Hey Christians! Why?

[dt3]

You believe that matter came into existance from nothing then?

The fact that there is a universe is undeniable proof that matter was created at one point. There is only one theory as to how that could have happened. Choosing not to believe the theory is fine, but to state unequivocally that it is wrong, with ZERO ability to counter seems a bit early to me.

The big difference between science and religion is that science doesn't claim to have all the answers. In fact, if science had all the answers we wouldn't have science.

To state unequivocally that the creation theory is right simply because it's the only option is intellectually wrong.

 

[lumpenstein]

The big difference between science and religion is that science doesn't claim to have all the answers. In fact, if science had all the answers we wouldn't have science.

To state unequivocally that the creation theory is right simply because it's the only option is intellectually wrong.

Well, to be exact, creation theory is not a theory by definition. Again this is another example of using pseudo-scientific reasoning to use logic to prove the illogical. A theory is based upon facts, which are observable and subject to experimentation. Any scientific experiment must be reproducible by anybody. Creation theory fails to meet these requirements so you all have the moral obligation to stick to the rules and drop the theory crap when referring to creationism (because that is what is being referred to here).

 

[All Else Failed]

Yeah, I'm glad you pointed that out. The terms "Creation science" is contradictory in nature since there is zero "science" or "evidence" behind it at all, therefore nullifying all of the proposed "creationist theories".

 

[siasl]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

that the vast majority of us can only approach these topics from the cultural and perceptual clues that we accept as "truth"....it's those things we accept that become our "evidence"
most christains would be hardpressed to let the classic image of jesus step foot in their house.....if he was wearing a polo shirt and dockers, there'd be a whole 'nother set of biases to overcome

all of these endless debates about evidence are nonsense, imo....just mental masturbation designed to reinforce our "self" and its place in the universe.

my feeling is that if one wants to know "god", he/she has got to stop reinforcing "self"

why else would anyone ALLOW themselves to be crucified?

 

[IntruderLS1]

To state unequivocally that the creation theory is right simply because it's the only option is intellectually wrong.

You mean like gravity? Maybe the Big Bang then?

Creation of matter from non-matter is a fact. It isn't a crazy religious thing, it's observation. As it stands today, that is not only true, but also impossible.

If it's true AND impossible, then something unnatural (or supernatural, as nature didn't exist in the void)MUST have happened. The details are debatable, but the facts are not. I personally feel that Christianity has it right, but that is a personal choice. Creationism itself however should be undeniable.

Well, to be exact, creation theory is not a theory by definition. Again this is another example of using pseudo-scientific reasoning to use logic to prove the illogical. A theory is based upon facts, which are observable and subject to experimentation. Any scientific experiment must be reproducible by anybody. Creation theory fails to meet these requirements so you all have the moral obligation to stick to the rules and drop the theory crap when referring to creationism (because that is what is being referred to here).

How are creationist observations less valid than non? The fact that there are two or more conclusions drawn while observing the same information does not negate one theory or another. Would you care to explaing to me how the Big Bang is reproducable by anybody, or is subject to experimentation?

Yeah, I'm glad you pointed that out. The terms "Creation science" is contradictory in nature since there is zero "science" or "evidence" behind it at all, therefore nullifying all of the proposed "creationist theories".

LOL. How's the Cool-Aid.

 

[PinkZebra]

..............

 

[All Else Failed]

You mean like gravity? Maybe the Big Bang then?

Creation of matter from non-matter is a fact. It isn't a crazy religious thing, it's observation. As it stands today, that is not only true, but also impossible.

If it's true AND impossible, then something unnatural (or supernatural, as nature didn't exist in the void)MUST have happened. The details are debatable, but the facts are not. I personally feel that Christianity has it right, but that is a personal choice. Creationism itself however should be undeniable.



How are creationist observations less valid than non? The fact that there are two or more conclusions drawn while observing the same information does not negate one theory or another. Would you care to explaing to me how the Big Bang is reproducable by anybody, or is subject to experimentation?



LOL. How's the Cool-Aid.

Said the religious person.


Creationist "observations" aren't worth spit because there is no evidence behind their claims. Your tired use of "LOL thingz exzizt so der iz a gott!" is the ultimate in intellectual cop-outs because like I said before, the only thing that the fact that things exist proves, IS THAT THINGS EXIST, and nothing else. You're playing all the neat little Kent Hovind cards, and its rather funny.

Maybe you should have read the links of matter and energy appearing "out of nowhere".


Can you reproduce or experiment with the supposed divine creation of everything? Nope. However, we are working on seeing how the big bang worked AND experimenting with it with CERN. With your logic, every scientist who dedicated their lives to science, and who OVERWHELMINGLY AGREE on big bang theory and evolution are in some vast conspiracy because you don't agree with them.

 

[lumpenstein]

How are creationist observations less valid than non? The fact that there are two or more conclusions drawn while observing the same information does not negate one theory or another. Would you care to explaing to me how the Big Bang is reproducable by anybody, or is subject to experimentation?

Nice try twisting what I said. The Big Bang is an inferred theory based on observable facts. I never said anybody could reproduce it. Reread my post more carefully: "Any scientific experiment must be reproducible by anybody.". I never said the Big Bang was an experiment, unless somebody wishes to use some vague and nondescript quotation from the bible that "proves" the universe is just some supernatural being's experiment.

Let's also look at "observation" and determine what it really means. If a person observes that water turns solid at a certain temperature, then liquifies above that temperature, then again solidifies below that temperature one can logically conclude that temperature is the freezing temperature of water. That is a theory based on real observation but if some religious person looks around doe-eyed at the forms of nature, including the shapes of clouds and trees and can't even comprehend the workings behind the complexity of life then concludes that his obversations are due to the workings of a superior being, that is not supported by fact or observation or reproducible experimentation.

Look around, enjoy the wonders of the world and even believe in fairytales if you want, but don't try to bullshit me into thinking it has even a modicum of credibility. It reminds me of the old argument:

"I saw something in the sky last night."

"What was it?"

"It was a UFO!"

"How do you know?"

"What else could it be? Prove it wasn't!"

 

[lumpenstein]

P.S.

To quote:

How are creationist observations less valid than non?

To add to what I posted above, one has to understand how the observations are handled. The scientist uses facts to draw a conclusion, no matter if he agrees with it or not. The religious zealot draws a conclusion then seeks out only those facts that support the conclusion. That is intellectual dishonesty of the highest level. If a scientist acted that way he would be laughed out of his field and would never be believed again. Yet for the zealot it is a mission statement, a credo. It is haughty, pretentious and comptemptuous.

 

[All Else Failed]

at the rate lump is going this forum won't need me anymore! haha

 

[Ryder]

I in all complete truth do not have an answer to the question in which this thread was made. I have no answer.

 

[Alien Allen]

at the rate lump is going this forum won't need me anymore! haha

Ya think :24:

This is one of his pet topics that he is tough to argue with if one uses logic.

 

[Sam]

Ya think :24:

This is one of his pet topics that he is tough to argue with if one uses logic.

True !!!! very true... :24::24::24::24::24:

 

[lumpenstein]

Who? Me? :confused

 

[Alien Allen]

Careful Lumpy

There are some weak minded souls here that do not like to have their faith questioned.

But then you already know that dont ya

Happy New Year fellow atheist

 

[Tim]

I find it quite amusing that this debate is going on, Christians vs Science. We could move this over to any other faith and it would be the same discussion. If you guys were born and raised in the middle east, you would be swearing that Allah created the earth. So depending where you were born and what religion your parents were, decides what you believe. So your religion is right depending on where you are born, but science is universal... Hmmm, makes you wonder.

 

[The Joker]

I find it quite amusing that this debate is going on, Christians vs Science. We could move this over to any other faith and it would be the same discussion. If you guys were born and raised in the middle east, you would be swearing that Allah created the earth. So depending where you were born and what religion your parents were, decides what you believe. So your religion is right depending on where you are born, but science is universal... Hmmm, makes you wonder.

Christians criticize us for our beliefs, so we return the favour.

 

[groundpounder]

at the rate lump is going this forum won't need me anymore! haha

:confused Oh, I'm sorry, were you thinking that the forum needed you before lump got here? :humm::smiley24:

It didn't.


But go ahead and tell your buddies down at the coffee shop how you keep this place in check :laughat:



More like, "AEF's here, no wait what, he's not? Oh, there he is again. Now he's gone again?" :gives:

 

[Minor Axis]

The religious zealot draws a conclusion then seeks out only those facts that support the conclusion.

Agreed. They know God exists before they try to prove it.

 

[Alien Allen]

:confused Oh, I'm sorry, were you thinking that the forum needed you before lump got here? :humm::smiley24:

It didn't.


But go ahead and tell your buddies down at the coffee shop how you keep this place in check :laughat:



More like, "AEF's here, no wait what, he's not? Oh, there he is again. Now he's gone again?" :gives:

hmmm

must be some history here eh?? :willy_nilly: