LOL yeah, except it's hard to get past the whole Noah's Arc thing. All those animals on one boat, and their food, and their water, and all that waste, and how they all then migrated around the world from wherever the supposed arc finally landed, and the explosion of diversity that would have had to happen post flood for us to get to where we are today, ecologically. Sorry, but this finding doesn't validate your biblical fairy-tale, especially not the biblical account of creation.
It is very easily explained, what is harder to explain is Something coming from nothing. A universe appears out of nowhere, from nothing, with no cause, then fine tunes itself to an imposibility of mathematics, then after all that illogical non-sense. Rocks decide to give birth to life, for no reason, with no cause, and that explains all of earths population. Philosophical fallacies through out. I stand by the boat story, can you give me one scientific example of something arising from nothing?
The "something coming from nothing" argument applies to both sides. Just as you argue that the universe can't come from nothing (which isn't even true. It came about by the explosion and rapid expansion of elements which were condensed into a singular point resulting in the "big bang"), I can argue that god couldn't come from nothing either. Something had to, by your logic, create god.
Mathematics are not impossible (I actually laughed out loud when reading that). Mathematics is provable and the reason scientist believe what they believe. Noah's arc is literally an impossibility, which can be proven by mathematics.
Rocks didn't give birth to life. Chemical reactions of basic elements found throughout the universe coalesced over millions of years to eventually spring forth "life" as we know it on earth.
Not sure what you're referring to by "philosophical fallacies", so I'll leave that one alone.
I don't have to give any scientific examples of "something coming from nothing" because that isn't what happens in this reality. You on the other hand, proclaiming the bible as the source of truth, must then recognize that the bible is where "something from nothing" is suggested. In genesis, god created the heavens and the earth. Out of what? Nothing? *GASP* But that's an impossibility of mathematics!!!
God is eternal by definition, so he does not need a cause. Infinite regression is impossible. Mathematics are possible, my meaning was probability. It is a mathematical improbability for Darwinian evolution to occur.
So chemical reactions occurred and brought 200 and something protein chains together, and that manifested itself into life... with no guiding force. Please give me observational evidence of when this has happened. They have been trying for decades to get life from random protein chains. They fail every time, bc it is impossible. If it is so scientific, and not a fairy please produce one piece of evidence, please.
Well on the last point there, maybe you didn't realize that you said God CREATED, that would mean it came from something. Not nothing...
Before the big bang, what was there? And how come something decided to explode out of nothing, instead of just being nothing. Nothing is nothing, therefore it can cause nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. If you would like me to list the logical fallacies propagated by your theory I would be glad to.
So, as I understand it, the big bang was not the beginning. Before the big bang that eventually lead to us, there were infinite previous expansions and contractions of the universe, much like a heartbeat expanding in and contracting out over the span of billions of years. Gravity being the constant.
What did god use to create the universe? Did he just snap his fingers and *POOF* things appeared? That is such a simple minded cop-out answer. "I don't have evidence to support my theory, so I'll just say god created it out of nothing. Because, "by definition" he can do that." Of course you won't see how fallacious your own statements are.
As for the chemical reactions producing life - We don't have observational evidence for this. Want to know why? We can't observe something for millions of years. We can observe microevolution which leads us to theorize about macroevolution. The puzzle pieces fit. Just because we can't physically observe something taking place doesn't mean it's then automatically not true even though we have very intelligent people, scientists, working to put the pieces together logically. It's one thing to actively try and find logical answers to these questions. It's another thing entirely to dismiss scientific research and accept the words written in a centuries-old book of tales as literal fact.
The oscillating theory of the universe was an idea out of the 70's that is idiotic. Yet again you are just making up and speculating what happened before the BB. Fairy Tale.
Yes, I don't think you understand what God is, yes he "snapped his fingers" and it happened. The definition of a God gives him this power.
Well according to your last statement I don't need observational evidence to prove biblical truth. So according to your argument "the puzzle pieces fit". Very scientific.
Lets move on from the bible and go to a higher level of thinking. How do you see truth, absolute or relative?
It's not idiotic, it makes sense! You're idiotic for putting all your trust in a theory you read in a book written thousands of years ago when they didn't have the scientific capabilities we have today. So what did they do? They speculated as to their origin, just as we do today. Only today, we can prove things with mathematics and highly advanced technological methods. Back then all they had were their ideas and their ability to convince their simple-minded peers. Why would you believe a story written by people thousands and thousands of years ago that makes outrageous claims such as an arc built by one man and his family that housed every known species of animal? We can't even do that today with modern technology and materials!
Oh yeah, "by definition god has power, therefore god has power." Don't be stupid. I'm signing off. You've successfully caused me to question my faith in humanity.
CHAM3LEON and Mattlockhart, what's the point? First of all, Mattlockhart, what was the attack on his belief about? Are you threatened or offended because he believes something you cannot disprove? Not understanding how something could be possible doesn't automatically make it impossible. And CHAM3LEON, why argue something you cannot prove? Mattlockhart has a point with everything he was saying. This is why it is called a belief. It wouldn't be called a belief if it could be proven. It would be called knowledge at that point (remember, at times mainstream religious "knowledge" and scientific "fact" have been "disproven" countless times throughout history. Both sides are looking for truth. Why attack each other in the process?
Matt questioning of biblical account is legitimate. One doesn't need to disprove creationism, the burden of proof is on the creationists. The religious aren't seeking the truth, they claim they already know it. And as far as being threatened and offended by those beliefs, I certainly am. When there are segments of the population that value willful ignorance and science denial, and vote based on it, it hurts us all.
Let me clarify, assuming people will typically act in their own interests. It seems like you are saying that you are offended by someone's belief system that doesn't align with yours. Now if you are persecuted in some way fir your beliefs that is one thing, but that is different than being offended by having to see images of, & watch others practice their beliefs. I've just noticed a general lack of tolerance all around and that is what prompted me to engage. It isn't personal and I personally don't have a dog in this fight.
I don't mind other's belief systems, images of those systems, or people practicing those systems. I am against others pushing those systems on others, such as trying to get intelligent design into classrooms, or quoting holy books as the foundation for legislation.
So you aren't going to like my argument for sharia law then. (Just kidding). Seriously though, I understand what you are saying. If parents were more engaged and less afraid that would solve many issues.
Egro: A body, a brain and a consciousness. I am not trying to prove a soul's existence. That can't happen until we understand the brain better. Where does consciousness come from? Experience or exposure to life? Why are we the only animals with the ability to be so destructive? I agree with logic and reason but there are enough unexplained phenomenon that causes me doubt. When exposed to the same stimuli, do two twins (as babies) have vastly different reactions to something small like water in the face? One loves it the other hates it. They both share so many other traits and likes, but there are weird little anomalies like that. I also wouldn't believe in gravity as a rule if I ever saw an exception. The differences in consciousness (or I would call it a soul even though I know it can't be proven) between people leaves me unconvinced in the absence of other things I can't see or explain. I shun blind faith just as much as I despise those who mock it. Not saying you were at all but MattLockhart comes close and I find that annoying. It is a fault of mine but I'm working on it.
I appreciate your perspective. These are all good questions you pose about our brains and consciousness, I've always found it particularly disturbing how people can change through diseases like Alzheimer's, or brain trauma.
Yes, and I don't often get to kick around ideas like this so it is appreciated. I actually heard someone say that the King James Bible is the only true bible because it was written as Jesus spoke. What do you say to that?
I think Alzheimer's is one of the only reasons why I might consider taking my own life due to the burden I would pose to others. Had a relative live with me for three years with advanced stages of the disease. Didn't even know our names. You threaded the needle on that last statement.
Pin it! 
27 comments
Login to comment →
CHAM3LEON 10 years, 8 months ago
Wow more validation for the Biblical account of creation. During the flood, waters where released from the deep. God broke the seals of the earth.
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 8 months ago
LOL yeah, except it's hard to get past the whole Noah's Arc thing. All those animals on one boat, and their food, and their water, and all that waste, and how they all then migrated around the world from wherever the supposed arc finally landed, and the explosion of diversity that would have had to happen post flood for us to get to where we are today, ecologically. Sorry, but this finding doesn't validate your biblical fairy-tale, especially not the biblical account of creation.
Reply
CHAM3LEON 10 years, 8 months ago
It is very easily explained, what is harder to explain is Something coming from nothing. A universe appears out of nowhere, from nothing, with no cause, then fine tunes itself to an imposibility of mathematics, then after all that illogical non-sense. Rocks decide to give birth to life, for no reason, with no cause, and that explains all of earths population. Philosophical fallacies through out. I stand by the boat story, can you give me one scientific example of something arising from nothing?
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 8 months ago
The "something coming from nothing" argument applies to both sides. Just as you argue that the universe can't come from nothing (which isn't even true. It came about by the explosion and rapid expansion of elements which were condensed into a singular point resulting in the "big bang"), I can argue that god couldn't come from nothing either. Something had to, by your logic, create god.
Mathematics are not impossible (I actually laughed out loud when reading that). Mathematics is provable and the reason scientist believe what they believe. Noah's arc is literally an impossibility, which can be proven by mathematics.
Rocks didn't give birth to life. Chemical reactions of basic elements found throughout the universe coalesced over millions of years to eventually spring forth "life" as we know it on earth.
Not sure what you're referring to by "philosophical fallacies", so I'll leave that one alone.
I don't have to give any scientific examples of "something coming from nothing" because that isn't what happens in this reality. You on the other hand, proclaiming the bible as the source of truth, must then recognize that the bible is where "something from nothing" is suggested. In genesis, god created the heavens and the earth. Out of what? Nothing? *GASP* But that's an impossibility of mathematics!!!
Reply
CHAM3LEON 10 years, 8 months ago
God is eternal by definition, so he does not need a cause. Infinite regression is impossible. Mathematics are possible, my meaning was probability. It is a mathematical improbability for Darwinian evolution to occur.
So chemical reactions occurred and brought 200 and something protein chains together, and that manifested itself into life... with no guiding force. Please give me observational evidence of when this has happened. They have been trying for decades to get life from random protein chains. They fail every time, bc it is impossible. If it is so scientific, and not a fairy please produce one piece of evidence, please.
Well on the last point there, maybe you didn't realize that you said God CREATED, that would mean it came from something. Not nothing...
Before the big bang, what was there? And how come something decided to explode out of nothing, instead of just being nothing. Nothing is nothing, therefore it can cause nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. If you would like me to list the logical fallacies propagated by your theory I would be glad to.
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 8 months ago
So, as I understand it, the big bang was not the beginning. Before the big bang that eventually lead to us, there were infinite previous expansions and contractions of the universe, much like a heartbeat expanding in and contracting out over the span of billions of years. Gravity being the constant.
What did god use to create the universe? Did he just snap his fingers and *POOF* things appeared? That is such a simple minded cop-out answer. "I don't have evidence to support my theory, so I'll just say god created it out of nothing. Because, "by definition" he can do that." Of course you won't see how fallacious your own statements are.
As for the chemical reactions producing life - We don't have observational evidence for this. Want to know why? We can't observe something for millions of years. We can observe microevolution which leads us to theorize about macroevolution. The puzzle pieces fit. Just because we can't physically observe something taking place doesn't mean it's then automatically not true even though we have very intelligent people, scientists, working to put the pieces together logically. It's one thing to actively try and find logical answers to these questions. It's another thing entirely to dismiss scientific research and accept the words written in a centuries-old book of tales as literal fact.
Reply
CHAM3LEON 10 years, 8 months ago
The oscillating theory of the universe was an idea out of the 70's that is idiotic. Yet again you are just making up and speculating what happened before the BB. Fairy Tale.
Yes, I don't think you understand what God is, yes he "snapped his fingers" and it happened. The definition of a God gives him this power.
Well according to your last statement I don't need observational evidence to prove biblical truth. So according to your argument "the puzzle pieces fit". Very scientific.
Lets move on from the bible and go to a higher level of thinking. How do you see truth, absolute or relative?
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 8 months ago
It's not idiotic, it makes sense! You're idiotic for putting all your trust in a theory you read in a book written thousands of years ago when they didn't have the scientific capabilities we have today. So what did they do? They speculated as to their origin, just as we do today. Only today, we can prove things with mathematics and highly advanced technological methods. Back then all they had were their ideas and their ability to convince their simple-minded peers. Why would you believe a story written by people thousands and thousands of years ago that makes outrageous claims such as an arc built by one man and his family that housed every known species of animal? We can't even do that today with modern technology and materials!
Oh yeah, "by definition god has power, therefore god has power." Don't be stupid. I'm signing off. You've successfully caused me to question my faith in humanity.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Matt, do you have a soul? If so, how?
Reply
egro 10 years, 8 months ago
What's a soul? What's the evidence it exists?
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Just do you have one or don't you. That's all.
Reply
egro 10 years, 8 months ago
How can I answer if I don't know what one is?
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Are you notself-aware enough to determine this about yourself? What, besides a brain and a body makes you you?
Reply
egro 10 years, 8 months ago
I_am_my_consciousness, a_product_of_my_brain, that_resides_in_my_body, same_as_everyone_else. At_least,_that's_all_there's_any_evidence_for.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
New thread
Reply
banjoben 10 years, 8 months ago
Ahhh, I'm sure one of you guys is bound to convince the other. So don't give up!
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 8 months ago
lol
http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/approval/grand/74844897_nodding_gif.gif">http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/approval/grand/74844897_nodding_gif.gif
Reply
theycallmechad 10 years, 8 months ago
CHAM3LEON and Mattlockhart, what's the point? First of all, Mattlockhart, what was the attack on his belief about? Are you threatened or offended because he believes something you cannot disprove? Not understanding how something could be possible doesn't automatically make it impossible. And CHAM3LEON, why argue something you cannot prove? Mattlockhart has a point with everything he was saying. This is why it is called a belief. It wouldn't be called a belief if it could be proven. It would be called knowledge at that point (remember, at times mainstream religious "knowledge" and scientific "fact" have been "disproven" countless times throughout history. Both sides are looking for truth. Why attack each other in the process?
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
+1
Reply
egro 10 years, 8 months ago
Matt questioning of biblical account is legitimate. One doesn't need to disprove creationism, the burden of proof is on the creationists. The religious aren't seeking the truth, they claim they already know it. And as far as being threatened and offended by those beliefs, I certainly am. When there are segments of the population that value willful ignorance and science denial, and vote based on it, it hurts us all.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Then you seem to be the mirror image of what offends you.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Let me clarify, assuming people will typically act in their own interests. It seems like you are saying that you are offended by someone's belief system that doesn't align with yours. Now if you are persecuted in some way fir your beliefs that is one thing, but that is different than being offended by having to see images of, & watch others practice their beliefs. I've just noticed a general lack of tolerance all around and that is what prompted me to engage. It isn't personal and I personally don't have a dog in this fight.
Reply
egro 10 years, 8 months ago
I don't mind other's belief systems, images of those systems, or people practicing those systems. I am against others pushing those systems on others, such as trying to get intelligent design into classrooms, or quoting holy books as the foundation for legislation.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
So you aren't going to like my argument for sharia law then. (Just kidding). Seriously though, I understand what you are saying. If parents were more engaged and less afraid that would solve many issues.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Egro: A body, a brain and a consciousness. I am not trying to prove a soul's existence. That can't happen until we understand the brain better.
Where does consciousness come from? Experience or exposure to life? Why are we the only animals with the ability to be so destructive? I agree with logic and reason but there are enough unexplained phenomenon that causes me doubt. When exposed to the same stimuli, do two twins (as babies) have vastly different reactions to something small like water in the face? One loves it the other hates it. They both share so many other traits and likes, but there are weird little anomalies like that. I also wouldn't believe in gravity as a rule if I ever saw an exception. The differences in consciousness (or I would call it a soul even though I know it can't be proven) between people leaves me unconvinced in the absence of other things I can't see or explain. I shun blind faith just as much as I despise those who mock it. Not saying you were at all but MattLockhart comes close and I find that annoying. It is a fault of mine but I'm working on it.
Reply
egro 10 years, 8 months ago
I appreciate your perspective. These are all good questions you pose about our brains and consciousness, I've always found it particularly disturbing how people can change through diseases like Alzheimer's, or brain trauma.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 8 months ago
Yes, and I don't often get to kick around ideas like this so it is appreciated. I actually heard someone say that the King James Bible is the only true bible because it was written as Jesus spoke. What do you say to that?
I think Alzheimer's is one of the only reasons why I might consider taking my own life due to the burden I would pose to others. Had a relative live with me for three years with advanced stages of the disease. Didn't even know our names. You threaded the needle on that last statement.
Reply