Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

thelagwagon wrote:Sourworms, if you don't want to read through his argument, don't respond to it. It's not going to do any good, you aren't going to convince anyone.

It took centuries for christians to be convinced that the earth rotates around the sun, and it will take the same amount of time for them to grasp the age of the universe, origin of species ect. You can't force them to change quickly, faith is too powerful for that. Just be satisfied knowing you 'got it' before they did.

1) You cannot lump christians all into one group of beliefs, some believed the sun rotated around the earth, some didnt. Your view of christians is based on 80% stereotypes.
2)I believe the earth rotates around the sun laggy, trust me I do. But yet at the same time I must ask you this> Is there any real proof it does? I would appreciate a source instead of just stating "yes there is proof"

Adonai wrote:

Adonai wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Adonai wrote:How is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?

The Universe did not always exist.

Because the "smoke" from the "Big Bang" is still drifting throughout the universe. And this smoke shows that there was a beginning.

This "smoke" is in the form of microwave radiation, and scientists have measured its lingering presence from a Big Bang, it seems the universe mysteriously exploded into existence. This smoke is known as the background radiation of the universe, and it was measured in 1965 by two scientists who, ten years later, received the Nobel Prize for their work. Thus, the older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.
The measured values of the radiation also agree with the predictions of certain theoretical models. These models can be thought of as mathematical pictures that describe how the world unfolded after it came into being. For example, the universe is 25 percent helium –4, the exact number predicted by the Big Bang Theory. The mathematical models can be cross-checked because they also make precise predictions about the behavior of atomic particles. Measurements from the field of science called particle physics have confirmed many of these predictions. For example, experiments have been designed in particle physics that measure the neutron-decay half life; and astrophysical models of the universe have used this number to predict abundances of helium –3, deuterium, and lithium –7. The measured numbers are found to agree with the predicted values.
Today, virtually every scientist working in the fields of cosmology or particle physics is convinced that the world had a beginning.

Correct: the Big Bang did occur. Incorrect: The Universe did not always exist.

The universe has expanded and imploded on itself repeatedly for eternity. Each cycle begins with the Big Bang, as you have so intelligently pointed out, until ultimately the metric expansion of space reverses and the universe violently contracts, restarting the process.

So my question remains unanswered.

My question remains unanswered.

Oh! my bad, I apologize adonia, I totally forgot that you did reply to that 1 point (even though it was only one point out of like 10 that i made) nevertheless beggars cannot be choosers and I thank you for actually responding with a legitimate argument and I will do the same for you if you give me a moment.

Trackaholic wrote:

thelagwagon wrote:Sourworms, if you don't want to read through his argument, don't respond to it. It's not going to do any good, you aren't going to convince anyone.

It took centuries for christians to be convinced that the earth rotates around the sun, and it will take the same amount of time for them to grasp the age of the universe, origin of species ect. You can't force them to change quickly, faith is too powerful for that. Just be satisfied knowing you 'got it' before they did.

1) You cannot lump christians all into one group of beliefs, some believed the sun rotated around the earth, some didnt. Your view of christians is based on 80% stereotypes.
2)I believe the earth rotates around the sun laggy, trust me I do. But yet at the same time I must ask you this> Is there any real proof it does? I would appreciate a source instead of just stating "yes there is proof"

Do you really feel it is necessary for Lag to cite sources proving the earth rotates around the sun? I know you can't really be that dense.

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Ok so what I get out of your points Tracko is this: You are right and 99% of the scientific community is completely wrong about evolution and the universe being older than 50,000 years.

Hyperbole, exageration, and baseless claims. Are you part of the universal statistics commitee? Where are you getting these numbers? How do you know its 99% and not 40? 80, 20, 0r 0.01?

1) You don't have factual statistics.
2) There is as much real proof of evolution as there is of god.
3) Radiometric dating is only good (for the rare times it actually works) for 50,000 years, assuming the earth is even that old, you know that, you keep ignoring it.
4) I have supplied you with numerous links proving radiometric dating to be wrong. You either ignored them or refused to listen to them on the ridiculous premise of "Bias". Bias is a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. These links provided you with real science, and facts. Not bias. not lies.

I also provided you with numerous facts that exposed the flaws of and faults of radiometric dating. Your only rebuttal thus far has been to ignore them.
I also provided you with a full, detailed report on a case of radiometric dating that showed 50 year old rocks to be as old as 2.1 million years old. A test that was repeated numerous times and KEPT yielding the same false results.
you ignored this as well.


I have been objective to you and told you that there is indeed a possibility my god does not exist, and also that I may believe in the wrong god. I also told you that even though this was so, I still believe he exists because there is no proof he does not.

Congratulations for belonging to the 1% of people who think evolution and radiometric datings are complete crocks.

Congratulations on a brilliant display of your capacity to come up with false statistics. Congratulations again on ignoring all the legitimate arguments I posted to support my position.

Edit: And you did not answer my question. What gives you the authority to say the foundation of astronomy and geology is wrong. Tell me why I have trilobite fossils that are millions of years old? Or is everything that they teach in school and universities around the world wrong and you are just right? For some reason, I seem to believe the scientific community.

Trilobite fossils are not millions of years old. What gives me the right? Science, science gives me the right. Science and afacts that you continue to ignore.

How the hell do you get through science class? That can't be your strong subject

Your right, I never knew in order to pass science I had to know how to lie through my teeth, produce faulty test results, fake chimpanzee skeletons and disregard facts for baseless theories. As well as ignore all legitimate arguments that contradict my pre-suppositions.

WRONG. C-14 dating is only useful up to 50,000 years ago. Past that, other isotopes are used and are reliable within a few million years. But for some reason you seem to still ignore that. You seem to ignore all accepted science as complete crocks only presented to disprove god.

I am so sorry adonia, but I must leave to go work with my dad on a job. HOWEVER, I will not leave you sitting idly around waiting for a reply. I do have a reply to your argument, howevere I do not have time to sort through my reference to give you a summarized answer.

you will find my position on your argument in its entirety in Gange's book, here is the link:

http://www.ccel.us/gange.ch2.html

sorry for the inconveniance, I will be back later.

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Ok so what I get out of your points Tracko is this: You are right and 99% of the scientific community is completely wrong about evolution and the universe being older than 50,000 years.

Hyperbole, exageration, and baseless claims. Are you part of the universal statistics commitee? Where are you getting these numbers? How do you know its 99% and not 40? 80, 20, 0r 0.01?

1) You don't have factual statistics.
2) There is as much real proof of evolution as there is of god.
3) Radiometric dating is only good (for the rare times it actually works) for 50,000 years, assuming the earth is even that old, you know that, you keep ignoring it.
4) I have supplied you with numerous links proving radiometric dating to be wrong. You either ignored them or refused to listen to them on the ridiculous premise of "Bias". Bias is a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. These links provided you with real science, and facts. Not bias. not lies.

I also provided you with numerous facts that exposed the flaws of and faults of radiometric dating. Your only rebuttal thus far has been to ignore them.
I also provided you with a full, detailed report on a case of radiometric dating that showed 50 year old rocks to be as old as 2.1 million years old. A test that was repeated numerous times and KEPT yielding the same false results.
you ignored this as well.


I have been objective to you and told you that there is indeed a possibility my god does not exist, and also that I may believe in the wrong god. I also told you that even though this was so, I still believe he exists because there is no proof he does not.

Congratulations for belonging to the 1% of people who think evolution and radiometric datings are complete crocks.

Congratulations on a brilliant display of your capacity to come up with false statistics. Congratulations again on ignoring all the legitimate arguments I posted to support my position.

Edit: And you did not answer my question. What gives you the authority to say the foundation of astronomy and geology is wrong. Tell me why I have trilobite fossils that are millions of years old? Or is everything that they teach in school and universities around the world wrong and you are just right? For some reason, I seem to believe the scientific community.

Trilobite fossils are not millions of years old. What gives me the right? Science, science gives me the right. Science and afacts that you continue to ignore.

How the hell do you get through science class? That can't be your strong subject

Your right, I never knew in order to pass science I had to know how to lie through my teeth, produce faulty test results, fake chimpanzee skeletons and disregard facts for baseless theories. As well as ignore all legitimate arguments that contradict my pre-suppositions.

WRONG. C-14 dating is only useful up to 50,000 years ago. Past that, other isotopes are used and are reliable within a few million years. But for some reason you seem to still ignore that. You seem to ignore all accepted science as complete crocks only presented to disprove god.

you too sourworms, when I return. thanks for replying.

I'm not going to get into any debating here, I wasted a few hours of my life typing out paragraphs a few pages back. I realized it was a huge waste of time, so I don't really want to start again. I was just trying to show worms that it's a waste of time arguing.

thelagwagon wrote:Sourworms, if you don't want to read through his argument, don't respond to it. It's not going to do any good, you aren't going to convince anyone.

It took centuries for christians to be convinced that the earth rotates around the sun, and it will take the same amount of time for them to grasp the age of the universe, origin of species ect. You can't force them to change quickly, faith is too powerful for that. Just be satisfied knowing you 'got it' before they did.

Unfortunately you are right, as much as I hate to say it. At least some of us are able to grasp and embrace scientific research.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm proof the earth rotates around the sun

Adonai wrote:

Adonai wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Adonai wrote:How is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?

The Universe did not always exist.

Because the "smoke" from the "Big Bang" is still drifting throughout the universe. And this smoke shows that there was a beginning.

This "smoke" is in the form of microwave radiation, and scientists have measured its lingering presence from a Big Bang, it seems the universe mysteriously exploded into existence. This smoke is known as the background radiation of the universe, and it was measured in 1965 by two scientists who, ten years later, received the Nobel Prize for their work. Thus, the older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.
The measured values of the radiation also agree with the predictions of certain theoretical models. These models can be thought of as mathematical pictures that describe how the world unfolded after it came into being. For example, the universe is 25 percent helium –4, the exact number predicted by the Big Bang Theory. The mathematical models can be cross-checked because they also make precise predictions about the behavior of atomic particles. Measurements from the field of science called particle physics have confirmed many of these predictions. For example, experiments have been designed in particle physics that measure the neutron-decay half life; and astrophysical models of the universe have used this number to predict abundances of helium –3, deuterium, and lithium –7. The measured numbers are found to agree with the predicted values.
Today, virtually every scientist working in the fields of cosmology or particle physics is convinced that the world had a beginning.

Correct: the Big Bang did occur. Incorrect: The Universe did not always exist.

The universe has expanded and imploded on itself repeatedly for eternity. Each cycle begins with the Big Bang, as you have so intelligently pointed out, until ultimately the metric expansion of space reverses and the universe violently contracts, restarting the process.

So my question remains unanswered.

My question remains unanswered.

Similar to the way you can't fathom God, we can't fathom a universe always existing.

Trackaholic get off your high horse. You recycle points just as much if not more than most people in this thread have. You're faith is in a false god that is proven false by almost every area of science. From phychology to biology, physics to chemistry, you're point are so easily dismissed. You believe your false god always was and is above the laws of thermodynamics. I bring up the point that there very well may be a occurence that created the universe outside the laws of thermodynamics and that science will probably explain is down the road. You have no rebuttle to this except the same points that are shot down by the same counter-points.

I'm sure the Pink Unicorn (bless Her holy hooves) will forgive you. 

I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

SourWorms wrote:I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

Who said it was with the snap of a finger?

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

And I would agree with you pinthin, but what does that prove? "Oh, you only believe christianity because your parents raised you that way" Maybe so in some cases, although I know alot of christians with athiest parents.
But does this mean their religon is false? I will say again Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
Just because a muslim was raised a muslim, does not believe his faith is false,
Just because an athiest was raised an athiest, does not mean there belief is false,
just because a christian was raised a christian does not mean there faith is false.

So what point are you trying to prove pinthin?

your brainwashed

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

Who said it was with the snap of a finger?

Why did god need to do anything more if he is all powerful

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

Who said it was with the snap of a finger?

Why did god need to do anything more if he is all powerful

If he is all-powerful you should not have any reason to doubt what he can do.

Trackaholic wrote:I am so sorry adonia, but I must leave to go work with my dad on a job. HOWEVER, I will not leave you sitting idly around waiting for a reply. I do have a reply to your argument, howevere I do not have time to sort through my reference to give you a summarized answer.

you will find my position on your argument in its entirety in Gange's book, here is the link:

http://www.ccel.us/gange.ch2.html

sorry for the inconveniance, I will be back later.

Gange's theory has several gaping black holes:

The problem with this idea, however, is that as the universe expands, we
are seeing the stars destroying themselves and creating energy in the process. If the universe has been expanding forever, these stars would have had "forever" to destroy themselves. If this were true, then no stars would exist today. Since the stars do exist, it means that the present expansion of the universe has not been going on forever.

This train of thought ignores the fact that new stars are constantly forming and the fact that images we view in space are actually millions of years old because of the time it takes the light to travel. So, many, and likely most, of the stars we see in the sky today had actually ceased to exist millions of years ago.

The only conceivable way for stars to destroy themselves "forever," and yet still be here today, is for there to be an unlimited amount of matter in the universe to destroy

This train of thought ignores the Law of Conservation of Matter. Matter is not destroyed when stars explode, only recycled.

But if the universe gets bigger with each new bounce then it must have been smaller on the preceding bounce. In other words, during each preceding explosion, the universe is smaller. Thus as we go back in time, with each earlier bounce the universe must have been smaller and smaller. As we look back into the past, we find a series of explosions that progressively shrink, the further back we go.
Scientists have shown that this progression back into time converges to a beginning, so that the cosmic Yo-Yo cannot have continued forever. Moreover, scientists have mathematically studied these explosions and concluded that they converge down into a first explosion — they funnell in toward a beginning.

Even if it is true that the intensity of the Big Bang increases with each new explosion, which I am not sure of, an eternally cycling universe is still highly possible. This train of thought assumes that each preceding Big Bang can not become infinitely smaller, which it can. You might think of it as a limit; the universe approaches a beginning, but never actually reaches one.


And yet, all of the above information sort of poked at, but never fully addressed, my essential question: how is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?

Why would you think tracko would understand the mathematical concept of limits? I am sure he attributes it to some satanist ideal and is therefore a crock.

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

Who said it was with the snap of a finger?

Why did god need to do anything more if he is all powerful

If he is all-powerful you should not have any reason to doubt what he can do.

If god is all-powerful, then can he make a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift?

SourWorms wrote:I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

I believe that there is some type of spiritual diety, just not God.

SourWorms wrote:Why would you think tracko would understand the mathematical concept of limits? I am sure he attributes it to some satanist ideal and is therefore a crock.

I always knew the devil was behind math!!

ahaha!!

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:I, at least, can certainly fathom god and understand why people believe in some sort of deity. Unlike many of you, I rely on logic, and logic tells us that a man in flowing white robes did not create the universe with the snap of a finger

Who said it was with the snap of a finger?

Why did god need to do anything more if he is all powerful

If he is all-powerful you should not have any reason to doubt what he can do.

If god is all-powerful, then can he make a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift?

If God is all-powerful, then can he end the universe in an instant? or even cease to exist himself?

Why would either of those questions be relevant to this debate?

I question your assertion that God is all-powerful, which is indeed relevant to the creationist theory of the universe.

If you have an answer give it, but if you simply wish to avoid the issue, say nothing.

Adonai wrote:I question your assertion that God is all-powerful, which is indeed relevant to the creationist theory of the universe.

If you have an answer give it, but if you simply wish to avoid the issue, say nothing.

I'm not going to avoid it. If God is all-powerful, he can make a rock heavier than anything, but then could also lift this rock. I don't know the answer to the second question.

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:I question your assertion that God is all-powerful, which is indeed relevant to the creationist theory of the universe.

If you have an answer give it, but if you simply wish to avoid the issue, say nothing.

I'm not going to avoid it. If God is all-powerful, he can make a rock heavier than anything, but then could also lift this rock. I don't know the answer to the second question.

That doesn't make sense. If God can lift the rock, then he is incapable of making a rock he can't lift. Therefore, we have reached an infinite loophole. God cannot be all-powerful.