[_ Old Earth _] matter and energy(and other fallacies of atheism)

[Featherbop]

Now, would everyone like to get back on topic? Or are you people going to dodge it forever?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes that being offended by evolution is like being offended by gravity)

Right, people didn't get some weird, preconcieved notion that gravity contradicts their relgions.

Barbarian observes:
Well, not microgravity, which we observe on Earth. But macrogravity, which we seen in star formations is highly offensive to many, on exclusively religious grounds.

Lots of it isn't even proven true, or is any more than guesswork.

Barbarian observes:
Nothing in science is ever "proven". However, we do have abundant evidence for common descent.

Most of it, i see no way it contradicts creation or the Bible.

Barbarian observes:
This is true. It contradicts creationism, not creation. But then, Genesis contradicts creationism as well.

Common descent. Depends on what you mean. If you mean that humans and the chimpys are related, then I do not believe that.

It is a fact. The same methods that show relationships among humans are those used to show relationships between humans and chimps. We know they work.

Isn't the only requirment for being a creationist is believing that God created the universe?

That is not the way the word is normally used. That would mean most evolutionists are creationists.

and barbarian, how do you distinguish between what you should take literally what the Bibles says, and what not to?

You have to depend on the text. If a literal reading requires that you ignore much evidence, or if it requires logical contradictions, then you know it's figurative.

 

[Vic C.]

Barbarian observes that being offended by evolution is like being offended by gravity

OUCH! That #!#$^% apple hurt!

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Scientists have theories and models but we don't know yet. Cosmology is still asking itself the question "How did the universe come about?" We've been able to answer a great deal of that. The Big Bang theory creates a model for the universe that fits extremely well with what we know about the universe, but we still lack a few fundamental tidbits of knowledge. We are however, sure that we are on the right track because our current model has been only slightly modified by the WMAP findings of the state of the early universe.
So the answer is no one knows everything about it yet, but from what we've seen of the puzzle so far, we can say it with 99.9999999% certainty that the Big Bang happened.

You could have just quoted yourself syntax. hahahaha.

___

If God used the big bang to create the universe, and maybe He did, I certainly don't know, but I'm fine with that. I think that in years and ages of knowledge to come, ideas will be taken back, new ideas of the universes start will come. Thats also a lot of certainty about something. but noone can really know. evidence for one thing may in fact be evidence for something else. I understand that coming up with theorys and models for the universes beginning doesn't require acknowldgiong God. I think its ludacris to believe that the universe came to "happen" for no reason, randomly, without any significance, then living things evolve from oceans and turn into intelligent people. thats why, if I ever made a theory or idea about the universe's beginning, I would acknowledge god for doing it.

I did quote myself, I just removed the quote tags. Bow before my BBCode FU!

The problem with believing in god on the basis of "there has to be a reason, it can't be random, we have to be significant" et cetera et cetera, is that it is an appeal to ignorance. It is saying "I don't know, so that means god did it."
This is a logical fallacy on your part.
Just because we don't understand all of physics, doesn't mean that god fills in the gaps. A scientist cannot do this. They can admit what they don't know, and do as a matter of professionalism and they can give possible explanations from the evidence.
There are a LOT of theories concerning the formation of the universe. The big bang fills in more gaps than any other theory and thus it is considered the best theory we have.

 

[Featherbop]

Scientists have theories and models but we don't know yet. Cosmology is still asking itself the question "How did the universe come about?" We've been able to answer a great deal of that. The Big Bang theory creates a model for the universe that fits extremely well with what we know about the universe, but we still lack a few fundamental tidbits of knowledge. We are however, sure that we are on the right track because our current model has been only slightly modified by the WMAP findings of the state of the early universe.
So the answer is no one knows everything about it yet, but from what we've seen of the puzzle so far, we can say it with 99.9999999% certainty that the Big Bang happened.

You could have just quoted yourself syntax. hahahaha.

___

If God used the big bang to create the universe, and maybe He did, I certainly don't know, but I'm fine with that. I think that in years and ages of knowledge to come, ideas will be taken back, new ideas of the universes start will come. Thats also a lot of certainty about something. but noone can really know. evidence for one thing may in fact be evidence for something else. I understand that coming up with theorys and models for the universes beginning doesn't require acknowldgiong God. I think its ludacris to believe that the universe came to "happen" for no reason, randomly, without any significance, then living things evolve from oceans and turn into intelligent people. thats why, if I ever made a theory or idea about the universe's beginning, I would acknowledge god for doing it.

I did quote myself, I just removed the quote tags. Bow before my BBCode FU!

The problem with believing in god on the basis of "there has to be a reason, it can't be random, we have to be significant" et cetera et cetera, is that it is an appeal to ignorance. It is saying "I don't know, so that means god did it."
This is a logical fallacy on your part.
Just because we don't understand all of physics, doesn't mean that god fills in the gaps. A scientist cannot do this. They can admit what they don't know, and do as a matter of professionalism and they can give possible explanations from the evidence.
There are a LOT of theories concerning the formation of the universe. The big bang fills in more gaps than any other theory and thus it is considered the best theory we have.

Believing in God is in no way illogical. Get over it. You say everything you don't like or disagree with is illogical. You remind me of a person that whines everytime they lose at a game or something. :

you may have the best theory of a bunch of them, but the best can still be bad, which it is.

Athesim is a fallacy. I have shown you how in one way, and I can show you more. I've been waiting for you to answer my first charges which you still haven't. I'm still waiting for you to answer the first stuff. Its been five pages, and my first fallacy of atheism hasn't been answered yet.

just......answer.......the........fallacy...........*ugh*..........*cough*........ :scrambleup:

 

[Featherbop]

Barbarian observes that being offended by evolution is like being offended by gravity)

Right, people didn't get some weird, preconcieved notion that gravity contradicts their relgions.

Barbarian observes:
Well, not microgravity, which we observe on Earth. But macrogravity, which we seen in star formations is highly offensive to many, on exclusively religious grounds.

[quote:08062]Lots of it isn't even proven true, or is any more than guesswork.

Barbarian observes:
Nothing in science is ever "proven". However, we do have abundant evidence for common descent.

Most of it, i see no way it contradicts creation or the Bible.

Barbarian observes:
This is true. It contradicts creationism, not creation. But then, Genesis contradicts creationism as well.

Common descent. Depends on what you mean. If you mean that humans and the chimpys are related, then I do not believe that.

It is a fact. The same methods that show relationships among humans are those used to show relationships between humans and chimps. We know they work.

Isn't the only requirment for being a creationist is believing that God created the universe?

That is not the way the word is normally used. That would mean most evolutionists are creationists.

and barbarian, how do you distinguish between what you should take literally what the Bibles says, and what not to?

You have to depend on the text. If a literal reading requires that you ignore much evidence, or if it requires logical contradictions, then you know it's figurative.[/quote:08062]

Well, you just said a bunch of stuff over again.

Humans are not related to the chimpys at all. Show me a human evolve from a "cousin" then. Explain the vast differeances between humans and apes. Tell me why the evidence is enough to assume humans and chimps are related. explain why the evideance has no way of being circumstancial. Give me a Biblical reference of this "truth".

If it was a fact, as you said, then it must have been observed,a human evovling from a so-called "cousin" of humans,? If not, it cannot be considered fact.

There isn't enough known evidence for me to believe that.

Its just assumptions(you know what they say about that), and guesswork.

Just show me the dang human evolving from the chimp.

 

[Featherbop]

Barbarian observes that being offended by evolution is like being offended by gravity

OUCH! That #!#$^% apple hurt!

I'm offended by gravity! It is a tool of the devil! It must be done away with!

*floats away*

 

[Vic C.]

I'm offended by gravity! It is a tool of the devil! It must be done away with!

*floats away*

:o

:

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Believing in God is in no way illogical. Get over it. You say everything you don't like or disagree with is illogical. You remind me of a person that whines everytime they lose at a game or something. :

That is not what I said, I said believing in god because of THAT ARGUMENT is illogical.
I have not yet begun to fight.

you may have the best theory of a bunch of them, but the best can still be bad, which it is.

And your support for calling the best fit to the current evidence wrong is?
Try to form a coherent argument.

Athesim is a fallacy. I have shown you how in one way, and I can show you more. I've been waiting for you to answer my first charges which you still haven't. I'm still waiting for you to answer the first stuff. Its been five pages, and my first fallacy of atheism hasn't been answered yet.

just......answer.......the........fallacy...........*ugh*..........*cough*........ :scrambleup:

What was this purported fallacy again?

 

[Featherbop]

The fallacy is that for atheism to be true, either matter had to be eternal, or matter has to be created by some process. Either one, without God.


One cannot be true because matter cannot be eternal. It had to come from somewhere. It had to be created by someone or something. unless it is believed that matter has the abilities of God to be eternal?

Two cannot be true, because nothing exists in the beginning, then a process(which couldn't exist yet) has to create the matter. If anything exists beforehand such as the process that creates the universe, it contradicts. Basically, it is saying that something has to pop out of thin air that doesn't exist.
This idea requires nothing at first, but then some process(which has to be created too) has to create the universe.

___

Number one is less riddeled with contradictions, but it too, is a fallacy. it requires that something is eternal. Athesits say God doesn't make sense, but then matter always existing somehow makes more sense than God always existing.

___

So, syntax, which pile of crap do you choose to believe?

 

[Barbarian]

Well, you just said a bunch of stuff over again.

So did you. Did you expect different answers from the last several times you brought it up?

Humans are not related to the chimpys at all.

Actually, we know that they are, for a number of reasons. First, we see that humans evolved from ancestors much more like chimps than we are today. The earliest members of our genus, Homo, where very much like us, except in the skull, where there were some significant differences. We can see that early members of our own species were intermediate in these characters.

And the ancestors of our genus were even more like other apes. But ehy still had rather human hands, feet, knees, and other parts. Some of them are intermediate between humans and other apes.

We can also see that we and chimps are essentially alike in anatomy. In a famous debate, Thomas Huxley got Richard Owen, a creationist and one of the best anatomists of the time, to admit that there was no structure in chimps that was no shared by humans also, and that there was no structure in humans not found in chimps.

It gets more detailed. Primates and Guinea pigs can't make their own vitamin C. The gene is damaged by a mutation. But in all primates, the gene is damaged in precisely the same way. To refute common descent, you'd have to show that they all had the same random mutation.

It gets more detailed. Humans have one less chromosome than chimps. But there is one human chromosome that is precisely like two chimp chromosomes joined together. We know this actually happens. It's called "fusion". There's even a zone at the place where they fused with the remains of telomeres, which are found normally only on the ends of chromosomes.

There's more. Do you need to see more?

Show me a human evolve from a "cousin" then.

Populations evolve. Inidividuals don't. Forget Pokemon.

Explain the vast differeances between humans and apes.

What "vast differences?"

Tell me why the evidence is enough to assume humans and chimps are related.

It's enough to conclude that humans and chimps have common ancestor because the evidence is overwhelming. See above.

explain why the evideance has no way of being circumstancial.

Show me another realistic way to explain the evidence above. "Godmustadunnit" is not an explanation.

Give me a Biblical reference of this "truth".

It's in the same verse where God tells us about superconductivity. Some things He expects us to work out for ourselves.

If it was a fact, as you said, then it must have been observed,a human evovling from a so-called "cousin" of humans,?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And yes, we can see in the fossil record, in genetics, and in molecular biology the evolution of humans from other primates.

If not, it cannot be considered fact.

Johnny Cochrane loves guys like you.

There isn't enough known evidence for me to believe that.

I suspect that if Jesus returned and told you about it, you'd wouldn't believe.

Its just assumptions(you know what they say about that), and guesswork.

Nope. Inferences based on evidence. That's how science works. And it works very, very well.

Just show me the dang human evolving from the chimp.

Sorry, no Pokemon. That's just a cartoon.

 

[Featherbop]

Show me ape popualations evolve into human populations or something then.

God could easily make a very similar creation to humans but it'd be completely not human. There are vast differences of apes and humans. If you can't see them, I'm done talking with you.

You can give me proof of other changes, labeled evolution, that can be observed happening, that are indisputable i.e. bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant, but when the "real evolution" comes into speculation, you give evidence and call it fact, even though it isn't shown to be fact. Or at least observable.

I ask you again, show me humans(populations, individuals, anything!) evolve from a supposed common ancestor, or cousins, or anything. Just show me.

If you don't have the proof, don't call it fact.

 

[Featherbop]

What do ya know. When I got the atheism fallacy topic back on track, syntax doesn't come back to answer it. HaHa, those atheists are quick to point out other peoples supposed errors, but if you show them the fallacys of their relgion, they skedaddle like crazy.

 

[Featherbop]

And Barbarian: please stop posting things off topic. This topic is about the fallacys of atheism, not evolution. If you want to post about evolution, please go to a topic about evolution and do it.

Thank You

 

[reznwerks]

show

I ask you again, show me humans(populations, individuals, anything!) evolve from a supposed common ancestor, or cousins, or anything. Just show me.

Show me a god . Just show me some evidence. Just show me something I can go to and show someone else that a god exists. Show me how something that has no proof created something out of nothing.Just show me , just show me.

If you don't have the proof, don't call it fact.

lol lol Do you take your own advise?
[/i]

 

[reznwerks]

faith

You can give me proof of other changes, labeled evolution, that can be observed happening, that are indisputable i.e. bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant, but when the "real evolution" comes into speculation, you give evidence and call it fact, even though it isn't shown to be fact. Or at least observable.

Oh ye of little faith! You just have to believe! lol


.

 

[Featherbop]

reznwerks, baaaad comparison. Evolution is a "science" and therefore is obligated to give a proof and observations of what it claims. Sciences are in the realm of the material, and physical, not non-matter, physical things.

Comparing physical to non-ophysical shows your ignorance again.

 

[Featherbop]

What about you reznwerks, care to explain the big fallacys of atheism?

Or do you wish to continue to flaunt your dead humor and ignorance?

 

[Wertbag]

Could you please restate the basic fallacies you want to discuss, its been 6 pages of wide ranging subjects so we really need to get back to the beginning as obviously no one had addressed the points you were making to your liking.

If its the original question of how was the universe created, matter from nothing or always existed, then I can see the first point. The basic rule that everyone is told is that matter can't be destroyed or created it only changes form, if thats true then how was it created?
To my mind that would point to it being eternal, but I'm not sure what contradiction you mean when discussing an eternal universe? Please clarify.

 

[Featherbop]

The universe by itself, being eternal, without God having made it eternal, is not logical.

Then how does an atheist explain it being eternal? Its not like God, who is supernatural, and is eternal. the atheist comparison of God to matter is not a good comparison, as far as the eternal aspects are concerned.

The matter could not have been always there. How did it get there? Why is it there? What caused it to exist?

The other option is that there used to be nothing, and then matter was created by some event or process. This is not possible either, because there would be nothing that could cause an event of the universe creation. Nothing would exist before hand. No processes, no big bangs, no matter, no energy, no nothing.

Both are absurd, IMO the latter being the most ludacris.