WidowMakers wrote:I am not saying creation is proved by science, I am saying creation does not contradict science. Regardless of the time that the universe has been around, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of gravity, the laws of magnetism, biology, fossils, geology, physics, etc, they do not prove creation wrong. Creation can exist within the realm of science. By saying it is not supported by anything is not correct. You may not agree that it is true but it does not contradict any of the above issues.
I want to bump this thread, but at least do it productively. This just caught my eye. Basic physics proves creation wrong. One of those laws that creationists love quoting: energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Creationism, by definition of course, implies that a creator created our energy. Not possible according to physics. I'm only being slightly facetious.
Moving on, it's still clear to me that you do not grasp the full concept of science. Sure, creationism might be able to exist within the bounds of science (except for what was mentioned above), but so can fairies. And none of us believe in fairies, right?
The goal of science is not to prove anything. It is to disprove alternatives. And we have disproven creation with physics. Yes? Noone has successfully disproven evolution.
I have not forgotten the thread.
Actually the laws of thermodynamics say that matter and energy cannot come into being by themselves. Creation is a supernatural process. Those laws do not apply to supernatural processes since supernatural things cannot be tested or studied with natural laws.
So since these laws are natural laws and evolution is a naturalistic theory (natural made itself), these laws apply and the big bag is in violation of them. I.E. If there is a creator and he made the universe, matter and energy, he was outside this universe, matter and energy, so the laws that govern this universe, matter and energy do not apply to the creator.
WM
P.S. Neoteny. I should have your response to your post today. I have had a TON of other stuff to do lately.
Actually, it states that energy in a closed system remains constant. It doesn't matter if god exists outside of the universe. If he is creating energy in it, then the law is broken. The big bang theory doesn't postulate the creation of any energy. It asserts that the energy was already there. I suppose that one could assume that the universe isn't a closed system, that there is some connection between god's universe and ours (whatever the hell his universe is), but that is projecting a whole lot of conjecture into the situation. That is something that should not be done. Additionally, a link between our universe and another is something that should be testable, especially if there is energy exchange. There is postulation about black holes and quantum physics leading to other universes, but until there is more decisive evidence, those postulates should be taken with as much critical thought as one of a god. Looking at the evidence presented to us, we cannot postulate the existence of god, even if one could reside in the gaps of our knowledge.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
...a little side note off topic here but did anyone else see how worried some members were of the church when they released the golden compass movie? quotation: "a parent could take their kid to the movie with little harm. But they might go too far and buy their kids the book set for christmas and expose them to the horrors of atheism."
sounds they the church is worried the kids might start thinking for themselves
Bavarian Raven wrote:...a little side note off topic here but did anyone else see how worried some members were of the church when they released the golden compass movie? quotation: "a parent could take their kid to the movie with little harm. But they might go too far and buy their kids the book set for christmas and expose them to the horrors of atheism."
sounds they the church is worried the kids might start thinking for themselves
And we wouldn't want THAT! Next thing you know, they will want to be FREE!
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
Bavarian Raven wrote:...a little side note off topic here but did anyone else see how worried some members were of the church when they released the golden compass movie? quotation: "a parent could take their kid to the movie with little harm. But they might go too far and buy their kids the book set for christmas and expose them to the horrors of atheism."
sounds they the church is worried the kids might start thinking for themselves
And we wouldn't want THAT! Next thing you know, they will want to be FREE!
And keep their hard-earned money for themselves and their children! That's just a slippery slope to greed, murder, and bestiality!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Bavarian Raven wrote:...a little side note off topic here but did anyone else see how worried some members were of the church when they released the golden compass movie? quotation: "a parent could take their kid to the movie with little harm. But they might go too far and buy their kids the book set for christmas and expose them to the horrors of atheism."
sounds they the church is worried the kids might start thinking for themselves
And we wouldn't want THAT! Next thing you know, they will want to be FREE!
And keep their hard-earned money for themselves and their children! That's just a slippery slope to greed, murder, and bestiality!
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
Bavarian Raven wrote:...a little side note off topic here but did anyone else see how worried some members were of the church when they released the golden compass movie? quotation: "a parent could take their kid to the movie with little harm. But they might go too far and buy their kids the book set for christmas and expose them to the horrors of atheism."
sounds they the church is worried the kids might start thinking for themselves
And we wouldn't want THAT! Next thing you know, they will want to be FREE!
And keep their hard-earned money for themselves and their children! That's just a slippery slope to greed, murder, and bestiality!
The "horrors" of atheism, eh? Better make sure they don't find out about the horrors of being gay or working on the Sabbath.
Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
Misquote? Here's a direct quote: "the horrors of atheism". I find it pretty horrible that an intolerant sludge such as that guy exist in the modern world, but I don't start talking about "the horrors of theism". I can laugh at him if I want.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
you suck.
Ah yes, heavycola, arguing with reasoned consideration, eloquently expressing a logical conclusion from well founded premises, as ever.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
Misquote? Here's a direct quote: "the horrors of atheism". I find it pretty horrible that an intolerant sludge such as that guy exist in the modern world, but I don't start talking about "the horrors of theism". I can laugh at him if I want.
Did he say the horrible atheists? No. He condemned a principle, this does not make him intolerant of people.
Now, please, explain, from the misplaced quote of one pastor, how do you validly conclude that the Church preaches against freedom, and that people should keep their hard earned money but that the Church is stopping them
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
you suck.
Ah yes, heavycola, arguing with reasoned consideration, eloquently expressing a logical conclusion from well founded premises, as ever.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
Misquote? Here's a direct quote: "the horrors of atheism". I find it pretty horrible that an intolerant sludge such as that guy exist in the modern world, but I don't start talking about "the horrors of theism". I can laugh at him if I want.
Did he say the horrible atheists? No. He condemned a principle, this does not make him intolerant of people.
Now, please, explain, from the misplaced quote of one pastor, how do you validly conclude that the Church preaches against freedom, and that people should keep their hard earned money but that the Church is stopping them
When did I say "the Church". That preacher preaches against freedom of choice (not exposing children to various "horrible" ideas). Everything after that was a joke.
Note the s.
i was just saying that SOME people have these views that their way is right and is the only way...and with views like that we might as well be living in the dark ages
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
you suck.
Ah yes, heavycola, arguing with reasoned consideration, eloquently expressing a logical conclusion from well founded premises, as ever.
Yes, much better arguing from the premise that there is a god and that christianity has it right.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
you suck.
Ah yes, heavycola, arguing with reasoned consideration, eloquently expressing a logical conclusion from well founded premises, as ever.
Yes, much better arguing from the premise that there is a god and that christianity has it right.
No, that is the conclusion we make based on the premises. An attempt Ontological proof for God is a far better exercise of one's intellect than the rather puerile "you suck"
Sometimes, Nappy, genius lies in simplicity, in being able to express a complex idea in a few simple words that sum up the situation and hints at the reasons as well as at the conclusions that follow, but leave them mostly open for the readers to discover on their own. I think heavycola manged this with his two word long post.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Sometimes, Nappy, genius lies in simplicity, in being able to express a complex idea in a few simple words that sum up the situation and hints at the reasons as well as at the conclusions that follow, but leave them mostly open for the readers to discover on their own. I think heavycola manged this with his two word long post.
You suck hardly succeeds in implying anything but a hugely ironic lack of tolerance and intelligence from Heavycola. His stupidity and inability to compute basic arguments without his brain cell overheating is made transparant by this comment. So I suppose, in many ways, it does express the complexity of his mental incapacity.
Last edited by Napoleon Ier on Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MeDeFe wrote:Sometimes, Nappy, genius lies in simplicity, in being able to express a complex idea in a few simple words that sum up the situation and hints at the reasons as well as at the conclusions that follow, but leave them mostly open for the readers to discover on their own. I think heavycola manged this with his two word long post.
You suck hardly succeeds in implying anything but a hugely ironic lack of tolerance and intelligence from Heavycola. I wonder about what he could have been like had he not lacked oxygen at birth.
I think he was saying "you suck" in the sense that you suck for ruining our long, hearty, chuckle.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Brilliant. I mean really lads, give yourselves a pat on the back. You basically quote some random vicar out of context, and from that start discoursing on how "the" Church preaches against Freedom (I don't think I want to bother pointing out the sheer stupidity of this), then post some rubbish about working on the sabbath, and about hard earned money (??). You people need to grow up to be honest.
you suck.
Ah yes, heavycola, arguing with reasoned consideration, eloquently expressing a logical conclusion from well founded premises, as ever.
Yes, much better arguing from the premise that there is a god and that christianity has it right.
No, that is the conclusion we make based on the premises. An attempt Ontological proof for God is a far better exercise of one's intellect than the rather puerile "you suck"
Ontological arguments proving God are silly.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
MeDeFe wrote:Sometimes, Nappy, genius lies in simplicity, in being able to express a complex idea in a few simple words that sum up the situation and hints at the reasons as well as at the conclusions that follow, but leave them mostly open for the readers to discover on their own. I think heavycola manged this with his two word long post.
You suck hardly succeeds in implying anything but a hugely ironic lack of tolerance and intelligence from Heavycola. I wonder about what he could have been like had he not lacked oxygen at birth.
I think he was saying "you suck" in the sense that you suck for ruining our long, hearty, chuckle.
But it's pretty funny to do these things, a little like holding a knife and watching someone repeatedly run into it without you doing anything, of course minus the gore and death, but it's at least as humiliating for them, they just never notice it, and therein lies the humour.
MeDeFe wrote:Sometimes, Nappy, genius lies in simplicity, in being able to express a complex idea in a few simple words that sum up the situation and hints at the reasons as well as at the conclusions that follow, but leave them mostly open for the readers to discover on their own. I think heavycola manged this with his two word long post.
You suck hardly succeeds in implying anything but a hugely ironic lack of tolerance and intelligence from Heavycola. I wonder about what he could have been like had he not lacked oxygen at birth.
I think he was saying "you suck" in the sense that you suck for ruining our long, hearty, chuckle.
No kidding. I wasn't even making any fun of the guy directly. I was making fun of cliched religious arguments.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
