Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lumin]

C:  It's always been there.

Then we both have Faith in IT, I call him God, you call him IT.

[Phmcw]

It is said that the mark of an intelligent mind is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. You have the not accepting it down pat, but why don't you try and consider for a moment that you might not necessarily know everything there is to know about Life, The Universe, and Everything? Before dismissing that there is no evidence for intelligent design, why don't you consider that there might be?

According to you, one must ponder all idea whatever may them be? Good luck sorting out spam then.

For example, I have yet to hear an intelligent explanation for the origins of the universal natural laws. Not the natural laws as we know them, no, I refer to the laws themselves. What originally determined that water turns into ice crystals when it freezes to become less dense than liquid water? What originally determined that objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by force? What originally determined that hot objects radiate light? I do not see how the physical laws that govern the universe (again, NOT our understanding of the laws, the laws themselves) could have somehow written themselves.

I'm sorry, if shearch a religion you will have to read the bible, the thora or wathever take your fancy. However if you want reasonable answers not writeen by sheperd two thousand years ago, you may have to get a degree in physic and try to shearch yourself. Just like me actually.
Science isn't a religion. His theory aren't absolute truths. They just aren't guess, and you can make something out of it.

And I said I hope that Dr Melon was trolling because he was being so wrong it was kind of sad.
You too acually. Your "fact" about object needing to travel faster than light is wrong.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

Examples of "missing links":
"Common Ancestor": No trace of evidence found.
"Ramapithecus": Invented from one tiny piece of jawbones two inches long.
"Australopithecus": Extinct ape.
"Lucy": Chimpanzee skeleton fragments assembled into human form.
"Homo Habilis": Ancient human skull.
"Java Man": Giant gibbon skullcap.
"Peking Man": Come up with from two teeth.
"Neanderthal Man": Human with arthritis.
"Cro-Magnon Man": Modern man making fancy paintings in caves.
"Piltdown Man": Hoax involving human skull and ape jawbone filed to fit together.
"Nebraska Man": Tooth from extinct pig.

[kuro_suna]

You are, again, assuming that the light from the edge of the universe wasn't created in transit.

So any evidence we can possibly provide is counter by god made fake evidence for some reason?

Also though we can't currently explain how the universe began creationism doesn't explain anything since its just shift the question to where god came from.

Simple. The Creator of Time exists outside Time. Has no beginning nor end, as beginnings and ends are things of Time.

So its impossible for a bundle of wave strings to have always existed, therefor a sentient omnipotent being must have always existed to make them?

[Andir]

C:  It's always been there.

Then we both have Faith in IT, I call him God, you call him IT.

I don't need faith, I see IT all around me.  I don't see "God" all around me.

[lumin]

I don't need faith, I see IT all around me.  I don't see "God" all around me.

You can't prove it has always been here.  That's your theory, or in other words, your Faith.  Again, I call it "God", you call it "It".  "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen".

Bring me your proof that it has always existed, or call it Faith and theory.  You can't have it both ways.

[Bauglir]

For example, I have yet to hear an intelligent explanation for the origins of the universal natural laws. Not the natural laws as we know them, no, I refer to the laws themselves. What originally determined that water turns into ice crystals when it freezes to become less dense than liquid water? What originally determined that objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by force? What originally determined that hot objects radiate light? I do not see how the physical laws that govern the universe (again, NOT our understanding of the laws, the laws themselves) could have somehow written themselves.

Ok, see, that's not evidence of any kind. That's saying, "It could have happened some other way, so obviously something made it happen this way!" Surely you see why that's not a valid argument. Not everything that happens is "made" to happen by any exterior will or higher power. The laws of the universe essentially boil down to "Here are some particles, here's how they interact." The properties of ice, the laws of momentum, black-body radiation, none of these are fundamental laws of the universe. They're just rules of thumb we use to deal with large-scale operations, in the same way that an accountant isn't going to personally going to count out 1 dollar bills to every department of a store.

You are, again, assuming that the light from the edge of the universe wasn't created in transit. For you information, according to the "science" that you hold above everything, the objects at the edge of the universe have travelled faster than the speed of light to get where they are since the start of the universe. Faster than the universal speed limit for matter and energy. Also, don't call people trolls when they're just, as you are, stating opinion.

Actually, no they DON'T need to have travelled faster than light. Here's the deal; we're not actually seeing the edge of the universe. We're seeing what WAS where we're looking, at the beginning of the universe. What was there was a cloud of ridiculously hot energy and matter. Now, just as an example, of something has moved to the OTHER side of the center of the universe from us, any distance at all, we can't see it, because to look that far away would involve looking further back in time than the beginning of the universe. Now, the actual geometry and physics of it is a good deal more complicated than that, but hopefully that illustrates the concept. I'm no physics major, so I don't have as good a grasp of it as I'd like. The short of it is, relativity is fucking complicated in all its implications, and you're not going to wrap your head around it without devoting a lot of time to pondering how things like simultaneity don't actually exist.

[kuro_suna]

Examples of "missing links":
"Common Ancestor": No trace of evidence found.
"Ramapithecus": Invented from one tiny piece of jawbones two inches long.
"Australopithecus": Extinct ape.
"Lucy": Chimpanzee skeleton fragments assembled into human form.
"Homo Habilis": Ancient human skull.
"Java Man": Giant gibbon skullcap.
"Peking Man": Come up with from two teeth.
"Neanderthal Man": Human with arthritis.
"Cro-Magnon Man": Modern man making fancy paintings in caves.
"Piltdown Man": Hoax involving human skull and ape jawbone filed to fit together.
"Nebraska Man": Tooth from extinct pig.

1: that's not a citation, do you have any counter to evidence like carbon dating or other scientific analysis.

2: again we don't need missing links now that we can trace the changes right from the genome.

[Bauglir]

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

Examples of "missing links":
"Common Ancestor": No trace of evidence found.
"Ramapithecus": Invented from one tiny piece of jawbones two inches long.
"Australopithecus": Extinct ape.
"Lucy": Chimpanzee skeleton fragments assembled into human form.
"Homo Habilis": Ancient human skull.
"Java Man": Giant gibbon skullcap.
"Peking Man": Come up with from two teeth.
"Neanderthal Man": Human with arthritis.
"Cro-Magnon Man": Modern man making fancy paintings in caves.
"Piltdown Man": Hoax involving human skull and ape jawbone filed to fit together.
"Nebraska Man": Tooth from extinct pig.

Did you even read what I posted? Look, here's why you're wrong. You're dismissing things like australopithecus and homo habilis as non-issues just because you don't like the conclusion they lead to. Can you show me where the evidence has suggested they're NOT transitional forms, or are you just looking at the skulls and saying, "That's what they look like to me", without any training whatsoever?

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

1: that's not a citation, do you have any counter to evidence like carbon dating or other scientific analysis.

2: again we don't need missing links now that we can trace the changes right from the genome.

1: If you want a citation, I cited my source in a previous post. Try to keep up. Also, if you really want scientific analysis, then you don't want carbon dating, which uses concentric logic to arrive at the preconceived notion that the tested object belongs wherever the scientists want it to belong in the timeline. They fine-tune carbon-dating by fossil layers, and define the age of fossil layers by carbon dating. Still-living snail shells have been carbon-dated at being over 200 years old, and 200-year-old Kilauean (no idea how that's spelled) rocks have been potassium-argon-dated at being billions of years old.

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

Examples of "missing links":
"Common Ancestor": No trace of evidence found.
"Ramapithecus": Invented from one tiny piece of jawbones two inches long.
"Australopithecus": Extinct ape.
"Lucy": Chimpanzee skeleton fragments assembled into human form.
"Homo Habilis": Ancient human skull.
"Java Man": Giant gibbon skullcap.
"Peking Man": Come up with from two teeth.
"Neanderthal Man": Human with arthritis.
"Cro-Magnon Man": Modern man making fancy paintings in caves.
"Piltdown Man": Hoax involving human skull and ape jawbone filed to fit together.
"Nebraska Man": Tooth from extinct pig.

Did you even read what I posted? Look, here's why you're wrong. You're dismissing things like australopithecus and homo habilis as non-issues just because you don't like the conclusion they lead to. Can you show me where the evidence has suggested they're NOT transitional forms, or are you just looking at the skulls and saying, "That's what they look like to me", without any training whatsoever?

I did cite my source. And that source cites its sources. I myself have not seen these myself except in pictures.

[Bauglir]

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

Examples of "missing links":
"Common Ancestor": No trace of evidence found.
"Ramapithecus": Invented from one tiny piece of jawbones two inches long.
"Australopithecus": Extinct ape.
"Lucy": Chimpanzee skeleton fragments assembled into human form.
"Homo Habilis": Ancient human skull.
"Java Man": Giant gibbon skullcap.
"Peking Man": Come up with from two teeth.
"Neanderthal Man": Human with arthritis.
"Cro-Magnon Man": Modern man making fancy paintings in caves.
"Piltdown Man": Hoax involving human skull and ape jawbone filed to fit together.
"Nebraska Man": Tooth from extinct pig.

Did you even read what I posted? Look, here's why you're wrong. You're dismissing things like australopithecus and homo habilis as non-issues just because you don't like the conclusion they lead to. Can you show me where the evidence has suggested they're NOT transitional forms, or are you just looking at the skulls and saying, "That's what they look like to me", without any training whatsoever?

I did cite my source. And that source cites its sources. I myself have not seen these myself except in pictures.

Ok, can you mail me a copy of the book or give me a place I can read it online, like I have with mine? I'm just taking your word that this book exists, much less is the work of a legitimate scientist. And if he's claiming the things you're saying he is, he isn't one, because he's ignoring the science.

FYI, carbon dating is actually pretty accurate because it's calibrated based on measurable decay of the carbon isotopes in question OUTSIDE of fossils, and it's always combined with 6 or 7 other different isotope based dating systems, each of which has a different half-life. It's a pretty advanced area, and only somebody utterly unfamiliar with it would actually believe it's guesswork or circular reasoning.

[Andir]

I don't need faith, I see IT all around me.  I don't see "God" all around me.

You can't prove it has always been here.  That's your theory, or in other words, your Faith.  Again, I call it "God", you call it "It".  "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen".

Bring me your proof that it has always existed, or call it Faith and theory.  You can't have it both ways.

I said that's a possibility.  As nobody can go back in time to find out, we have to look around us and compare what's happening to things and relate that to the world we know.  It doesn't take "Faith" in any way.  There's a law of conservation that pretty much lends itself to the understanding that our universe could have always existed and never had a "creation point."  That's observable.  "God" isn't.  If you relate your god to my explanation of "it" then you should be praying to your pencil for it is made of "God."  And we all know most religion wouldn't have that from their creator.

What I'm saying is on a molecular level, matter and energy could have always existed.  They combined in patterns that formed mass and elements that make up you, me, your pencil, and the monitor you are looking at.  If some "God" did all this, they likely don't care about the insignificant being that evolved from that mass called Humans because they are concentrating on the finite laws that bind it all together and you are merely a Planet in the eyes of an Earthworm.  You are out of that god's scope... unless you are truly as arrogant as previous generations and you think that the universe was created and revolves around you.

[kuro_suna]

1: If you want a citation, I cited my source in a previous post. Try to keep up. Also, if you really want scientific analysis, then you don't want carbon dating, which uses concentric logic to arrive at the preconceived notion that the tested object belongs wherever the scientists want it to belong in the timeline.

So again your dismissing anything that disproves your belief

They fine-tune carbon-dating by fossil layers, and define the age of fossil layers by carbon dating. Still-living snail shells have been carbon-dated at being over 200 years old, and 200-year-old Kilauean (no idea how that's spelled) rocks have been potassium-argon-dated at being billions of years old.

This is why creationists don't get taken seriously. Radio dating is used extensively by the mining and oil industry and works on the same principal as atomic clocks used in gps satellites. If its false so is most of human civilization.

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

[Bauglir]

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

THANK you. There's a reason men have nipples.