Creationists PWNED

[Last Conformist]

beingofone

An "infinite" hmm - sounds close to the definition of God.

Your ears are defective.

Infinite concepts are reserved for the supernatural by its very definition.

No.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by trev
Science I have found tends to ignore questions it cannot answer. Some examples of unanswered questions are

What is memory? (I know they say it resides in human brains but how does the brain know a certain arrangement of chemicals/molecules is a memory of a waterful seen years earlier for example, an image that can be recalled in detail)
How can migratory birds travel most of the length of the globe with the young travelling at a separate time to the adults as happens with some species?
How can 'out of body' experiences be explained? ( in particular when the patient views the operation from above the operating table as has happened many times)

Who says science is ignoring these questions? Just because you don't like the answers or science hasn't discovered them yet doesn't mean science isn't studying the question. What an assinine assertion on your part.

How can twins feel the pain of the other twin when hundreds of miles apart and unaware of the event causing the pain?

This is BS. It doesn't exist. It's purely fictional.

It is because science cannot answer many questions sastisfactorily that it is necessary to turn to the book that has shown itself to have the answer through the ages, the BIBLE

And how does the Bible address any of the above questions? PLease tell me which chapter and verse each of these subjects is discussed?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by beingofone
But to assert that God does not exist - well its like this - you would have to be God, because you would have to know and experience everything, to know with absolute knowledge God does not exist.

No, I don't have to do or be that. When you claim something, i.e., there is a God who knows all, sees all, is everywhere, made reaility, etc. you must provide proof of that claim. If you cannot prove your claim, there is no reason to believe it. You cannot show this god to me. I cannot test for its existence. All I can do is trust the word of other men, and as you well know, people are quite capable of believing in things that do not exist. Thus, until you prove your assertion, god falls into the catagory of things in which people believe but that do not exist. Thus, god does not exist.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by beingofone
Well - when you consider the other option, I would say life is abounding of the miraculous.
But if it is no miracle perhaps you could explain life to me.

A molecule arose which by its existence increased the likelihood of other molecules with a similar shape to itself being created. By a complex series of chemical (and then biological) interactions which are not fully understood, these self-replicating devices became more complex, then more structured, until they came to resemble things we would recognise as "life".

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by beingofone
But to assert that God does not exist - well its like this - you would have to be God, because you would have to know and experience everything, to know with absolute knowledge God does not exist.

No, I don't have to do or be that. When you claim something, i.e., there is a God who knows all, sees all, is everywhere, made reaility, etc. you must provide proof of that claim. If you cannot prove your claim, there is no reason to believe it. You cannot show this god to me. I cannot test for its existence. All I can do is trust the word of other men, and as you well know, people are quite capable of believing in things that do not exist. Thus, until you prove your assertion, god falls into the catagory of things in which people believe but that do not exist. Thus, god does not exist.

Hm, not sure if I understand you correctly - are you saying something does not exist until it is proven? That would be a bit much IMO (and yes, I'm atheist too).

[Nikolai]

I don't understand why people think it is so important to prove this and that all the time when it comes to religion. Either you belive, or you do not. I belive in God, I belive in Jesus Christ, I belive in a God that created everything, but it is totally irrelevant for me whether he used 6 days as in days, or some billion years. If he created everything as it is now, fine, but I do not loose faith if it turns out he let some darwinistic function come into play either. It's a question that is interesting, but it is hardly important for my faith.

BTW, all this talk of proof: As I've understood it from school, one of the main rules in science is that nothing is 100% sure, it's all a question of probability?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hm, not sure if I understand you correctly - are you saying something does not exist until it is proven? That would be a bit much IMO (and yes, I'm atheist too).

No, something does not exist unless it is provable.

[BeBMan]

Well, I don't understand it, if something doesn't exist before, how can we prove its existance? Or do you mean it does not exist in our minds until then? But even then I'd say some scientific things where discussed long before they were proven, so they existed (or the idea of them) in the minds of those people which discussed about them.....

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, something does not exist unless it is provable.

That paints you in a very peculiar philosophical position ...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, something does not exist unless it is provable.

So, as an example from my own field of expertise, Neisseria Gonorrhoeae didnt exist before it became culturable the 1940's or so (as an aside the feud over "viable but non-culturable organisms" has been around for a fair number of years)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by trev
Science I have found tends to ignore questions it cannot answer. Some examples of unanswered questions are

As has been mentioned, science isn't at all ignoring these questions.

Funny, the big difference between what I posted that you can't answer and what you posted is that for what I posted, science DOES have answers, so the explanation of miraculous workings of a god are not needed. The questions you posed are not answered by the Bible. Well, except beyond the pat "God done it!" non-answer.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So, as an example from my own field of expertise, Neisseria Gonorrhoeae didnt exist before it became culturable the 1940's or so (as an aside the feud over "viable but non-culturable organisms" has been around for a fair number of years)?

No, it was provable, just not by methods currently available. There are all sorts of things we have ideas about that we cannot yet currently prove or disprove, but we suspect we will someday be able to. The existence of a reailty beyond our own is not one of those things.

[BeBMan]

So you rather meant, something which is not proveable does not exist? That's a difference.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
Well - when you consider the other option, I would say life is abounding of the miraculous.
But if it is no miracle perhaps you could explain life to me.

Define "miracle." My hunch is your reasoning will be quite, quite circular.

I see your point. Atheism means to believe there is no God.

How could you misread that so blatantly?

No, Atheism, broadly, means to have no belief in god(s). There are some atheists who believe actively there are no god(s), but that isn't the sole definition of the word.

But to assert that God does not exist - well its like this - you would have to be God, because you would have to know and experience everything, to know with absolute knowledge God does not exist.

The same could be said of unicorns. Why not believe they exist?

You are correct. Quantum physics deals with the construction or fabric of the reality of the universe.
Or how we perceive reality - its being debated.
I would say matter but that is becoming dated.

And explain how it any way supports a notion of ID.

I know what you mean, when the power goes down there is no reason to believe the lights will go on though. Have you considered that?

Wtf are you trying to say? Why is there "no reason" to believe the lights will go on again? Do we not have reason to believe that engineers are working to restore power during an outage?

Or do you mean we shouldn't believe the lights will go on if the power is still out? Well, if so...duuuuuh! All the reason one needs to know that is a basic knowledge of how energy works. Or prior experience with a power outage. How is this analogy relevant again?

You have not yet shown how the scripture written in not one generation but over 1500 years with 40 different authors is not worthy of scientific merit.

What does the length of time and number of authors have to do with scientific merit? Scientific merit is determined on how well a hypothesis holds up to experimentation and empiric evidence.

I'd also say that since there are blatant scientific errors in the Bible, it loses credibility right there. Do rabbits chew their cud? Are bats birds? Do insects have 4 legs?

But the bottom line is that the Bible was written for the purpose of being a scientific work, and it is an abuse of the text to try and treat it as such. It is a work of religion and philosophy, not science.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, it was provable, just not by methods currently available. There are all sorts of things we have ideas about that we cannot yet currently prove or disprove, but we suspect we will someday be able to. The existence of a reailty beyond our own is not one of those things.

Ah, I misunderstood your position.