The creationists are BACK

[SillyWabbit]

Oh not at all. You can't observe God, you can't test for God. As oppose to scientific theories like gravity and evolution where we have mounds of evidence. We can observe gravity. Go and drop something on the floor. And we can observe evolution as well.

My point isn't that God can or can't be observed. It's that, since we do not know the why of things, God exists.
At least in our head.

did you just admit that god only exists in your mind???

Well, if I see him walking down the street I'll let you know. Then again, maybe I'll keep it to myself.

 

[Woyzeck]

My point isn't that God can or can't be observed. It's that, since we do not know the why of things, God exists.
At least in our head.

People do have a habit of using the large gaps in science knowledge and plugging God into them.

can you provide an example of this?

Creationism itself, and this thread via extension is a good example. But that's mostly evangelical theology clashing with science again. Five hundred years ago it was heliocentric view of the universe, now it's evolution.

It can be boiled down to the fallacy of "science can't explain this? must be God." The lack of knowledge it one area does not mean God is responsible, or even exists because of it. It's what Jack and peach were doing earlier in the thread. They attributed the lack of science to explain the start of life from 'nothing' and doing so advance the argument of God being responsible.

 

[peach174]

they are getting pretty close. You say it as if it is easy. That we SHOULD be able to do it just because we believe in science. It is clear you don't understand science at all.

I say it because it is not easy at all. And proves how complex a living cell really is.
But science will never be able to create life from anything that is dead.

you can not create anything from something that is "dead"

although you can create something from nothing.

CERN creates and traps antimatter (Wired UK)

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the exististance of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

 

[Woyzeck]

Repeating something that's wrong doesn't make it magically become right.

Evolution has been proven and is observable in nature, it's a basic elementary level fact.

You are correct so why do you lie about it? Evolution has not nor has ever been proven Evolution is a theory and a theory only

since God hasnt been proven to exist, can well call him a theory as well????

No you can't. You can't call it a scientific theory on par with evolution, gravity or the theory of relativity because there's no observable evidence to form a scientific theory from it.

It'd be more accurate to call it a fantasy.

 

[BlindBoo]

I say it because it is not easy at all. And proves how complex a living cell really is.
But science will never be able to create life from anything that is dead.

you can not create anything from something that is "dead"

although you can create something from nothing.

CERN creates and traps antimatter (Wired UK)

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the exististance of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

 

[Skynet]

I say it because it is not easy at all. And proves how complex a living cell really is.
But science will never be able to create life from anything that is dead.

you can not create anything from something that is "dead"

although you can create something from nothing.

CERN creates and traps antimatter (Wired UK)

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the exististance of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

where did you poach this load of crap from?

and did you seriously just quote the "theory of particle physics?" is that by your logic crap because its a scientific theory? and therefore not factual?

and actually a complex living cell can be duplicated - its called cloning....... uh oh!

 

[Skynet]

You are correct so why do you lie about it? Evolution has not nor has ever been proven Evolution is a theory and a theory only

since God hasnt been proven to exist, can well call him a theory as well????

No you can't. You can't call it a scientific theory on par with evolution, gravity or the theory of relativity because there's no observable evidence to form a scientific theory from it.

It'd be more accurate to call it a fantasy.

i concede. it would be more logical to call it a fantasy

 

[Robert]

you can not create anything from something that is "dead"

although you can create something from nothing.

CERN creates and traps antimatter (Wired UK)

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the exististance of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

Is the Universe all there is?

How was the Universe created?

There are so many questions that will never be proven as a fact all we have are theory's and for much that's all we ever will have.

 

[Skynet]

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the exististance of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

Is the Universe all there is?

How was the Universe created?

There are so many questions that will never be proven as a fact all we have are theory's and for much that's all we ever will have.

if there was nothing before the big bang.... who or what created god? the super god?

 

[Robert]

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

Is the Universe all there is?

How was the Universe created?

There are so many questions that will never be proven as a fact all we have are theory's and for much that's all we ever will have.

if there was nothing before the big bang.... who or what created god? the super god?

You tell me because what ever the answer is it won't be a proven scientific fact

 

[Skynet]

Is the Universe all there is?

How was the Universe created?

There are so many questions that will never be proven as a fact all we have are theory's and for much that's all we ever will have.

if there was nothing before the big bang.... who or what created god? the super god?

You tell me because what ever the answer is it won't be a proven scientific fact

im not the one who believes in god, and i can readily admit that there are things that science has not been able to answer just yet.

you on the other hand can not except anything outside what the bible or god tell you.

 

[Robert]

if there was nothing before the big bang.... who or what created god? the super god?

You tell me because what ever the answer is it won't be a proven scientific fact

im not the one who believes in god, and i can readily admit that there are things that science has not been able to answer just yet.

you on the other hand can not except anything outside what the bible or god tell you.

I'm going to jump to a conclusion here and suggest you were dropped on your head as a child and suffered extreme brain damage.....Correct aren't I.

Now try to answer this question seeing as how its only one thread show me where I even suggested that I believe in God.......Go on you can do it.

 

[Jack Fate]

if there was nothing before the big bang.... who or what created god? the super god?

You tell me because what ever the answer is it won't be a proven scientific fact

im not the one who believes in god, and i can readily admit that there are things that science has not been able to answer just yet.

you on the other hand can not except anything outside what the bible or god tell you.

I think you have some misconceptions of what Christians believe and it's based on ignorance; the very thing you accuse Christians of.

 

[peach174]

you can not create anything from something that is "dead"

although you can create something from nothing.

CERN creates and traps antimatter (Wired UK)

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the existence of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

Perhaps from another time space continuum.
It is the age old question.
But we have recent scientic proof that the chicken came before the egg.
So maybe we will someday be able to answer this one also.

 

[Woyzeck]

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the exististance of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

Is the Universe all there is?

How was the Universe created?

There are so many questions that will never be proven as a fact all we have are theory's and for much that's all we ever will have.

They are called scientific theories because science doesn't claim to be infallible. Science, especially at this point where we don't know so much, doesn't claim to know everything. It always leaves a door open for something to come in and disprove it, because then our knowledge of the universe will be forwarded by the new information, and a new theory will be developed. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Theories can't be 100% proven, but they can be disproven. However, this does not mean you can assume they are false simply because they can only be disproven, otherwise there wouldn't be a point to them in the first place.

 

[Robert]

You tell me because what ever the answer is it won't be a proven scientific fact

im not the one who believes in god, and i can readily admit that there are things that science has not been able to answer just yet.

you on the other hand can not except anything outside what the bible or god tell you.

I think you have some misconceptions of what Christians believe and it's based on ignorance; the very thing you accuse Christians of.

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

im not the one who believes in god, and i can readily admit that there are things that science has not been able to answer just yet.

you on the other hand can not except anything outside what the bible or god tell you.

I think you have some misconceptions of what Christians believe and it's based on ignorance; the very thing you accuse Christians of.

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

Lol irony at its finest.

 

[Skynet]

im not the one who believes in god, and i can readily admit that there are things that science has not been able to answer just yet.

you on the other hand can not except anything outside what the bible or god tell you.

I think you have some misconceptions of what Christians believe and it's based on ignorance; the very thing you accuse Christians of.

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

 

[Robert]

I think you have some misconceptions of what Christians believe and it's based on ignorance; the very thing you accuse Christians of.

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

Again show me where I've stated I believe in either God or Creationism.

That large brush isn't working all that well is it.

 

[Skynet]

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

Again show me where I've stated I believe in either God or Creationism.

That large brush isn't working all that well is it.

feel free to clarify your position anytime now. your argument has been skewed against the theory of evolution since the beginning. if you dont believe in creationism either, by conjecture you believe in nothing.