firstly I should not speak for him. He is very capable.
So, discussing him with you like he is dead: I have some feeling that he does not believe in any kind of hell, - but you may be right, I don't know.
Secondly, either he said or I understood: ''I 'd go anywhere as long as you are not there.'' May be it is not so since you're giving a different interpretation.

and also believes Christians he will be standing next to are not going to this hell.

I don't know how you can talk for him or believe for Christians - it is their belief, not yours, is'n it ?

Christians speak loud but their history echo's around them.

This is some kind of a code I cannot decode. I guess you putting out some symbol known only to a certain circle - I cannot make it out, I don't belong to the circle.

 

[Gibberish]

I don't know how you can talk for him or believe for Christians - it is their belief, not yours, is'n it ?

I never said I was speaking for him. I said you must assume the following for the question you asked to hold true.

You asked: So you would rather take a chance of going to hell rather than standing next to a Christian?

You must assume tecoyah believes in Christianity for him to believe there is a hell.

This is some kind of a code I cannot decode. I guess you putting out some symbol known only to a certain circle - I cannot make it out, I don't belong to the circle.

I'll decipher for you.

Christians preach love, tolerance, compassion, and understanding. Christian history (since the formation of the church) shows prejudice, murder, corruption, intolerance.

 

[justone]

You must assume tecoyah believes in Christianity for him to believe there is a hell.

I guess such assumption would work. He would be really concerned. How do they call it in psychiatry ?

I'll decipher for you.
Christians preach love, tolerance, compassion, and understanding.

Understand. It is OK with me, - do you have any problems with such preaching?

Christian history (since the formation of the church) shows prejudice, murder, corruption, intolerance.

Here you would still have to detail for me. I may be wrong in my reading. Are you saying that there is a separate Christian history? And there is some other history ( or histories) which does not show shows prejudice, murder, corruption, intolerance?

 

[doughgirl]

“Today it is a fact? So tomorrow it may not be? Facts aren’t so flexible, they don’t change, only our capacity to recognise the truth does.”

So is evolution a theory or a fact, in your opinion? And what is the difference between the two?

“I don’t follow your logic here. Because science is based on reason and observations then we SHOULD know everything, including the afford mentioned "first cause"?”

Sorry. No, I am saying there is no way science can ever know for sure the “first cause.” No one that we know was there when it happened. It is not observable today.
And there is no evidence for evolution. Therefore it is a religion based on faith. The definition of “religion” in Funk & Wagnall dictionary says, “A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe.”

Evolution reveals that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the invisible. It’s blind faith….. the same as in any other religion.

“Who is suggesting something can come from nothing? Not us, I thought that was the very premise of the creationist arguement. That complex things had to be willed into existence from god because you don’t understand the processes that brought them into existence.”

We believe that God was the first cause. And from Him all other things were created.
Ours is opposite to that of evolution that states basically that complexed elements have developed from simpler elements and living organisms have sprung from non-living chemicals, all by chance. This is a philosophy about the origins of life and the meaning of man. We believe the biblical narrative of creation or the Genesis account that says that God created the plants, animals after their kind with no crossing of the kinds. We believe that man was fully man at his creation, as was woman with no long gradual period of development. We do not believe in the racist theory of evolution of the survival of the fittest, natural selection…that is at odds with the biblical teaching that all things were created good. Our scriptures teach us that everything was originally created perfect until sin entered into the universe. This again is opposite to that of evolution that says everything gets better as time goes along. Both are opposites. Evolution theory really goes against some very basic laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics, that left to itself everything becomes less ordered not more ordered or complexed. Observe nature. Things grow old-run down-and eventually die or decay. They LOSE their structure. Evolution however says things develop in complexity and structure.


All I am saying in this discussion, because I certainly am not a scientist with a PHD is that…. many things that we think on this earth are absolutes are not and were not. History has shown us that even what science defines as truth today may be laughed at hundreds of years from today much the same way you laugh at creationism. Neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of special creation can be proven scientifically, that is they can not be repeated in laboratory experiments. Both theories are faith assumptions and on the basis of evidence one must choose one or the other.

What can we really be 100% sure of? You tell me.

“No I cannot exclude the possibility of god, I can only say with 100% certainty that creationism as it is now is not science, and that anyone who thinks the world was created 6 thousand years ago is loony.”

With 100% certainty you know? I doubt that. If you did you would be the richest person on earth.

Ok then….if mankind had lived on earth for a million years or longer, we would be all standing on mountains of bones from the trillions and trillions and trillions of skeletons of those who had died in all those past generations. Are we? NO. Scientists haven’t found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolution. WHERE ARE THEY? Since you are 100% sure……please do tell us where they are.

“Darwin admitted that millions of missing links transitional life forms would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.
And today scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that really must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.” Grant R. Jeffery

Time Magazine reported, “Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” (November 7, 1977)

 

[Thinker]

And there is no evidence for evolution.

Untrue. You probably dismiss the evidence, but there is a huge amount of it.
Try looking here to start: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
While on the subject of evidence, would you care to provide one scrap FOR
creationism? (Note "for"; your evidence should not just attack evolution).

...This again is opposite to that of evolution that says everything gets better as time goes along.

No. Evolution describes things changing. At the time of change, some
changes will makes things better, some will make things worse, and most will
have no effect. As the environment changes, some changes that were
beneficial or neutral can become detrimental, and vice versa.

Evolution theory really goes against some very basic laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics, that left to itself everything becomes less ordered not more ordered or complexed.

No it doesn't. Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Try
educating yourself by starting here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
or here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Evolution however says things develop in complexity and structure.

No. See above.

Both theories are faith assumptions and on the basis of evidence one must choose one or the other.

Please teach yourself the meaning of "theory" as used in science. You will
then understand why that term can be applied to evolution but not to
creationism.

I am happy to choose between creationism and evolution on the basis of the
evidence. There is none for creationism and a huge amount for evolution. I
choose evolution.

Ok then….if mankind had lived on earth for a million years or longer, we would be all standing on mountains of bones from the trillions and trillions and trillions of skeletons of those who had died in all those past generations. Are we? NO. Scientists haven’t found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolution. WHERE ARE THEY? Since you are 100% sure……please do tell us where they are.

Even if we assume an average of 10**9 people living for 20 years over the
last million years (gross overestimate), we would only get about 5*10**13
bodies. That's 50 trillion, or is that what you meant by "trillions and trillions
and trillions"?

Where are the bones. Same place are the rest of the bodies. They decay.
Under some conditions they are preserved and under even rarer conditions
they fossilise. The rest turn to dust.

 

[doughgirl]

As I said, it all boils down to worldviews because neither can be proven. Evolution is actually a naturalistic philosophy. Its been a long time since I have taken a science class but if I remember right....

Doesnt the 2nd law of thermodynamics imply that the universe is in a state of disinigration? And doenst the 1st law imply that matter cant just pop into existence or create itself?

so....if the universe had a beginning, then something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence. Something apart form the natural world. What was it? This supports creationism. The idea of creation isnt a matter then of just faith then....it is a conclusion based on the reading of scientific evidence.

Take the "big bang" theory....scientists at one time said that this was the way the universe began. At least I remember they thought this was so in the 60's. What happened to the naturalistic philosophy that many scientists believed in however? This untested theory said and I'll quote Carl Sagan, "nature is all that is or ever was or ever will be" It said that science can trace events back in time only to a certain point...at the time of the big explosion. Then science stops and hits a wall........All theories........none proven.

Did all this just happened coincidentally? I was serachin the web and I found this. I copied it but forgot the site....

"The Earth is unique. If the earth were even slightly closer to the sun, all its water would boil away and life would be impossible. On the other hand if the earth were only slightly farthur away from the sun, all its water would freeze and the terrestrial landscape would be nothing but barren deserts. And its not only the landscape that is affected by the position of our planet. The processes inside our bodies also rely on these conditions. The chemical reactions necessary for life to function occure within a narrow temperature range and Earth is exactly the right distance from the sun to fall within that range. Earth must remain about the same distance from the sun on its orbit that is, its orbit must be nearly circular-which it is, in contrast to the elliptical orbits of most other planets in our solar system."


Did this all just perfectly happen? The earth could not support life unless the cosmos itself had perfect physical properties. Everything is perfect........and the bang caused all these perfect elements to come together? If anything is absurd its that idea.

What happens if something explodes? Does a systematic organization of matter and elements happen? Or is it more like chaos and the destruction of elements.
So scientists say this huge cosmic explosion happened and the result was perfection, everything burst into existence in perfect form and order.

Just a big cosmic accident?

Now how much faith does it take to believe that?

 

[Thinker]

As I said, it all boils down to worldviews...

This is supposed to be a debate, yet you make statements then quietly
ignore counter statements and continue in the same direction.

 

[doughgirl]

Thinker..............then what does it boil down to?

I already said I was not a scientist or have a great deal of knowledge scientifically. I am 50 years old and the last physics, science class I took was in 1978 when I graduated from college. I read a lot but it would take me some time to really study and brush up on all that good stuff again, the laws of thermodynamics....antropic principle.....and so on.

I asked some good questions I think....feel free to answer.

I guess in a nutshell........when I try to undertstand natural phenomenon.....I think design is the most logical and the easiest to believe. I think the universe exhibits design so its logical to conclude that there is a designer. It takes less faith to believe in that than it does, chance or any laws.

 

[Thinker]

I already said I was not a scientist or have a great deal of knowledge scientifically. I am 50 years old and the last physics, science class I took was in 1978 when I graduated from college. I read a lot but it would take me some time to really study and brush up on all that good stuff again, the laws of thermodynamics....antropic principle.....and so on.

Fair enough. Let us consider only your assertions about thermodynamics.

Before going any further, can you accept that almost all the tiny number of
people who think that evolution contradicts the 2nd law are creationists
(either in or out of their ID disguises)? Your claim is so simple that it would be
impossible for scientists to ignore it, were it true. The fact that biologists and
physicists carry on without using the results of your claim would suggest that
it can't hold much weight in the scientific community. I know this is not a
proof in any sense, but when you are the one marching out of step, it is your
responsibility to put forward solid evidence to support your position.

An extremely simple description of the 2nd law would be "in a closed system,
the overall disorganisation increases". You claim that this means that
complex life forms could not have evolved from simple ones.

This is wrong because you have ignored a crucial part of the law: "in a closed
system". The system you are talking about includes two important
components: the Earth and the Sun. The Sun provides the energy that life
uses to develop and evolve. This energy is generated in a way that hugely
increases the entropy of the Sun and this more than compensates for the
absolutely tiny local decrease that life causes. The entropy of the complete
Earth-Sun system increases, as demanded by the 2nd law.

If you want to continue with your proposition, you have to define your closed
system and explain how evolution would decrease total entropy. If you try to
consider the Earth on its own as a closed system, you will have to discount
any energy coming from the Sun. You then have to explain how life would
manage to continue without that energy.

 

[Thorgasm]

I guess in a nutshell........when I try to undertstand natural phenomenon.....I think design is the most logical and the easiest to believe. I think the universe exhibits design so its logical to conclude that there is a designer. It takes less faith to believe in that than it does, chance or any laws.

You say that "design is the most logical and the easiest to believe". I don't know how it is logical to say that something was designed without proof of a designer. I don't think that the universe exhibits design. What it the purpose of Black Holes? How about asteroids and comets? It is pretty presumptuous to assume the universe exhibits design when we haven't even studied a billionth of it yet.

I do think that ID is easiest to believe. It requires absolutely no understanding of science. It requires no critical thought or reasoning abilities. It requires no evidence. It is definitely easy to believe if you don't think too much about the issue.

 

[tecoyah]

As I said, it all boils down to worldviews because neither can be proven. Evolution is actually a naturalistic philosophy. Its been a long time since I have taken a science class but if I remember right....

Doesnt the 2nd law of thermodynamics imply that the universe is in a state of disinigration? And doenst the 1st law imply that matter cant just pop into existence or create itself?

Both statements are true as far as they go...But if you were to fully impliment either law in the context of Evolution, they have no bearing on the theory, as far as verification of validity. Also worth nothing, Quantum Mechanics Models do show spontanious creation and destruction of matter from empty vacuum.

so....if the universe had a beginning, then something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence. Something apart form the natural world. What was it? This supports creationism. The idea of creation isnt a matter then of just faith then....it is a conclusion based on the reading of scientific evidence.

No scientist will tell you they "Know" where it all started, though many have developed Hypothesis and theory in an attempt to find out. It seems to me your failing here is fundamental. Scelnce does not claim to have all the answers, but instead is a means of expanding what we do know in an attempt to find them. Creationism does the opposite, and is thus counterproductive to anyone who understands the scientific model.

Take the "big bang" theory....scientists at one time said that this was the way the universe began. At least I remember they thought this was so in the 60's. What happened to the naturalistic philosophy that many scientists believed in however? This untested theory said and I'll quote Carl Sagan, "nature is all that is or ever was or ever will be" It said that science can trace events back in time only to a certain point...at the time of the big explosion. Then science stops and hits a wall........All theories........none proven.

You were asked to brush up on what a "Theory " is in the sciences, You really need to do so before proceeding in this debate. As far as the Sagan quote, taken in context he was explaining the unique nature of this Earth, and went on to explain the likelyhood of this planet forming when the Billions of planets, and timeframes are taken into account. He also discusses the possibility that life arose "Because" of these variables which made our planet....rather than the other way around.


Did all this just happened coincidentally? I was serachin the web and I found this. I copied it but forgot the site....

"The Earth is unique. If the earth were even slightly closer to the sun, all its water would boil away and life would be impossible. On the other hand if the earth were only slightly farthur away from the sun, all its water would freeze and the terrestrial landscape would be nothing but barren deserts. And its not only the landscape that is affected by the position of our planet. The processes inside our bodies also rely on these conditions. The chemical reactions necessary for life to function occure within a narrow temperature range and Earth is exactly the right distance from the sun to fall within that range. Earth must remain about the same distance from the sun on its orbit that is, its orbit must be nearly circular-which it is, in contrast to the elliptical orbits of most other planets in our solar system."

Also a Sagan Quote....from the same book, same chapter.


Did this all just perfectly happen? The earth could not support life unless the cosmos itself had perfect physical properties. Everything is perfect........and the bang caused all these perfect elements to come together? If anything is absurd its that idea.

Actually, far from being absurd...it is understood to be close to inevitable when the numbers are crunched.

What happens if something explodes? Does a systematic organization of matter and elements happen? Or is it more like chaos and the destruction of elements.

When taken in the context of Billions of years....yes the matter will eventually reform into something else.

So scientists say this huge cosmic explosion happened and the result was perfection, everything burst into existence in perfect form and order.

The universe is far from perfect, and though the big bang theory is questioned constantly within the scientific community, it is the most workable and complete theory to date.

Just a big cosmic accident?

No One Knows....except it seems....You

Now how much faith does it take to believe that?

It really takes very little faith, Rather a working knowledge of base level physics, and an open mind.

 

[justone]

The voice from above:

It really takes very little faith, Rather a working knowledge of base level physics, and an open mind.

The voice from below :
Nothing, but slogans. Shut up.

 

[justone]

This is wrong because you have ignored a crucial part of the law: "in a closed system". The system you are talking about includes two important
components: the Earth and the Sun. The Sun provides the energy that life
uses to develop and evolve. This energy is generated in a way that hugely
increases the entropy of the Sun and this more than compensates for the
absolutely tiny local decrease that life causes. The entropy of the complete
Earth-Sun system increases, as demanded by the 2nd law.

If you want to continue with your proposition, you have to define your closed
system and explain how evolution would decrease total entropy. If you try to
consider the Earth on its own as a closed system, you will have to discount
any energy coming from the Sun. You then have to explain how life would
manage to continue without that energy

Your sources have no clue. There is no closed or open or isolated system in the universe. All systems are open. Period. 2nd law is the most short, simple and inclusive law of the universe. Period.
Order/ disorder are working slang – but not what you think. Irreversible increase of non-disposable energy . Measurable increase of improbability of energy flow. Equalizing of the difference of potentials.
Didn’t I try to describe it – dough girl got some feeling. You still have no clue just repeating somebody’s absurd. Try to get some feeling from these readings :
First Law: You can't get anything without working for it.
Second Law: The most you can accomplish by work is to break even.
Third Law: You can't break even.

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

THE LAW OF ENTROPY:
The perversity of the universe tends towards a maximum.

First Law: You can't bet unless you play.
Second Law: The most you can hope for is to break even.
Third Law: You can't break even.
Fourth Law: Once you're born, you can't even get out of the game!

2nd law: you can put a pig into a machine and get
sausage, but you can't put sausage into the machine and get the pig
back.
PAY ATTENTION:
DECREASE OF COMPLEXITY IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE 2ND LAW !
IT IS THE 2ND LAW!!!!!

Before going any further, can you accept that almost all the tiny number of people who think that evolution contradicts the 2nd law are creationists
(either in or out of their ID disguises)?

That’s why your debate does not makes sense. You are not trying to see what is said, but who is saying in order to make a conclusion whether it is true or not. You represent the typical position of the contemporary science: if a scientist believes in God or Creation he/she is not qualified. On other hand the foundation of the contemporary science has been established mostly by all believers..

Your claim is so simple that it would be
impossible for scientists to ignore it, were it true. The fact that biologists and
physicists carry on without using the results of your claim would suggest that
it can't hold much weight in the scientific community

Biologists have no clue about T-cs. Very tiny percent of all scientists do, if you talk about the whole number of people with PhD. Even more tiny number would care about a applying the 2nd law to the absurd of Evolution, and nobody wants to start a wave against the establishment. I am surprised to know that somebody still does. There are should be 1 or 2 crazy ones.

Also – it is some stretch, but - T-cs in its foundation is not exactly a science – it is more like practicing medicine. You either heal or you kill, it either works or it does not. On the first place T-cs is engineering, - no ideas, no guesses, no logical conclusions, no connecting dots – the product of your mind has to work – it either works or does not.
People who understand T-cs, work with it and use it on the level of instincts of their experience. They say: When you read T-cs the first time – you think, you don’t understand it; when you read it the second time you think you understand it; when you read it the third time you don’t understand it again, but you don’t care anymore. You just apply it to a problem and solve the problem.
You better write to your talking origins and advise them to find a way not to embarrass you.

 

[justone]

What can we really be 100% sure of? You tell me.

Things have to work. A PhD has an idea, another PhD likes it, the third PhD applies logic (math) to it and they call it a theory. It does not make you warm or cold. Then an engineer learns a theory and builds a machine. The machine has to work. It either works or does not. If it works it is 100% sure. This is the only goal – to build a machine, computer, software, house, and spaceship.

PhDs make a theory about human body. The theory does not make you hot or warm.
A doctor comes and builds a medicine. The medicine either warms you up or makes you dead cold.

Evolution or better to say biogenesis has a chance to be proven. Let’s say you would be walking on the Mars and run into a paddle and see some red clay sliding into it and little insects with one eye –( does everyone have two eyes on the earth? Why two, but not one or three or four?) - forming in the soup and jumping out. So you see it with your own eyes and record on camera how it is done.
Creationism by definition has no chance to be proven. The moment of the demonstration would be the last day – judgement day – when we sease to exist as who we are or as scientists we are.
If we construct a life in a lab experiment – we would turn into intelligent designers with responsibility to continue the new form of life and its evolution or to kill it. Our curiosity will not let us kill it – so we would prove intelligent designer theory.
I can be 100% sure in one of the outcomes. (Actually it is 2 – but I’ve made it short).

already said I was not a scientist or have a great deal of knowledge scientifically. I am 50 years old and the last physics, science class I took was in 1978 when I graduated from college

If you have a very little knowledge but can apply it to a new problem and solve the problem it does not make you less of a scientist than somebody who remembers tons of information but cannot use it to resovle a new problem.
You do mistakes from the knowledge point of view and I would doubt some of your methods of applying your knowledge, but it is not important - there just a few things I'd like to realate my opinion to:

I am afraid you contradict to facts and to yourself. - evolution is not a blind faith. Evolution has a lot of reasoning. Your faith is not blind, you are reasoning for it. We all go through the process of comprehending life through ourselves approximately in the same way as tecoyach described. We all receive data and analyze it and make conclusions. The only difference is that some. like you and I believe that data cannot be all filled by science; at least because science does not know all life 100% and we cannot know science 100%. There always is Unknown and Unexplainable to science and to us. Some of us recognize it, some of us don’t. The main point where Satan makes non-believers is their belief that we gain knowledge and Unknown and Unexplainable becomes smaller and smaller and science will explain everything one day. The next step in such logic should be us turning into intelligent designers, gods with perfect knowledge and possession of the Universe…
Well, you see I am reasoning too…
Anyway the question what if there is no God is quite human and unavoidable, it is coming imminently and differently for the most people in the process described by tecoyach as learning and growing, and doubting everything, and suggesting the most dispeakable things as a possibilty to explore - at leasts in our minds, there is no limits for doubts.
May be you should stop using science to prove God or disprove evolution. Science is not interested in God – that would be too much for science. Science is interested in facts and using the facts as a tool for everlasting exploration of the world around us and transforming it for us without any limits. At this moment I tend to agree with you that Evolution is more like philosophy, which has been holding development of the real biological science. It did put Mendel’s works – real biology – on a shelf for almost 50 years. We would be at least 50 years ahead if it was not for Evolution. There is no use of Evolution in our life so far except for the most people trying to use it as a prove that there is no God. On opposite side there is no possibility of proving God by science as I pointed above. Such a prove – without appearance of God Himself for all scientists- does not change anything in what science does – may be it would just sease its existance.. We have to anwer all our questions in science by ourselves.. If you find Noah Ark intact with a sign Noah and God, Inc., that would not be a proof of God from the point of view of science, yet. You have to believe that will you see God on the judgment day and everyone will be given according to his/her faith.

I cannot deny you still can have fan in a meaningless debate, but I am afraid you are taking it too close... take it easy.. God bless.

 

[Thinker]

Things have to work. A PhD has an idea, another PhD likes it, the third PhD applies logic (math) to it and they call it a theory....; (on and on and on ...)

Anyone care to translate?

 

[tecoyah]

The voice from above:


The voice from below :
Nothing, but slogans. Shut up.

If by chance, you might have wondered why I tend not to reply to your questions justone......your answer to that question at least should be clear in the above statement.

 

[justone]

Anyone care to translate?

I guess it was too simple. If you cannot grasp any meaning just skip it - I do not claim to be prefect in each and evry sentence expressing myself, as well I do not claim any kind of superior knowledge.
Rereading my own posts sometimes I find loose ends and awkward expressions. The reader I guess should see even more awkwardness - at least I myself have some idea what I was trying to say... :smile: sometimes:smile: .

The translation I can offer is (skipping the rest) : Let us say there is a theory. It does not make too much of difference to you whether it is right or wrong until it finds a practical application. Only repeated practical application can confirm (or correct) the theory and make it proven.

And an additional comment: until a theory is not applied to practice the only interest in it you can have is to try to break it. Though I still may have problems with the theories which applied practically the first time may but human life (lives) in danger. I would think that would come to finding volunteers willing to take risk – but this is a separate subject

 

[justone]

[

If by chance, you might have wondered why I tend not to reply to your questions justone......your answer to that question at least should be clear in the above statement.

No. I have never wondered. You do OK. I generally know when you cannot say anything in reply. In the most cases I also would have difficulties to find an answer if I were in your shoes.

You have your style and I pretty much have learned to live with it.
One of the tactics is to find an awkward phrase or a mistake and dismiss all other statements by pointing to the mistake in one sentence.
Another one is not to reply when your own problems are pointed out.
Another one is to produce a comment from the above. (Which deserves the same kind of a comment from the below)

It does not bother me, thank you for the concern, I have my own problems...not too much different in weight than yours.

 

[justone]

And an additional comment: until a theory is not applied to practice the only interest in it you can have is to try to break it. Though I still may have problems with the theories which are applied practically the first time and may put human life (lives) in danger. I would think that would come to finding volunteers willing to take risk

I can only applaud to heroism of tecoyah willing to take such risk to check out the theory stating that when his head will be cut by a metro train his life will stop as the only possible result of the action of the wheel crushing his neck and separating his head from his body.
But I must say the theory is very solid, promising and entertaining.

 

[tecoyah]

I can only applaud to heroism of tecoyah willing to take such risk to check out the theory stating that when his head will be cut by a metro train his life will stop as the only possible result of the action of the wheel crushing his neck and separating his head from his body.
But I must say the theory is very solid, promising and entertaining.

I honestly have no Idea what you just tried to say.

 

[doughgirl]

“I cannot deny you still can have fan in a meaningless debate, but I am afraid you are taking it too close... take it easy.. God bless.”

Too close? Too close to what I might ask? To close to the TRUTH? :rofl

Well although many theories about how the world came into existence are indeed undergoing scientific investigation…they are still just theories and have never been proven. And I doubt that they ever will.

“The translation I can offer is (skipping the rest) : Let us say there is a theory. It does not make too much of difference to you whether it is right or wrong until it finds a practical application. Only repeated practical application can confirm (or correct) the theory and make it proven.”

Boy is that a complexed task since it would be almost impossible to repeat it and observe it, as it was never observed.......and quite frankly the reason its still called a theory is because it hasn't stood up under scrutiny.


Is it really logical and reasonable? In my opinion no. Does it fit the facts? Who knows what the facts are in this complexed investigation.
Scientists change daily what they think are facts and the experts dissagree.

I will say this... that if Creationism was ever proven to be correct, the effects would be mind-boggling. Pretty much all of science and philosophy...logic as we have known would have to be either tossed out or changed. Wishful thinking on my part.

But that will never happen either... until God does come in the physical. Until then it is a game of "faith" and opposing "worldviews" IMO of course.

I choose to believe in creationism, that makes sense to me. It doesnt seem logical to me that jsut by chance the universe popped into existense, by chance the earth was just perfect for life to exist, by chance life as we know it developed into perfect creatures.....birds, fish, then by chance human beings came along....all by chance....nope dont by it. I dont believe it was just all about chemicals. I have witnessed a few explosions in my lifetime and things were destroyed they didnt assemble themsleves into perfectness.

As silly as it sounds I cant believe this beautiful world and everythign in it came about just by chance. I dont believe science is the source of truth while as I said earlier religion is merely subjective opinions.. something just to be tolerated for those weak enough to need that kind of comfort.

There is no conceivable way that the big bang and evolution can be tested. Evolution is still a theory not a scientific fact. Philosophy. And the big Bang well its just that........a big bang.
I don't for one minute buy that nature created the world out of nothing.

As I said........that takes faith in itself to believe.

Good discussion.....thanks

 

[justone]

Well although many theories about how the world came into existence are indeed undergoing scientific investigation…they are still just theories and have never been proven. And I doubt that they ever will.

I do not look at them as at theories. I see them as unavoidable assumptions made to facilitate work of science. Somewhat like in T-cs the known Universe is considered as a closed system, - in order to avoid counting unknown and unobservable in equations. In similar way we have to put God out of science in order to avoid putting the existence of Unknown in our equations, - would you agree that if we let God in our experiments we would have to abandon the attempts to recreate life in the lab, - thus putting unnecessary limits on science against the will of God. We cannot conduct experiments with God, He would not let us. We must keep Him out.

But that will never happen either... until God does come in the physical.

This is what I am saying. Creationism cannot be proved by science.

I choose to believe in creationism, that makes sense to me. It doesnt seem logical to me that jsut by chance the universe popped into existense, by chance the earth was just perfect for life to exist, by chance life as we know it developed into perfect creatures.....birds, fish, then by chance human beings came along....all by chance....nope dont by it. I dont believe it was just all about chemicals. I have witnessed a few explosions in my lifetime and things were destroyed they didnt assemble themsleves into perfectness.

I literally believe in the Bible, and I don’t take chances in science. I believe in God creating and using what we know as laws of nature. God does not play dices – said Einstein, and he was whipped for these words by everyone who misunderstood him. I also think God is too great to be unreasonably random with us, otherwise there would be no need for Him to give us the order of the Bible. I also think that if sometimes in order to facilitate our understanding we have to use theory of probability, it does not mean God has to do the same; and it does not mean we are on the wrong way of discovery of a more simple explanation of a phenomena. You are using chance in a common meaning – like a Darwinist – and it is more like an emotion, than a working definition.

There is no conceivable way that evolution can be tested.

Again you are putting limits on science. It is like saying there is no way to travel in time or compress time ---- on the stage of our knowledge when we have a very subtle clue about time. And also it is not necessary to test – it is enough to observe – see the evolution with your own eyes. Make a record of each moment on a DVD – does not matter how many generations it can take. The only reason why I am coming to denial of Evolution is the reasoning submitted to me. Provided reasoning is improved the response may be changing. But so far I have not seen a reasonable construction.

There is no conceivable way that big bang can be tested.

Why? Read the Bible – Genesis. Read it like you read it the first time and don’t know what is going to happen on the next page.

 

[Kandahar]

I choose to believe in creationism, that makes sense to me. It doesnt seem logical to me that jsut by chance the universe popped into existense, by chance the earth was just perfect for life to exist,

Why not? You wouldn't be here to make that observation if they weren't conducive to life, so this point doesn't carry much weight.

by chance life as we know it developed into perfect creatures.....birds, fish, then by chance human beings came along....all by chance....nope dont by it.

Birds, fish, and human beings are hardly perfect creatures. Evolution is a very slow process and they are all genetically obsolete.

I dont believe it was just all about chemicals. I have witnessed a few explosions in my lifetime and things were destroyed they didnt assemble themsleves into perfectness.

Explosions don't have evolutionary mechanisms at work.

There is no conceivable way that the big bang and evolution can be tested.

That's not true at all. Evolution can and has been tested. The Big Bang can't actually be "tested" in the sense of recreating it in the laboratory (yet), but there are other ways of testing the evidence that overwhelmingly point to the conclusion that there was indeed a Big Bang.

Evolution is still a theory not a scientific fact.

So is gravity. So is relativity. There's no such thing as a "scientific fact" unless you're referring to mathematics. When people refer to "scientific facts" they're usually referring to theories.

Philosophy. And the big Bang well its just that........a big bang.
I don't for one minute buy that nature created the world out of nothing.

...yet you're willing to accept the idea that God created the world out of nothing.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Give it up Kandahar, she cant get her head around the 6 letter word that is theory. She still thinks that evolution and natural selection are about chance, when in fact they are the opposite.

"Life results from the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators"