Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
Continental drift over hundreds of millions of years.

So did we have one huge land mass for 4 billion years, and then during the last 200 million years or so, they just broke up?

Nuh uh. If this event occured a mere 6,000 years ago, then its path should be clearly imprinted on each cat genome, right?

What do you mean? I can't think of a single scientist that will dispute the fact that all cats share a common ancestor. Can you?

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Flipper
D. Time and energy was created in a non-supernatural event i.e. the collision of two P-branes in different dimensions, or a series of quantum events

And that is a "natural" occurrence?

Please explain your answer "D" is practical terms.

For instance....

If "time" were created how long did it take?

And where did this event take place if NOTHING existed yet?

What are these "different dimensions" you speak of?

And what type of "quantum events" lead up to this event?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
A better appoach would be to step back and see if there's enough evidence to suggest that there was a global flood with very few surivors BEFORE we go ahead and make up post hoc stories (e.g., super speciation rates, super tectonics, super mutation rates).

The whole world is covered in sediment containing billions of dead things. What more do you want?

Of course this isn't the creationist manifest, which is instead, declare the Bible as true a priori then seek out situations that confirm rather than potentially reject something that was written in the Bible.

How are evolutionists any different when it comes to the geologic column? We have our Bible -- you have yours.

This ain't science and is why they (even themselves) give it another name: creationism.

Evolution isn't science either, but at least creationists admit that their beliefs are religious in nature.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by novice
Well...

IF there are only three solutions to the origin of energy and matter

A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
(you do agree there is no 4th option right?)

Bob has made his case that WE KNOW through science that A and B must be incorrect therefore the only option left is C.

Bob has done no such thing. And you are twisting the third option. The third option is that some unknown force is responsible for the energy and patterns that have created our universe. The nature of that unknown force would be unknown, and so could not be claimed to be "supernatural". Whether or not you call it God is up to you.

 

[Stratnerd]

The whole world is covered in sediment containing billions of dead things. What more do you want?

No radiometric dates to be > 10,000 years
Worldwide sediments to be arranged: gravel, sand, silt, clay
No estimates of population coalescense to be > 10,000 years old
Grand Canyon and other regions of the world with > 100 m of sedimentary rock not to exist
Signs of humans in all strata including the lowest
Signs of modern forms (birds, mammals, herps, in all strata inclusing the lowest
Gradient of species based on votility with a single center
Islands not to have unique species and distant islands only with birds, bats, winged insects

How are evolutionists any different when it comes to the geologic column? We have our Bible -- you have yours.

how so? one goes evidence -> conclusion and the other goes Truth -> evidence. One can change based on new evidence, one can never change and is immune to any counterevidence.

Evolution isn't science either

it is the very epitome of scicence, wherein you have paradigms, theories, predictions, tests of predictions, hypothesis, reevaluation of old hypotheses (what happen to Lamark?), doubt & debate, it consumes new data like a beast and is constantly on the move.

 

[tenkeeper]

Pride and Vanity
Will keep many from stretching
These are attitudes
That will keep many from reaching
Their Spiritual goals.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by tenkeeper
Pride and Vanity
Will keep many from stretching
These are attitudes
That will keep many from reaching
Their Spiritual goals.

Thanks O enigmatic one. Are you making these up yourself?

If I can snatch the pebble from your hand, may I leave?

 

[sawrie]

...

 

[novice]

Originally posted by PureX
Bob has done no such thing. And you are twisting the third option. The third option is that some unknown force is responsible for the energy and patterns that have created our universe. The nature of that unknown force would be unknown, and so could not be claimed to be "supernatural". Whether or not you call it God is up to you.

Yes, but we must walk before we can run. First we must admit that option "C" (C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists) is the only viable option remaining.

If we can just get that far, THEN and only then can we talk about the nature of this supernatural force.

 

[Stratnerd]

> If I can snatch the pebble from your hand, may I leave?

LOL!!!!!!!

 

[novice]

Originally posted by LightSon
Thanks O enigmatic one. Are you making these up yourself?

If I can snatch the pebble from your hand, may I leave?

:chuckle:

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by PureX
Bob has done no such thing. And you are twisting the third option. The third option is that some unknown force is responsible for the energy and patterns that have created our universe. The nature of that unknown force would be unknown, and so could not be claimed to be "supernatural". Whether or not you call it God is up to you.

Can matter/energy be created from nothing? I don't think our science allows for that? That third option, whatever you want to call it(God, the quantum-dimensional-boogey-man, etc.) , must be able to bring matter/energy into existence, where nothing was there before. If you choose to call that act natural, okay, but it is still a phenomenon which is not described by our science. Wouldn't it just be easier to call it supernatural (outside or above) science? These semantic pitfalls are frustrating. Perhaps we can call it "superscience" (super meaning "above" or "beyond" the realm of).

 

[Stratnerd]

if we are going to the point of billions of years ago then the very nature of God has changed. even if we find evidence for supernatural creation at the moment of the Big Bang it isn't the God that most people -or religions, are familiar with.

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
if we are going to the point of billions of years ago then the very nature of God has changed. even if we find evidence for supernatural creation at the moment of the Big Bang it isn't the God that most people -or religions, are familiar with.

Gee thats a mighty big assertion!

And you have knowledge of this how? :think:

 

[Stratnerd]

Doesn't the universe being > 6000 years old change the nature of God since part of the nature is supposedly creating the Earth and universe just 6000 years ago. Did I miss something?

 

[Charismata]

Faith in the power of reason

Faith in the power of reason

The materialist argues for life to exist from pure chance.
(Chance of the gaps argument.)

The theist argues for life to exist from God creating.
(In this sort of debate it would be "the God of the gaps argument")

Onus probandi, which one is more probable?:think:

And so goes the cliche, "Figures lie and liars figure".

Suffice it to say it is much more probable an event for God to have created all things and surely a much simplier explanation. (Thanks Occam.)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - (Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.)

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Soulman
Pure,

You are arguing semantics -- the “meaning” of “absolute.” I am arguing that the chair I’m sitting on is “absolute” in the sense that it is knowable (at least in part) AS a chair. That is, I will not mistake my chair for a rutabaga. I am not arguing that my chair is the one “true” chair, or the “original” chair, or the one-and-only chair, but simply that the chair I’m sitting on is a REAL chair, and not some figment of my (our your) imagination. I may not know everything about this chair (or other chairs), but I know and understand THIS chair well enough to know that it IS a chair.

It's only a chair because you have decided that it is. Therefor, the fact that it is a chair is relative to your understanding of the definition of a chair, and also relative to your perception of the object you are calling a chair. Someone else may have another definition, and understanding of that same object, and so not define it as a chair. Thus, it is not absolutely a "chair".

You could claim that the object, whatever it's called, is at least absolutely there, but even that statement is relative to what you define and conceive of as an object. Someone else might not be able to distingiush that object from it's environment as you have, and so even it's abiltity to be perceived is relative. And finally, all you have left is the "there". But even the concept of being is relative to the mind conceiving of it. And in our case, the concept is somewhat meaningless, as we have no understanding of not being. What does it mean to say "I am" when I have no idea what it means to "not" be?

We are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and therefor we are not capable of measuring an absolute. We can't know if there is such a thing. This doesn't mean that there are no absolutes, it just means that although we humans can conceive of such an infinite in our minds, we can't ever know for certain that it exists.

Originally posted by Soulman If the reality of my chair is not “absolute” (as in absolutely REAL), then nothing is absolute, in which case arguing about the absoluteness and existence of God is like arguing about the “shade” of the color “blue” with a blind man. If there is no absolute STANDARD of reality, knowledge is impossible.

I agree with this except to say that though we can't ascertain an absolute, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Reality may be some kind of absolute or it may not. We have no way of knowing. And yes, we are indeed blind men arguing about color. That's an excellent analogy!

 

[Stratnerd]

> much more probable an event for God to have created all things

with a p = ?

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Doesn't the universe being > 6000 years old change the nature of God since part of the nature is supposedly creating the Earth and universe just 6000 years ago. Did I miss something?

Yes.. I think you did.

If the universe is billions of years old or only thousands of years old why would that change the nature of God in regard to if He exists?

I really see no logical connection.

I think there are some biblical ramifications in the time discrepancy but again at this point we are only discussing IF their is a supernatural creator and therefore the difference in WHEN things were created wouldn't be very relevant. (at least not at this point)

 

[Stratnerd]

> If the universe is billions of years old or only thousands of years old why would that change the nature of God in regard to if He exists?

Ohh... if he exists. I was thinking it might change who we think God is... I was thinking of "poof" - cows mooing, chickens squawking, etc and "poof" - bilions of years of quiet. That's certainly two different ways of getting to us.

But I didn't think I was talking about if God had existed/exists but rather its nature when I said "if we are going to the point of billions of years ago then the very nature of God has changed. even if we find evidence for supernatural creation at the moment of the Big Bang it isn't the God that most people -or religions, are familiar with."