Design on a Dime

Why do you say that?

For example, your refutation of "evolutionism": But of course you will not find the claim that "0 + 0 = everything" in any biology textbook, or any chemistry textbook, or any physics textbook. If you think that the claim of your opponents is that "0 + 0 = everything" then you have never bothered to find out what we claim.In the same post, you go on about how: Now, perhaps you don't know what you're talking about; or perhaps you can imagine the humor in locking me and Glenn Morton and Richard Dawkins and Howard Van Till and Kenneth Miller in the same room until we could all agree on a philosophy.Sheesh.Either you know that you're talking rubbish, and are a liar; or you have no idea what evolutionists are arguing for.I wish I could believe the second hypothesis: but I am afraid that you may be Lying For Jesus. Well stop it. Perhaps evolution has its weak points --- I am ready to listen --- so attack them, rather than attacking an imaginary theory of evolution which you made up in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is not a good idea to attach motives! You are accusing someone else of making up what others thoughts are and at the same time suggesting that the poster is lying.I suggest you simply point out his error.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.Edited by AdminNosy, : endless erros.

Possibly. See below. Well, it's an either/or thing, isn't it? Either randman knows what the theory of evolution is, and is lying about it, or he never knew and never bothered to find out, which vitiates his claim that he "started out as an evolutionist", and, indeed, his attempts to discuss evolution on these forums.I said so, didn't I? I don't claim to read his mind, but it must be one or the other, mustn't it?I do not say that he's lying, but I do say that he is either lying or he is ignorant of the subject under discussion. As I have said, I hope the latter case is the truth; partly for his own sake, and partly because if he is wrong I can put him right, but if he is a willful liar there is nothing that can be done.In either case, he was never, ever, an "evolutionist", if he believed that "evolution" is the gibberish that he has posted. If someone claimed that he "used to be a YEC Christian", and you asked him what he believed when he was a YEC Christian, and he replied "I used to burn children to honor Moloch", then you'd have to think that either he was lying or he'd been so damned lazy as to not find out what fundie Christians actually believe. Or, let's not be narrow-minded, it could be both. Done. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Of course not! Because that kind of brutal honesty would open the flood gates of reason. Whether you like the implication or not, that is the very real deduction you are left with, good sir, in a world view solely in tune with strict naturalism.Its really very simple. Extrapolating backwards from all matter and energy, reducing life's components back of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, the sum total will eventually reach zero. What happened before the singularity is not something science is qualified to answer. If you live in a glass house, you probably shouldn't cast stones.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

I don't believe one can actually be construed as an adherent to a theory one doesn't understand. You evidently accepted evolution when you didn't understand it, and then you rejected it while still not understanding it. This would be like saying, "Often times a woman with child is pregnant." Science is always tentative. What varies is the amount of supporting evidence for theory, not the tentative nature of science itself.--Percy

Reasserting your original point more forcefully instead of supporting it with evidence and argument makes one wonder if perhaps inability to bolster one's claim isn't a better explanation than brutal honesty. I hope you're not really tracing life on earth back to the singularity at the beginning of the universe. Extrapolating cosmological evidence of the expanding universe back in time does indicate that the entire observable universe once existed in a tiny region of space, but this inference isn't even remotely related to the origin of life on earth.I think Dr. Adequate is reintroducing these points from another thread, and so it is probably all off topic. If you believe that Big Bang theory boils down to "0 + 0 = everything" then we can discuss that in another thread. And if you believe "0 + 0 = everything" describes abiogenesis then that, too, should be discussed in another thread. This thread seems to be about how creationists believe creation really happened.--Percy

A lot of people think they own the title rights to the theory, and someone seeking debunk creationism or ID will just throw out the assertion you've made.

quote:

---

Its just that often times that science is tentative.

---

Aren't you just being redundant then?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

What kind of evidence is necessary for the self-evident? Put your thinking cap on for a moment. Nothing doesn't ordinarily create something. Causation is required, seeing that it is an unassailable fact. Nothing doesn't even possess the potential to create, let alone actually create. No, I'm saying that this is supposed to be the event that gave life a chance in the first place. Surely you won't disagree with that. I see the argument as the logical deduction of the stated premise. But if you truly feel that it cannot be reasonably tied in to this thread, then I will refrain from continuing in this vein. You should probably also respond to Dr. Adequate about the very same thing, seeing that arguments don't take place in vacuums.It takes two to tango, sir Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add small detail

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

"Self-evident" is the refuge of he who has no evidence. "Unassailable facts" are seldom unassailable and seldom facts.Evolutionist voices around the world are rising in a chorus of, "Thanks for getting off our side."

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Philosophize with me, sister. Come let us reason together.Can something come from absolute nothingness? Are you going to dismiss this one? Or are you just going to foist a one poetic prose after another, as if I am supposed to derive much meaning from it?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

There are (at least) two possibilities:

1. "Something" has always been, whether that something is a "creator/designer" or something else.
   ​
2. "Something" came from nothing, whether that something is a "creator/designer" or something else.

Yes. I really don't care if you derive any meaning from it. You're just the instrument.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't see option 2 as a viable solution. I don't see how any intelligent person could. If you didn't intend for me to derive meaning from it, you wouldn't have said it.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

It is not "honest" to say that "0 + 0 = everything". It would be more, kind of, a stupid lie. This is why absolutely no science is based on such a claim. No --- if we extrapolate the universe backwards we reach a singularity, which is not nothing but everything. But clearly I do know what evolutionists are arguing for, y'know, what with being one.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

... whereas evolutionists think it's the one in the textbooks.You can't debunk evolution, cosmology, or whatever it is you're cross about right now by making up some daft nonsense in your head, debunking that, and then calling it "evolutionism", any more than I'm allowed to debunk creationism based on the assertion that it's the belief in fiat creation by a dog. 'Cos that would be what we call a "lie".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.