Charismata
New member
Take the atheism test
Take the atheism test
Take the atheism test! For atheists only.
For a fun little break.
Take the atheism test
Take the atheism test! For atheists only.
For a fun little break.
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
novice
Who is the stooge now?
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?
Novice
>>
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.>>
Science has proven that A is wrong. Science has in no way proven that B is wrong.
Now to get a head jump on your awnser: You will most likely site the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy is never destroyed, and always exists.
Now, for this law to have any meaning, we need to establish something first: cause and effect. Within our universe, cause and effect follow the arrow of TIME. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics is bounded by cause and effect being in place. It states simply: there is no CAUSE that has as its EFFECT a loss of energy within a closed system.
However, time and space are properties of this universe. Science has not yet established wether time and space exist APART from our universe. That is: if we take away the universe, does the "thing" that remains (if any) still experience time and space? Or, does it NOT experience time and space but some other, more esoteric set of dimensions?
Science has no awnser to this question. Since science has no awnser, science therefore has NOT disproven option B: the energy of the universe created itself.
And since there ARE quantummechanical laws that provide means to create energy locally, we do NOT know how "locally" our universe is. Perhaps our universe has a twin with NEGATIVE energy, which perfectly balances the positive energy of our universe. But ofcourse this is pure speculation, and as such can neither be proven nor disproven at this point.
>>
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.>>
Science has proven that A is wrong. Science has in no way proven that B is wrong.
Now to get a head jump on your awnser: You will most likely site the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy is never destroyed, and always exists.
Now, for this law to have any meaning, we need to establish something first: cause and effect. Within our universe, cause and effect follow the arrow of TIME. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics is bounded by cause and effect being in place. It states simply: there is no CAUSE that has as its EFFECT a loss of energy within a closed system.
However, time and space are properties of this universe. Science has not yet established wether time and space exist APART from our universe. That is: if we take away the universe, does the "thing" that remains (if any) still experience time and space? Or, does it NOT experience time and space but some other, more esoteric set of dimensions?
Science has no awnser to this question. Since science has no awnser, science therefore has NOT disproven option B: the energy of the universe created itself.
And since there ARE quantummechanical laws that provide means to create energy locally, we do NOT know how "locally" our universe is. Perhaps our universe has a twin with NEGATIVE energy, which perfectly balances the positive energy of our universe. But ofcourse this is pure speculation, and as such can neither be proven nor disproven at this point.
PureX
Well-known member
What I call it is an unknown. What's going on here is only semantics in the sense that some folks are trying to insist that an unknown equates to a God, which it does not. The bottom line is that we are trying to answer a question that we don't have the information to answer. We can simply accept this, or we can go into all sorts of convoluted reasoning to try and come up with the answers we want.
I like speculations, and I believe in the value of a faith in God, but none of these things prove anything. The truth is that we just don't know.
Eireann
New member
All of which supports my earlier prediction that neither combatant will be able to win the debate, if victory is based upon their ability to fulfill their position. If victory is based on a point system, where points are awarded simply for providing evidence, regardless who compelling or uncompelling the evidence may be, then a clear victor could be shown, regardless whether either side manages to fulfill its position. But if victory requires fulfilling the position, neither can win. Bob's position is that God exists. If he can't prove God exists, he can't win. Zak's position is that God doesn't exist. If he can't prove God doesn't exist, he can't win.
Eireann
New member
Re: Just wondering...
Re: Just wondering...
Re: Just wondering...
Well, my fellow Missourian (and perhaps fellow Irishperson?), unfortunately the same can generally be said about the "for" side, too. Such judgments as you have made above are generally based upon the reader's understanding of the position. If you understand Bob's position, then his arguments will probably seem much more concise and relevent to you, whereas Zakath's will seem vaporous and evasive. To those who understand Zakath's position, it is exactly the opposite. We see relevence in Zakath's line of questioning, but evasion in Bob's answers. In truth, both sides are probably being equally concise in their manner, but the followers of this debate are rarely disaffected by the topics and will therefore generally only attribute conciseness and relevence to one side or the other.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Well, if you have a rock with as much lead-208 as uranium-238, you're going to get a date of 4.5 billion years. That doesn't mean the rock is that old, but that's the date you're going to get.
What do you mean? The tides are going to mix this stuff up to a certain degree.
Estimates aren't evidence.
Why not? Mt. Saint Helens laid down hundreds of feet of sediment in a few days back in 1980. We know that didn't take millions of years to form.
Why would you expect to find humans with clams and jellyfish? That doesn't make any sense.
Again -- why would you expect to find these with clams and jellyfish?
As in "a series of progressively increasing or decreasing differences in the growth rate, metabolism, or physiological activity of a cell, organ, or organism?" This is kinda vague. I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more clear on what you're wanting here.
Why not? As animals adapt to their habitat, they become more specialized. Micro-evolution. Few of these animals are so unique that there's nothing like them anywhere else in the world.
You didn't answer my question. How is the evolutionist different from the creationist?
This is false. You have your assumptions, and we have ours. The evidence is always interpreted in light of those assumptions. You might say that radiometric dating confirms your assumptions, but the fact of the matter is you've been running with these assumptions for about a hundred years before radiometric dating was ever invented.
Oh really? I haven't seen the theory of evolution change in it's basic assumptions, and I've seen evolutionists dismiss a lot of the evidence.
I don't think so. Evolution isn't testable or verifiable. Not without a time machine.
So do we.
So do we.
So do we.
So do we.
So do we.
So do we.
So do we. By the way, which method of evolution are you partial too? Gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?
Where is it going?
Eireann
New member
It's not that simple. The macrofendorfian drglwnbawd, for instance, is a morphing creature, sometimes becoming more semblant of a true drglwnbawd, and sometimes becoming a little old lady who sells daisies in the shape of zippos. For more information, you should read Michael R. Darnell's landmark autobiography My Life Amidst the Digeradoo and Macrofendorfian Species of Drglwnbawd and Our Shared Adventures in Detroit's Automotive District. For the record, drglwnbawd is both singular and plural.
Last edited:
Eireann
New member
I think most people will agree that there are some things, and some catagories of things (such as the physical structure of any given object or symbol). However, it is not a logical assumption that because concrete things may have absoluteness that it must automatically follow that abstracts also have absoluteness to them. By abstracts, I mean ideas, notions, values, etc.
By the way, did you see my question to you in post #696, page 48? I would be most interested in seeing your answers to those.
Charismata
New member
Check out this link which goes into detail on the probabilities involved.
"Serious difficulties for Abiogenesis" by Steve Hinrichs
Not that any of this will matter because you will:
a)Dismiss it out of hand
b)Attack the author as creationist instead of dealing with the argument
c)Accuse me of not knowing what I am speaking of (To which I say why re-invent the wheel if someone has already done it?)
d)Attack me on some other front
I do hope you are still having fun! :bannana:
Pure said,
You said,
Well, if we can’t agree on what a physical “object” is, we’re in big trouble. I would agree that “physical reality” is not limited by or dependent upon our “perception” of physical reality, because, as you said, all “objects” are not perceived the same way. But whose relative “visual” perception of an object would you defer to? A man with 20/20 vision, or a blind man? Both perceptions are equally (relatively) “true,” but just because the blind man doesn’t “see” the object, it doesn’t mean the object isn’t absolutely REAL.
Again, if there’s no absolute standard of reality, knowing anything is impossible. Relativizing reality doesn’t “solve” anything. We need a fixed yardstick against which to compare everything else, otherwise all we have is mindless babble. On some basic level everyone understands this. Without an “absolute” yardstick establishing the STANDARD of reality, all we can do is “guess.”
My position would be that we HAVE an absolute standard of reality. Can I “prove” it? Fortunately, I don’t have to. I banged my head three times this morning on the same pipe in my basement. THAT is reality! “Reality” is what we find when we get there. Reality does not require substantiation. Subjective encounters or descriptions or perceptions or levels of understanding changes nothing. Reality IS, although I agree our “perceptions” may, for physical reasons or philosophical reasons, vary. What I call a chair, someone else may call a foot-stool. But banging your head on galvanized pipe hurts, even if you call it a “pillow.”
Soulman
It would be a chair regardless of what I think. Me “deciding” that a chair is not REALLY a chair has zero affect on the physical reality that the chair IS. I cannot “deny” the chair out of existence. I can “ignore” the chair, or call the chair a foot-stool, but I cannot deny the physical reality of the chair’s existence. My “definition” or “perception” of the chair doesn’t alter the fact that the chair IS. If a chair is inadvertently used as a foot-stool, the physical reality of what we “call” a chair remains the same. The “chair” doesn’t CHANGE into a “foot-stool.” So, whatever we want to "call" this physical object, the object really and absolutely IS.
You said,
Well, if we can’t agree on what a physical “object” is, we’re in big trouble. I would agree that “physical reality” is not limited by or dependent upon our “perception” of physical reality, because, as you said, all “objects” are not perceived the same way. But whose relative “visual” perception of an object would you defer to? A man with 20/20 vision, or a blind man? Both perceptions are equally (relatively) “true,” but just because the blind man doesn’t “see” the object, it doesn’t mean the object isn’t absolutely REAL.
Again, if there’s no absolute standard of reality, knowing anything is impossible. Relativizing reality doesn’t “solve” anything. We need a fixed yardstick against which to compare everything else, otherwise all we have is mindless babble. On some basic level everyone understands this. Without an “absolute” yardstick establishing the STANDARD of reality, all we can do is “guess.”
My position would be that we HAVE an absolute standard of reality. Can I “prove” it? Fortunately, I don’t have to. I banged my head three times this morning on the same pipe in my basement. THAT is reality! “Reality” is what we find when we get there. Reality does not require substantiation. Subjective encounters or descriptions or perceptions or levels of understanding changes nothing. Reality IS, although I agree our “perceptions” may, for physical reasons or philosophical reasons, vary. What I call a chair, someone else may call a foot-stool. But banging your head on galvanized pipe hurts, even if you call it a “pillow.”
Soulman
Freak
New member
Eireann--
Can the letter 'C' be anything but 'C'?????
It has value as a absolute real form. Are you telling me you do not acknowledge the absolute form of constructions of words/letters/numbers?
Can "computer" be "land?" Of course not. The very word "computer" (again I'm not referring to the meaning of the word) is "computer."--just as 23 is 23. When I write 23 on a paper it is 23--it is absolute.
The sequence demands such.
Can the letter 'C' be anything but 'C'?????
It has value as a absolute real form. Are you telling me you do not acknowledge the absolute form of constructions of words/letters/numbers?
Can "computer" be "land?" Of course not. The very word "computer" (again I'm not referring to the meaning of the word) is "computer."--just as 23 is 23. When I write 23 on a paper it is 23--it is absolute.
The sequence demands such.
- Status