Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

God can also not be tested.

BagoXC25 wrote:God can also not be tested.

I am testing him right now. Either answer the question, admit you are wrong and brainwashed, or shut up.

I don't think you quite understand. God is incapable of being tested. That scenario wouldn't work in God's universe because he cannot (and will not) be tested. Read the temptation of jesus on matthew 4:1 - 4:11.

BagoXC25 wrote:I don't think you quite understand. God is incapable of being tested. That scenario wouldn't work in God's universe because he cannot (and will not) be tested. Read the temptation of jesus on matthew 4:1 - 4:11.

How can you cite the Bible? It is not a credible source by any means. The temptation of Jesus is just a story that never happened Bago, get over it.

Explain to me, in your own words, how he is incapable of being tested, because if he exists, he can be tested.

evolution.
not going to read all 42 pages of this crap.

Adonai wrote:

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.

I seriously doubt that Gange was unaware that stars are constantly forming. When was it discovered that new stars are constantly forming? I am sure well before Gange made this book. Gange's point was that stars are destroying themselves at a much faster rate than nebula clouds can form into new stars.

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.

He did not literally mean destroyed, he meant they lost their "star status" and are either turned white dwarfs or nuetron stars. Gange spends the first half of his book describing how it is scientific fact that matter is eternal, why would he then contradict himself by saying that the death of a star results in the destruction of matter? You are taking him to literally, but it is Gange's fault for being too general.

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.

Read the red line man, it speaks the truth. Besides, the big bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space. Space cannot infinitely get smaller, for infinity as a natural occurence is an impossibility in itself. At some point, space and the matter it is composed of is as small as it gets. Beyond that, it does not exist. Infinity is a construct--that is, something derived by man to explain things man can't explain otherwise because in reality they don't exist apart from man's so-called understanding. As you guys have pointed out, God was used as a construct in early times.



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?

Infinity and eternity, which is the analogous time-element to infinity, is a mathematical impossibility as a natural occurence. And seeing as the first Law of Thermodynamics states that nothing can come from nothing through a natural occurence. We can conclude that matter does not appear out of thin air by natural occurence. The Law of Conservation of matter shows that matter cannot be destroyed. So in the end, matter cannot come from nothing, matter is eternal, but yet the concept of eternity and infinity is a mathematical impossibility as a natural occurence and is not supported by anything in the known world. Therefore, matter had to have a beginning, and henceforth, seeing that god is not a natural occurence and the only one above the First Law of ThermoDynamics, only god could have brung about this beginning.

Now a question might be raised, if God is a construct, yet you believe god is a possibility, why cannot infinity be a possibility since it is also a construct?
My answer, Infinity is a mathematical impossibility as a natural occurence. Yet God is not a natural occurence, God is above mathematical probabilities. The only way infinity and eternity could be possible is through god, but seeing as you guys do not believe in god, that can be ruled out.
You might also ask, if infinity is impossible, how can you believe in the big bang? The big bang originated in a singularity (according to its theory), so you are contradicting yourself!

Not so. While I believe in the big bang, I also believe that god created the big bang. And therefore, god could have created a temporary singularity to serve its purpose.

Also, I would like to point out some things in our argument that are unknown or a theory:

Unknown: What causes these “gravitational centers” to form in Nebulas and create stars.

Unknown: What happens to a star after the Red-Giant Phase.

XxcrosscountrygirlxX wrote:evolution.
not going to read all 42 pages of this crap.

Adonai wrote:

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.

Being able to do anything does not include the ability to not be able to do something, the loophole isnt in god, but your abstruse logic.

May As Well Run wrote: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.

IF any of my points have been shot down, please point them out to me! Use copy and paste and say "here you never answered this point I made".

Cause Ive gone back through the pages of this debate, and I have answered every single question. I have answered the majority of those questions with the same unerring reply BECAUSE that reply has not been disproved with a legitimate science or logic.

Theories that have not been proven do not count as legitimate science or logic.

Now go, you blind fool, find me one example where my point has been "shot down"

Pinthin wrote:

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

is it not possible to be brainwashed into believing the truth?

If you believe in God that's perfectly fine, but don't pretend that you can prove his existence. It just can't be done. That's part of why it's called "faith".

Trackaholic wrote:

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.

ok, back, and WRONG. C-14 dating is as you said yourself, not used on rocks. However, if you go back a few pages, did I not give a very legit example of alternative radiometric dating methods (the ones you claim go beyond 50,000 years) are also unreliable? Did I not provide you with an example of radiometric dating on volcanic rocks using potassium argon? Did this example not show that these tests were performed on 50 year old volcanic rocks, and the tests ALWAYS showed ages between ( i cannot recall the exact numbers) 2 million and 0.21 million years old? when in fact the rocks were, again, only 50? Did I also not provide a fulllist of references for that example to prove that it was authentic (unlike your lucy skeleton).

Infinity is not a mathematical impossiblity. It is an accepted term uised time and again in math. You being a sophomore and not a very smart one at that, i would doubt that you have ever needed to know that.

Infinity can exist in nature, as is the accepted scientific postulate of time and space. time and space have and always will be eternal according to einstein, but i suppose gange is smarter than him?

Unfortunately your logic fails to add up because God is and always has been used to explain what humans cannot explain with science. But alas, science has explained what god was once needed for.

The only thing that you have accomplished is making yourself sound like an idiot by disregarding accepted science and staking your own claims and those of creationists. Creationists are not well liked in the scientific community and are heckled because of their stupidity. They have no basis to say that there is a god and only work to disprove the legitimate tests and research that have been done by real scientists.

You disregard radiometric dating, evolution, an old earth, limits, infinity including others. Those are all used as the very core of science, geology and astronomy. How can you come and say that all of these extremely smart men are wrong? You quote one scientist, Gange, who is not even accepted by the scientific community and seen as an utter outcast and a laughing-stock. There is a reason they do not teach creationism in schools!

"Theories that have not been proven do not count as legitimate science or logic"

God is a theory, there is no logic that points to him existing or any proof, you must acknowledge that. If you can find me any proof that he exists, please tell me.

funrunner wrote:If you believe in God that's perfectly fine, but don't pretend that you can prove his existence. It just can't be done. That's part of why it's called "faith".

thats what you get for only jumping in onto this debat occasionally, apperently you missed the part ( I belive I said this more than three times, you can ask sourworms, he knows I did) where I said "Go d cannot be proven, but he cannot be disproven?"

My paragraph on infinity is not literal proof or evidence, but it favors logic, which is what you athiests so dearly love.

SourWorms wrote:Infinity is not a mathematical impossiblity. It is an accepted term uised time and again in math. You being a sophomore and not a very smart one at that, i would doubt that you have ever needed to know that.

Infinity can exist in nature, as is the accepted scientific postulate of time and space. time and space have and always will be eternal according to einstein, but i suppose gange is smarter than him?

Unfortunately your logic fails to add up because God is and always has been used to explain what humans cannot explain with science. But alas, science has explained what god was once needed for.

The only thing that you have accomplished is making yourself sound like an idiot by disregarding accepted science and staking your own claims and those of creationists. Creationists are not well liked in the scientific community and are heckled because of their stupidity. They have no basis to say that there is a god and only work to disprove the legitimate tests and research that have been done by real scientists.

You disregard radiometric dating, evolution, an old earth, limits, infinity including others. Those are all used as the very core of science, geology and astronomy. How can you come and say that all of these extremely smart men are wrong? You quote one scientist, Gange, who is not even accepted by the scientific community and seen as an utter outcast and a laughing-stock. There is a reason they do not teach creationism in schools!

"Theories that have not been proven do not count as legitimate science or logic"

God is a theory, there is no logic that points to him existing or any proof, you must acknowledge that. If you can find me any proof that he exists, please tell me.

Seeing as he didn't even come up with a lot of ideas, maybe he is. But you probably knew that.

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Infinity is not a mathematical impossiblity. It is an accepted term uised time and again in math. You being a sophomore and not a very smart one at that, i would doubt that you have ever needed to know that.

Infinity can exist in nature, as is the accepted scientific postulate of time and space. time and space have and always will be eternal according to einstein, but i suppose gange is smarter than him?

Unfortunately your logic fails to add up because God is and always has been used to explain what humans cannot explain with science. But alas, science has explained what god was once needed for.

The only thing that you have accomplished is making yourself sound like an idiot by disregarding accepted science and staking your own claims and those of creationists. Creationists are not well liked in the scientific community and are heckled because of their stupidity. They have no basis to say that there is a god and only work to disprove the legitimate tests and research that have been done by real scientists.

You disregard radiometric dating, evolution, an old earth, limits, infinity including others. Those are all used as the very core of science, geology and astronomy. How can you come and say that all of these extremely smart men are wrong? You quote one scientist, Gange, who is not even accepted by the scientific community and seen as an utter outcast and a laughing-stock. There is a reason they do not teach creationism in schools!

"Theories that have not been proven do not count as legitimate science or logic"

God is a theory, there is no logic that points to him existing or any proof, you must acknowledge that. If you can find me any proof that he exists, please tell me.

Seeing as he didn't even come up with a lot of ideas, maybe he is. But you probably knew that.

He didn't come up with many ideas? Special Relativity ring a bell?

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Infinity is not a mathematical impossiblity. It is an accepted term uised time and again in math. You being a sophomore and not a very smart one at that, i would doubt that you have ever needed to know that.

Infinity can exist in nature, as is the accepted scientific postulate of time and space. time and space have and always will be eternal according to einstein, but i suppose gange is smarter than him?

Unfortunately your logic fails to add up because God is and always has been used to explain what humans cannot explain with science. But alas, science has explained what god was once needed for.

The only thing that you have accomplished is making yourself sound like an idiot by disregarding accepted science and staking your own claims and those of creationists. Creationists are not well liked in the scientific community and are heckled because of their stupidity. They have no basis to say that there is a god and only work to disprove the legitimate tests and research that have been done by real scientists.

You disregard radiometric dating, evolution, an old earth, limits, infinity including others. Those are all used as the very core of science, geology and astronomy. How can you come and say that all of these extremely smart men are wrong? You quote one scientist, Gange, who is not even accepted by the scientific community and seen as an utter outcast and a laughing-stock. There is a reason they do not teach creationism in schools!

"Theories that have not been proven do not count as legitimate science or logic"

God is a theory, there is no logic that points to him existing or any proof, you must acknowledge that. If you can find me any proof that he exists, please tell me.

Seeing as he didn't even come up with a lot of ideas, maybe he is. But you probably knew that.

He didn't come up with many ideas? Special Relativity ring a bell?

I didn't say many ideas, I'm stating that he stole some.

He stole special relativity?

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

tracko read this and disprove it

SourWorms wrote:He stole special relativity?

I don't remember what it was.

exactly, because it didn't happen

SourWorms wrote:http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

tracko read this and disprove it

I didn't read it, but I did look at the list of refutes to common objections, and it was impressive. However, I didn't like how they said you can't believe Genesis just because Greek stories were myths.

SourWorms wrote:exactly, because it didn't happen

I learned it in 7th grade lol.

[quote="SourWorms"]Infinity is not a mathematical impossiblity. It is an accepted term uised time and again in math. You being a sophomore and not a very smart one at that, i would doubt that you have ever needed to know that.

Numbers go on into infinity, but numbers do not exist, sour worms. so therefore numbers do not prove the existance of infinity.

Infinity can exist in nature, as is the accepted scientific postulate of time and space. time and space have and always will be eternal according to einstein, but i suppose gange is smarter than him?

Einstien is on my side buddy when it comes to infinity, he despised the notion of singularity's(AKA, infinity), he also did not agree with the big bang theory. (unlike me) I am surprised you did not know that.

Unfortunately your logic fails to add up because God is and always has been used to explain what humans cannot explain with science. But alas, science has explained what god was once needed for.

That is quite possibly the biggest load of rubbish you have said so far. My "logic equation" that leads to "god" cannot have "god" subtracted from the equation because you believe god is a figment of imagination! Thats circular reasoning! Your saying an equation that (for lack of a better word) "proves" god exists cannot have god in the equation because he does not exist? I am sorry, but you cannot remove god from my logic equation simply because you deny his existance by attributing it to the mere fantasies of primitive minds.

The only thing that you have accomplished is making yourself sound like an idiot by disregarding accepted science and staking your own claims and those of creationists. Creationists are not well liked in the scientific community and are heckled because of their stupidity. They have no basis to say that there is a god and only work to disprove the legitimate tests and research that have been done by real scientists.

They are not heckled because of their stupidity, they are heckled because they believe in God (save for the ones that literally are stupid). And believing in god is only seen as stupidity by those who deny him. Also, what accepted science have I disregarded? If you bring up Radiometric dating again, I will scream. And you know very well why, I have supplied you with hundreds of reasons (all of them legit) why radiometric dating is faulty. Alos, evolution is not an accepted science, it is a theory.


You disregard radiometric dating, evolution, an old earth, limits, infinity including others. Those are all used as the very core of science, geology and astronomy. How can you come and say that all of these extremely smart men are wrong? You quote one scientist, Gange, who is not even accepted by the scientific community and seen as an utter outcast and a laughing-stock. There is a reason they do not teach creationism in schools!

And the cycle comes full circle again. I CAN SAY THEY ARE WRONG, because this is america, this is a democracy, and this is freedom of thought and speech. Gange is not seen as an outcast because of his science, but because of his belief! Anyone who enters the field of scientific study with the belief in god will be laughed at, simply because they believe in god! Not because the sceince they propose is actually wrong or faulty!
(end rant)
Anyway, I beliove I disregarded all those points with more than enough evidence to support my position. I do not FLAT OUT DENY these scientific processes or theories to be reliable or true, I MAKE AN ARGUMENT BY PROVIDING REAL EVIDENCE, REAL SCIENCE, AND REAL FACTS. The majority of which you have ignored. Who gives half a shit if these things are used as the core of science? The premise that the earth was flat used to be the core of science! Majority is not always right! Especially when that majority fails to put out any substantial evidence to support their claims and/or uses faulty tests as the premise of their beliefs! YES, I AM TALKING ABOUT LUCY, THE FUCKING CHIMPANZEE.


"Theories that have not been proven do not count as legitimate science or logic"

God is a theory, there is no logic that points to him existing or any proof, you must acknowledge that. If you can find me any proof that he exists, please tell me.[/quote]

How many times have I said "God cannot be proven, but he cannot be disproven" I believe I have said this one hundred million times.

sourworms I will read your paper, meanwhile WHEN are you going to respond to my whole post on that faulty volcanic rock testing! you have yet to even mention it!