11 -- Creation 'Science' Made Easy

SBOcculta Says:

Jul 28, 2010 - @TheSpearthrower If laws were different in different places, they would not be laws. That is a contradictory argument. If there were no absolute morality, the term moral would be meaningless, because it would imply there were a standard when there is none. If a man has his own morality which says that your morality is evil and deserving of death, then he will kill you for you doing what you think is right, and you should not expect anyone else to care.

SBOcculta Says:

Jul 28, 2010 - @TheSpearthrower The definition of God is that universal laws are subject to him, not the other way around; you try to put God in a box, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to. This is the principle difference between the argument for an eternal creator and the argument for eternal energy, so don't pretend to disprove one when you have only disproven the other.

SBOcculta Says:

Jul 28, 2010 - @TheSpearthrower "Stuff changes" implies a universal law of change, which in turn implies regularity in the universe, so that is not a valid argument. The idea of regularity does not imply a static universe any more than the regularity of a clock implies it does not tick. Also, Uniformity also does not imply that everything is exactly the same: People are all different, but they are uniform in being human. In fact, "the universe is not uniform" is a contradiction.

101rstr Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - Of course the universe is uniform, you simply don't understand its uniformity. If it wasn't uniform we couldn't study or understand any of it. You couldn't write,read, or understand if there wasn't uniformity. If there isn't logic, how are you able to argue or know what's right and wrong? If there is no absolute morality, then laws are just relative thoughts/opinions and guys like Hitler were right. Simply stating things aren't true isn't a good argument.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @Misterb0z And to add to that: the hubris is obscene... to genuinely think that the writings of a bunch of bronze-age desert pastoralists amounts to the final word in the exploration of the universe! They weren't even aware of basic, observable facts... like insects having 6 legs, let alone comprehending even a miniscule proportion of what we know now... and yet the fundie vacuously asserts that the Bible is 'true'... which seems to mean anything they want it to mean.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @101rstr Finally, it is highly expository that you feel the need to personally attack me. The reason for this is two-fold. One, you don't have an argument, just baseless assertions, and it is easier to attack your opponent than defend something you don't have the knowledge to support. Two, it's the religious mentality that disbelievers should be silenced by any means. If you can't bear to discuss this, click the red X on the top right. Alternatively, accept that there are alternative opinions.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @101rstr Go and do the basic level of necessary research before making armchair assertions. While you're at it, also look at some basic logic - inserting a 'someone' is nonsense.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @101rstr The universe is different in different places, and even some of the laws behave differently in different places: ergo, it is not uniform. There's no absolute morality otherwise you'd still believe in stoning children to death for answering back to their parents. The Bible is full of errors, historical, scientific, moral.. and is internally inconsistent. God doesn't exist, so its neither rational nor irrational. Don't call me a liar just because you can't provide a logical argument.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @101rstr That, at last, is true: the universe IS a closed system, and it is ultimately subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, you have leaped to a completely erroneous conclusion that 'someone' had to give it energy. That's not even barely logical. If you demand a someone, then they are also subject to those laws, and we enter infinite regress of what created the creator. There is no 'scientific proof' for anything, let alone gods.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @101rstr No, there is not 'such regularity' in the universe - that's an empty assertion. You are talking about mechanics within the universe, not the universe itself. There is a great variety of different types of space within the universe. There is no uniformity in nature, stuff changes. Making baseless assertions doesn't engender a solid platform to argue from.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 24, 2010 - @101rstr No, that's an empty assertion. The universe is not uniform or it would all be the same.

Misterb0z Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - @101rstr Take God's word for it? No, what you mean is words attributed to God by just a small number of men with an agenda. If there were any such thing as God's words it would be indisputable. These 'missing' things you mention are mere details suggested by our current understanding, or to be more precise our understanding of things in the 1980's. Not got much current there in your list, have you?

101rstr Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - Someone outside the laws of thermodynamics had to set the energy in a higher form of order. The Big Bang theory is at odds with a number of principles of operational science such as missing monopoles, missing antimatter, missing population III stars, the flatness problem, etc. There is no good reason to believe in the big bang. Since we have to accept the origins of the universe on faith, I'm going to take God's word for it.

Misterb0z Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - @101rstr Energy is conserved. That's the most fundamental law of physics. All the energy (and by extension mass) in the universe has always been there. The 'beginning' of the universe is always an attractive prospect for people who want to 'prove' their gods, but they would not be so enthusiastic about it if they realised the implications of General Relativity. Because there was no 'before' the Big Bang. If God was the first cause, he is compressed in space and time to a point!

101rstr Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - @caseyspaos Replacing a solid, rational explanation of creation with no explanation is not scientific at all. Especially if it's done simply to avoid believing the truth that God exists. If you have the starting point that God exists and examine phenomenas scientifically from that starting point they become more clear and make more sense. That's scientific. God has given us the preconditions to understand Him and science (logic, order, senses, etc.) so we can have close relationship with Him.

101rstr Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - Prove the universe isn't uniform, there's no absolute morality, the Bible isn't true, and God is irrational. Prove all of it without using any uniformity, without using any morality, and without using any logic. Prove all of it or you're just another liar making false claims about things you know nothing about.

101rstr Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - The entire universe is one giant closed system and is winding down as it loses available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Someone had to give it available energy in the beginning. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics. This scientific proof for the existence of a creator God.

101rstr Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. Astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist.

101rstr Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 22, 2010 - @101rstr Problem: the universe is not uniform, there is no such thing as absolute morality (even within the Bible), and the 'laws of logic' don't even exist. The Bible isn't true, it's not even remotely close to the facts we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt, so you are just preaching vacuous nonsense. Finally, the Biblical god is not even rational within itself or its own narrative, let alone superimposing it onto the universe.

TheSpearthrower Says:

Jul 22, 2010 - @101rstr That's not what the laws of thermodynamics say at all. You are clearly talking about the 2nd law there, and it expressly states 'in a closed system'. You will note that the earth is a not a thermodynamically closed system as it is powered by the sun. The sun itself is, in fact, ultimately going to run out of energy, and then the earth will no longer harbour life.

caseyspaos Says:

Jul 22, 2010 - @101rstr Try The Blind Watchmaker. He suggests a few theories concerning the origin of matter. The guiding force is self-preservation. Not sure what he has to say about about energy, but again, just because we can't understand or imagine an ontology for a given phenomenon, we do not need to posit a god. That explains nothing. The goal of science is to keep examining, experimenting and asking. That is how we grow in knowledge. ^^

101rstr Says:

Jul 21, 2010 - I suppose you could imagine that, except the laws of thermodynamics indicate that everything is constantly moving from a high level of order and design toward its simplest states of order through entropy. When I further consider Dawkin's explanation, there is no rational explanation for where the matter originally came from, where the energy came from, what the guiding force was, or any justification for order. Since it doesn't reasonably account for these, I naturally ruled it out.

desirefirst Says:

Jul 21, 2010 - uh, check my short vid, "what i is"

caseyspaos Says:

Jul 20, 2010 - @101rstr Are you certain that Creator God or randomness are the only two possibilities? This is an argument from personal incredulity. Because you cannot imagine any other explanation, it must be one or the other, so why not pick God?. But couldn't we suppose that random matter eventually evolved and organized itself through an unimaginably long period of time through a perfectly natural principles such as self-preservation and self-copying? Richard Dawkins explains it better than me. Read him.