Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 8:23 AM
253 online now:
JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ProtoTypical, Son of Man, Tangle (7 members, 246 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,788 Year: 18,611/29,783 Month: 556/2,043 Week: 108/386 Day: 11/47 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 31 of 687 (520636)
08-22-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ICANT
08-22-2009 3:46 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
I can not prove the beautiful pink unicorn or the spaghetti monster does not exist.

But they did not have a man write down in a book some 3300 years ago that they created the heavens and the earth, nor that they imparted life into a form.

Sure you can. Just look here:FSM Gospel


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 3:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 8:13 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 687 (520643)
08-22-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
08-22-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
ICANT writes:

You produce the evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist and life began to exist. and you get all those stories you are alluding too as well.


So you actually consider the story of Gaia, the Christian God, and the archaeological record to be on the same level as evidence?

Well... there's your problem!

ICANT writes:

So take them all out at once.

If the evidence exists present it.


See, science does not have to "take them all out at once" because it simply does not include them as preconceived notions. Instead we simply present the evidence and *then* decide what a reasonable explanation is based on said evidence.

Currently, the evidence we have indicates that the Christian God's creation story, as well as Gaia's, are not accurate in explaining what actually occurred. Note that science is not intentionally "disproving" such stories, its findings simply do not match up with what those stories claim.

There are many things that we do not know about our reality, but if you claim to know something about it you have to back that claim up with evidence. It is not the responsibility of others to prove you wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 6:26 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 7:56 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 33 of 687 (520647)
08-22-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
08-22-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Well which part of "just is" do you have a problem with or not understand?

I don't have a problem with "just is".

But there is a scientific problem with "just is".

For the universe to to be "just is" as you put it.

It has to be infinite.

Is the universe infinite?

It's your problem not mine.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2009 5:51 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2009 12:13 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 34 of 687 (520649)
08-22-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Phage0070
08-22-2009 7:35 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
Hi Phage,

Phage0070 writes:

There are many things that we do not know about our reality, but if you claim to know something about it you have to back that claim up with evidence. It is not the responsibility of others to prove you wrong.

I gave my evidence with its source.

You state in this message.

quote:
Currently, the evidence we have indicates that the Christian God's creation story, as well as Gaia's, are not accurate in explaining what actually occurred.

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence how the universe began to exist? yes/no

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence how life on earth began to exist? yes/no

If you do present it.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Phage0070, posted 08-22-2009 7:35 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 8:08 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 08-22-2009 8:11 PM ICANT has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 35 of 687 (520651)
08-22-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
08-22-2009 7:56 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
I gave my evidence with its source.

A book that is thousands of years old does not constitute as evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 7:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 687 (520652)
08-22-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
08-22-2009 7:56 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
ICANT writes:

I gave my evidence with its source.


And you neglected to reply to my question about if "It was written a long time ago" is equivalent in your mind to "It is true." You appear to be favoring one story over all others, so why is that? Also, can you clarify why you consider the Bible to be similar evidence as the archaeological record?

ICANT writes:

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence how the universe began to exist? yes/no

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence how life on earth began to exist? yes/no


Yes, and Yes. Definitive observation of the event, forming a conclusive and complete understanding? No.

Scientists didn't come up with the big bang theory without observing background radiation and the expansion of the universe. Scientists didn't come up with their theories about the origin of life without studying the chemical makeup of life, and the fossil record. All of that is evidence (and there is much, much more) that leads scientists to their most popular theories about what happened. Is the understanding complete at this point? No, but it is enough to tell us how it didn't happen.

You have fixated on one very old story over other, similarly unevidenced and old stories and persist in evading the question why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 7:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:23 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 37 of 687 (520653)
08-22-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by hooah212002
08-22-2009 6:30 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
Hi hooah, as I have not welcomed you to EvC Welcome.

hooah212002 writes:

Sure you can. Just look here:FSM Gospel

I guess you are right and I can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Spaghetti Monster (or FSM) is the deity of the parody religion[1][2] the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism.[3] It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools.

Source

It seems the FSM was created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 so he only exists in Bobby's mind and those who have faith in him/her.

That turkey is done.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 6:30 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 8:27 PM ICANT has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 38 of 687 (520657)
08-22-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
08-22-2009 8:13 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
The church of the FSM and Pastafarianism was created by Bobby the Prophet. His Noodly Greatness IS and always has been.

Check out venganza.org and tell me the FSM does not exist. They have a section just for you.

It seems the FSM was created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 so he only exists in Bobby's mind and those who have faith in him/her.

By that token, your god only exists in the minds of christians. See, I can do the same thing.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 8:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:29 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 39 of 687 (520664)
08-22-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phage0070
08-22-2009 8:11 PM


Re: Old
Hi Phage,

Phage0070 writes:

"It was written a long time ago" is equivalent in your mind to "It is true."

I have sufficient evidence to convince me that it is true. But I will not waste my time here going over it again as I have in the past.

Phage0070 writes:

Also, can you clarify why you consider the Bible to be similar evidence as the archaeological record?

As you have pointed out the Bible is old and Archaeology is a study of old things.

Phage0070 writes:

Yes, and Yes. Definitive observation of the event, forming a conclusive and complete understanding? No.

Let me get this straight. You are changing my questions to read:

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence (enough to convince you) how the universe began to exist? yes/no

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence (enough to convince you) how life on earth began to exist? yes/no

Then answer yes to those two questions.

Then say no you do not have scientific evidence how the universe or life began to exist.

If that is not what you mean please make corrections as needed.

Phage0070 writes:

Scientists didn't come up with the big bang theory without observing background radiation and the expansion of the universe.

Lets see, the Lematre theory, was confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations in 1929. (The universe was expanding) The BBT got it's name on March 28, 1949 by Fred Hoyle on BBC radio. The MBR was not discovered until 1964. So your facts are a little out of kelter.

Now I have got lots of questions concerning the BBT that I have asked that nobody wants to talk about. Since I was kicked out of my own thread asking those questions I will not ask them here.

Phage0070 writes:

You have fixated on one very old story over other, similarly unevidenced and old stories and persist in evading the question why.

I agree I have fixated on one very old story. It is at least 13.7 billion years old, according to science.

It is called the beginning of the universe.

The Bible is the only book that addresses T=0.

Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

Straggler keeps telling me the universe "just is". That would mean the universe is infinite. Well that can't be as science says the universe has not always existed but had a beginning.

Science actually says as you go backward in time you reach a place the math will not work and tell you anything. Therefore there is 'no thing' there.

What is the scientific answer to how the universe began? "We don't know."

So let me ask you, what part of "We don't know", are you putting your faith in to come to your current conclusions?

Phage0070 writes:

Is the understanding complete at this point? No, but it is enough to tell us how it didn't happen.

You know enough to know how it didn't happen and all that can be said about how it did happen is "We don't know".

You may have faith enough to know how it didn't happen but you don't have one shread of evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 08-22-2009 8:11 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 9:27 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 1:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 48 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 5:13 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 40 of 687 (520665)
08-22-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:23 PM


Re: Old
but you don't have one shread of evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist.

Neither do you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:35 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 41 of 687 (520666)
08-22-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by hooah212002
08-22-2009 8:27 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
hooah212002 writes:

By that token, your god only exists in the minds of christians. See, I can do the same thing.

But the message you butted into I had said that, God had a man write down in a book the events concerning the beginning of the universe and life.

All that you are anyone has to do to prove it wrong is present the evidence of facts of how the universe and life came into existence.

Now if you got that evidence please present it.

I will not answer another post concerning your strawman. So rave on.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 8:27 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 42 of 687 (520667)
08-22-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by hooah212002
08-22-2009 9:27 PM


Re: Old
hooah212002 writes:

Neither do you.

The only evidence I have I presented.

But I have been told that science has proven that information false.

I am just asking for the evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 false.

That evidence would be the facts about how the universe began to exist.

You got any evidence to present?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 9:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by lyx2no, posted 08-22-2009 10:55 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 08-22-2009 11:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2692 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 43 of 687 (520668)
08-22-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:35 PM


Getting Old
But I have been told that science has proven that information false.

No you haven't. Tuffers said the creation story had been shown to be wrong. You interpreted this thusly: Only Gen 1:1 speaks of the creation; therefore, tuffers is saying that Gen 1:1 has been scientifically proven false. Tuffers needs to present evidence that Gen 1:1 In the beginning God creates the heaven and the earth.

Tuffers corrected you on this in the other tread where this all started. Huntard explained this to you. Modulous explained this to you.

Back to my first post in this thread: If your entire argument is that it hasn't been proven that a god of some sort did not create the Heavens and the Earth you,ll not find any sane challengers. That makes you a winner, Yeah!

No one has said that Gen 1:1 has been proven wrong. Gen 1:1 doesn't say enough that it can be proven wrong. It's the bits about God filling gazebos with baby back ribs and potato salad on the third day before setting up the picnic tables and shooing the pigeons on the fifth day that bring the story into question with science.

I am just asking for the evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 false.

There is none. That has been conceded. Has it really been so long since someone has agreed with you that you don't recognize it?

That evidence would be the facts about how the universe began to exist.

That would not disprove Gen 1:1. It is not possible to falsify Gen 1:1. That is one of the reasons it can't be considered a scientific statement.

You got any evidence to present?

No. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Not to your misinterpretation of the original statement.

However, as I said earlier; Gen 1:1 is the claim. The claim is the bit that evidence need be supplied for.

AbE: Hey Admin, Why did my second [midt=x] include the word "Message". It worked fine for the first one.

Edited by lyx2no, : ?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : For the second message link, the message number was 591534. This message does not yet exist - the link is bad. I'm guessing it should have been message number 519534. I will change it to that and find if such is correct - Yes, it is.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:35 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-23-2009 1:43 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 4:46 PM lyx2no has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 44 of 687 (520669)
08-22-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Old
The only evidence I have I presented.

As an active member of this forum, you should be well aware that the bible does not constitute as being evidence.

There are many findings/books/white papers stating the facts of Evolution, yet you do not accept those evidences. Why should we, then, accept the bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 687 (520672)
08-23-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:23 PM


Re: Old
ICANT writes:

As you have pointed out the Bible is old and Archaeology is a study of old things.


It is a quality they share, yes, but it isn't quite the entire picture. For instance: I just wrote today that I became the ruler of the world. Investigation of that writing isn't the same as the investigation of current events; the distinction should be clear.

ICANT writes:

Let me get this straight. You are changing my questions to read:

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence (enough to convince you) how the universe began to exist? yes/no

Are you claiming to have scientific evidence (enough to convince you) how life on earth began to exist? yes/no

Then answer yes to those two questions.

Then say no you do not have scientific evidence how the universe or life began to exist.

If that is not what you mean please make corrections as needed.


The correction is in that last part: I am saying "no, we do not have scientific "proof" how the universe or life began to exist." This is because what you are asking for is probably impossible, and not something that science can provide. Furthermore the entire question is irrelevant; just because we don't completely understand the process does not mean that your concept is correct. In fact, an incomplete understanding can indicate fairly well that you are wrong.

ICANT writes:

The MBR was not discovered until 1964. So your facts are a little out of kelter.


Irrelevant, in fact it supports the theory because observations matched the predictions of the theory. If the observations matched your theory better then it would be accepted over the current one... Oh wait, you don't *have* any observations that support your theory!

ICANT writes:

The Bible is the only book that addresses T=0.


Now you are just pulling things out of your rear. Not that it is unusual behavior mind you, but it bears pointing out.

ICANT writes:

Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".


The "Book of I Just Made This Up" says "In the beginning Dubble Bubble Gum created the heaven and the earth". Can you give any reason other than "The Bible is older" that my version isn't just as good? Heck, it is even better given that we can tell that Dubble Bubble actually exists.

ICANT writes:

Science actually says as you go backward in time you reach a place the math will not work and tell you anything. Therefore there is 'no thing' there.


No, this is wrong. Again you make the mistake of thinking that math makes things true, or that your understanding of something is integral to its existence. In essence this stems from the childlike concept that if you close your eyes the world ceases to exist. This seems to be a manner in which you consistently err.

Our math DESCRIBES reality, it does not make reality. Most of our formulas have a range of situations over which they provide accurate results, beyond which are required other methods. If you go back far enough our math that describes the current state of things starts giving silly answers, if it works at all. This does NOT mean that "there is 'no thing' there", it means that our descriptions need to be modified.

It would be wonderful if we could come up with Grand Unification Theory, a formula that works in all situations and provides accurate results in all... but we are not there.

ICANT writes:

What is the scientific answer to how the universe began? "We don't know."


No, that isn't the scientific answer. The answer is: "We have lots and lots of data, and many ideas. The currently accepted one is the Big Bang Theory, and research is ongoing to either support or replace it. Check back for more updates!"

Your answer is: "I have a book here that says vague stuff, and I make up details as I see fit. It must be true because the book is really old, and I am convinced!"

ICANT writes:

...but you don't have one shread of evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist.


Really, so you are claiming that all of the math that gets so close to your much-parroted "T=0" isn't based on any data at all? Is that what you are claiming?


mike the wiz writes:

Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.


ICANT writes:

If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 4:56 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
46NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018