Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- discipler0
Mimio - how is "my view of creationism" in direct conflict with this law? The law supports the idea of an intelligent designer!
Tick - Demonstrate how anything I've said or quoted is "pseudo-science".
- JazX0
Ohhh... Hmmm. TheTick.
Well it's interesting. You have a link to this?
See that sort of goes along with my point. If there is a remote possibility that this is true, then all the chemical and physical laws they we hold to be true might change over time.
That would mess science up bigtime. An unknown and changing variable in the equation.
- trainer0
Demonstrate how anything I've said or quoted is "pseudo-science".
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:33)Sorry if this this has already been covered (I tuned out of this thread for awhile) but I generally consider ID to be invalid as a scientific theory, as it's not falsifiable.
It's not even a valid *logical* theory - if the universe was intelligently designed, then who designed the intelligent designer?
- trainer0
Demonstrate how anything I've said or quoted is "pseudo-science".
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:33)Sorry if this this has already been covered (I tuned out of this thread for awhile) but I generally consider ID to be invalid as a scientific theory, as it's not falsifiable.
It's not even a valid *logical* theory - if the universe was intelligently designed, then who designed the intelligent designer?
- JazX0
That debunks the Theory of Uniformitarianism
JazX
(Jun 15 05, 10:30)----------
Correction, on this planet I mean and outer space. Do we know the T/g/P of other planets. We do for the moon right? We infer for others...? Man, I forget.
- gruntt0
*comes back to pick up empty sandwich tray.
don't mind me.
- JazX0
*comes back to pick up empty sandwich tray.
don't mind me.
gruntt
(Jun 15 05, 10:40)hey there's a Milky Way for desert.
ba dap da tish!
i had to!
- discipler0
trainer, you missed the answers to both your comments. Go back up and read thru the thread. But really quickly...
Do you also consider Darwinian Macroevolution invalid since IT is not falsifiable? No, the scientific method will not allow you to "prove" the existance of a creator.
Logic dictates that everything that has a beginning, has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore an uncaused first cause, which cannot have a beginning, is the intelligent designer. Your question is flawed from the start, you see.
- k770
wow, you guys are so smart.
- mrdobolina0
I am no longer participating in this thread. all of the posts look the same.
- TheTick0
JazX - I'll find you some links to that...give me a few minutes
- JazX0
I am no longer participating in this thread. all of the posts look the same.
mrdobolina
(Jun 15 05, 10:43)I'm kind of with you on this. It's been gettin' all philosophical.
More scientific data.
- discipler0
yep, it's going in circles. Seems like every issue has been touched. QBN should close it since any question on this topic has already been addressed, more than likely.
- Hym0
" Logic dictates that everything that has a beginning, has a cause."
i became an athesit pretty early in childhood with that reasoning, nobody could tell me who created God
- TheTick0
JazX - here's something I found quick - looks pretty good:
- Anarchitect0
"as far as I can tell, there's three kinds of people in this world - people who know and care - people who care but don't know, and dumb fuckin people who think some huge ass motherfucker with a big white beard made this whole fuckin planet in a fuckin week, just because it says so it a god damn fuckin BOOK.(...)
caulfield
(Jun 15 05, 08:03)"exactly.
- discipler0
if anybody has a question, they can search through what has been posted (not that anybody is going to glean a tremendous amount of knowledge from it, what with all the conflicting voices and misinformation available in this monster).
- JazX0
Back to that theory, TheTick, if gravity, chemistry and/or pressure were to change over time, regardless of creator or evolution, there's a possibilty that a major catastrophic event might occur. Hmmm, puts a funny slant on extinction episodes.
give me link! I demand it!
- discipler0
an infinite uncaused being doesn't require a creator, by definition, Hym. You missed the point. A shame you let a misunderstanding of that truth send you into Atheism.
- trainer0
1. Darwinian Macroevolution is easily falsifiable. Just find a T-Rex skeleton with a human skeleton inside - the theory says that can't happen.
2. "Logic dictates that everything that has a beginning, has a cause"
...except for the intelligent designer. I fail to see how that isn't a contradiction. Why can the intelligent designer spring forth without cause, without a meta-designer? And if it can, why couldn't the universe itself have done the same?