Ohai Zlamous, I still love that people fall for your trolling.

You're still my favorite person.

>backed by science
>posted in the science channel

case closed

"backed by science "

did you mean "backed up by unverifiable claims"?

where would you have liked me to post it?

and yet all of you fall for him....

this is why 12 year olds shouldnt be given access to the internet

Awwww. Bless. The education system hasn't been kind to you, has it?

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

list of creation scientists. most of the greatest thinkers throughout history have been Christians.

Which has nothing to do with Evolution supposedly being non-scientific.
In that 1 step of flawed logic, I think you've demonstrated why you don't understand these things.

you claimed that my beliefs are based on lack of education, i just pointed out that most educated people agree with my positions, not yours. moron

Actually, you pointed out that *many* (not most) educated people/scientists (not the same fucking thing, asswipe) are Christian. I'm Christian. I still believe in evolution, however, much like EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SCIENTIST EVER.

Game. Set. Match. You lose, faggot.

So you don't believe we were created perfect then?

Nope. I think we evolved from single-celled organisms. Nice thing about science is, there's plenty of evidence to support this viewpoint.

So you don't believe God created us without sin?

Ah, now that's a different question. I don't believe that God specifically created us, but rather the conditions for us to exist in, and let evolution take over from there. It's a rather popular way of merging evolution and creationism, at least where I'm from. Completely unprovable either way, I shan't argue it. That being said, I would say that yes, we were *originally* free from sin, like all people, until the "original sin" of eating the forbidden apple.

So what do you believe about Eve since she was created out of Adam?

no idea, actually. Haven't figured out a good explanation for that one. I've always kind of assumed that much of the Bible is made up so that the people of the day could actually understand it, rather than explaining evolution it was easier to say that everything was just created by God.

So you don't believe what the Bible says in the beginning but you believe what it says half-way through?

An interesting series of questions. Is there a point to this?

As best I can tell, much of the Old Testament is either highly exaggerated and/or made up so that ancient people could understand it. The New Testament IMHO is true, except its true meaning has been long lost in translation. In short, nothing is really as it happened, but it may be possible to discern the truth in cases.

Christianity is the continuation of Judaism after the Messiah came so you believe in the Christianity but not the Judaism but they are interconnected because the old testament shows our corruption but you don't believe that he created us perfect which means that you believe the God created a flawed being.

True. If humans were perfect, there would have been no original sin.

To be sure, I believe many of the PRINCIPLES which the bible teaches. I believe many of the anecdotes. The explanations, however, are somewhat dubious. A burning bush that didn't burn up? You couldn't come up with ANYTHING better, even just a floating, glowing white angel? Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs? Why a RIB? Why not just create them separately? The Old Testament (which is indeed, mainly the Torah) is far less believable, but the underlying ideas remain and I still believe in those (and most morally upright people do too, BTW).

But morals aren't the point of the Bible! The point of the old testament is to show you man's corruption and the new testament is about Giving giving redemption to man through Jesus Christ and how being redeemed changes you into something new.

This is where I must respectfully disagree. Yes, the Old Testament shows man's corruption, and yes the New Testament is about redemption - but I don't believe they're true word for word. Nothing from the time is true word for word, we simply don't understand enough to be able to truly discern the meaning of any text so old.

But we should be able to understand them since the majority of it was written by ordinary men turned prophet by God's call and ancient Hebrew and Greek are simpler languages then English since English is the most complex language known.

" I still believe in evolution, however, much like EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SCIENTIST EVER. "

did Newton believe in evolution? did Einstein? did Galileo? did Copernicus?

As a matter of fact, Einstein did. Allow me to rephrase, however - every scientist since the invention of evolution has basically accepted it as true, due to the overwhelming evidence. I would think it would be obvious that you can't believe in something that hasn't been invented yet, but apparently some people are too dense to understand this.

You can't argue it, you're going to lose horribly just like everyone else that tries to argue with sound science.

there are serious objections to evolution theory. maybe you should look at both sides of the debate instead of being so narrow minded

I am aware of the other side. I reject it as invalid due to the far superior, REAL science supporting evolution.

Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. There's no evidence of intelligent design - this is not evidence of its existence! There is however, plenty of evidence (fossil record, DNA evidence etc) supporting evolution, and it is currently the most widely accepted theory and basically unanimous among scientists.

most scientists are pressured into believing evolution they'll get ridiculed if they don't accept it. the 'evidence' supporting evolution is very flimsy. and the evidence contradicting it is much stronger

Actually, no. Scientists are not pressured into believing anything, despite what you might think. Scientists are logically minded people who think for themselves.

Adding to this, you haven't given any scientifically valid arguments against evolution. Your position is weak and unfounded, while I stand on solid ground.

no scientist has ever been pressured to believe something by the scientific community? all scientists are logically minded free thinkers?

All the good ones, the ones that do sound science - yep. Haven't met one yet that wasn't free thinking.

Dude, you already lost. Give it up.

"All the good ones"

Poisoning the well.

Not at all. It would only be poisoning the well if I were not to have equated them.

Now you're just trying to use rhetorical fallacies to bring everyone down, while your basic facts are incorrect. Pointing out weakness in an argument style doesn't weaken the argument itself.

your poisoning the well by implying that creationism is wrong because creation scientists aren't credible

" Pointing out weakness in an argument style doesn't weaken the argument itself.

...what?

>"makes me upset when people claim that evolution is supported by science"

Ignorance isn't a belief.
You can accept science, or you can be wrong.
(And just to clarify, because you'll probably pull me up on it; accepting that, by definition, science works at explaining the universe is NOT the same as taking any scientific theory as absolute, indisputable fact because that would be almost as stupid as denying it in the first place)

based on my research, evolution is not a valid theory. it's a hypothesis at best. there's a lot of evidence that contradicts it (irreducible complexity, genetic limits, non viability of transitional forms)

Because your research is definitely more valid than the rest of the scientific community.

While the initial idea was obviously a hypothesis, every observation ever made has either not conflicted or actually supported it, because otherwise views would be adjusted based on what is observed. As is the nature of science.
Answer me this; if you're right and there's not a shred of scientific data supporting evolution, and not only that but there are huge logic flaws in the idea that made it completely invalid, then why has it taken a planet full of professionals over 150 years to say anything?

just because i haven't done original, empirical research doesnt mean i cant examine the available scientific data on the issue and make an informed decision about it's validity.

"every observation ever made has either not conflicted or actually supported it, because otherwise views would be adjusted based on what is observed"

I just gave you examples of observations that conflict with the idea.

" then why has it taken a planet full of professionals over 150 years to say anything?

This is an appeal to autority. majority. it's a logical fallacy

You gave examples, but why should I trust you over every other scientist that's worked in this field?
It's only a fallacy if I am actually viewing them as the authority, but they are all individual scientists making their own individual conclusions, where no one person has relevant authority over the next. My point is not that so many people hold a view and therefore it must be right, but that out of everyone to evaluate the theory, a different conclusion (specifically your different conclusion) should have cropped up years ago, but didn't.
The voice of the masses isn't necessarily correct, but that in that closed group, there isn't an alternative to consider.

" but why should I trust you over every other scientist that's worked in this field? "

u shouldn't just trust me blindly. look up irreducibly complexity. examine both sides of the debate.

"but that out of everyone to evaluate the theory, a different conclusion (specifically your different conclusion) should have cropped up years ago, but didn't. "

But there is an alternative theory and it did crop up years ago, it's called intelligent design and it's accepted by many scientists

Intelligent design is accepted by a lot less scientist than you seem to think it does. Also, I find it weird that you say there's no evidence for evolution, but then go on to say that intelligent design is such a wonderful theory when it is logically impossible to have evidence of that "theory" if it can even be called that.

"it is logically impossible to have evidence of that "theory" if it can even be called that. "

examples of design in nature is all that's needs to confirm intelligent design. the lack of any other valid explanation means that intelligent design is the best supported theory available

That would actually be called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Also, what examples in nature?

if a theory is supported by evidence, even a little bit, and there are no other valid explanations, the theory is the best current explanation. thats just a fact.

the best example of design in nature is DNA. DNA contains coded information. codes come from minds, not from natural laws

The codes you talk about are merely our definition of codes. We have names for almost anything, but the existence of the DNA information came before the word and the knowledge of it.

Evolution has much more evidence behind it then Intelligent design. The existence of coded information in DNA only proves the existence of coded information in DNA, nothing more.

our definition of codes is based on observable reality. we've never observed ordered, coherent, coded information arise from just chemistry. this is an impossibility

Referring to comment #136 (there's no room left to reply)

I am not a biologist and that last question did stump me a bit because I'm not quite sure how DNA and RNA originated. I found a website about genetics and I would like to direct you to it because otherwise I'd just be restating what they say.
genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask110

But I'd like to add that not knowing something does not increase the truth value of something else. For instance, if we didn't know about gravity, then it doesn't give any credence to the claim that the god Atlas is the one holding up the earth and that is why we don't fall.

Actually we have. RNA also contains coded information and it has been produced in a lab. There are many articles.

Also, I thought I'd add that claiming it as impossible is an argument from ignorance.

assuming this is true the RNA must have been intelligently designed by scientists who set up the conditions and assisted it's creation. this is not an example of natural laws, by themselves, producing RNA

I dare you to find a shred of evidence to support the existence of a higher power/interventionalist deity.

In your own words, it is not a valid theory. it's a hypothesis at best.

I don't think God's existence can't be proven or disproven through science, if thats the type of evidence your looking for. (modern science supports and is compatible with the idea of a creator though)

I think the best evidence for God is the cosmological and ontological arguments

kalam cosmological argument:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. the universe began to exist

3. the universe had a cause

ontological argument(William Lane Craig's version):

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2.if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6.Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Referring to comment 184 about omnipotence. Omnipotence means all-powerful and is logically impossible as proven by my example earlier. Given the counter example, it cannot be omnipotent and therefore it cannot be considered a maximal being. I'm pretty sure that I heard something about omnibenevolence being logically impossible as well.

Took me forever to find a place where I could actually reply.

just because God can't do something logically contradictory doesn't mean he's not omnipotent, like i said omnipotent means able to do any possible thing

Omnipotent means all powerful. It does not mean all powerful, except for the things that just aren't possible.

God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. the argument defines omnipotence incorrectly

That passage is referring to Jesus and says that he is the imprint of God's nature. It does not support your claim.

It's against his nature to do something that's logically contradictory? Who said that? Where did you find that information? I saw you said that you were Christian earlier so I'd like to point out that the bible doesn't say that about him so I'm not quite sure why you believe that.

Hebrews 1:3

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Neither one of those definitions supports your definition of it. "within its own nature" does not mean that it is bound by the rules of nature but by the nature of the deity.

it's against God's nature to do something that's logically contradictory

Being able to do only things that are within nature is not omnipotence. The definition is all powerful, not all powerful minus this. You define him as something that transcends time and space but then place him within the bounds of nature. You're contradicting earlier statements.

None of those definitions*

there are different types of omnipotence

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings

I think I disagree with the first one, the kalam cosmological argument, simply because the first step doesn't have any real substance to it. It's a statement, yeah, but there's no way to tell whether it's right or not.

if you want to claim that the argument is invalid you have to demonstrate that one of the premises is wrong or that conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. you'll have trouble if you attempt this, because the kalam cosmological argument is airtight.

Since there was nothing before it you can't call it a beginning as you would need some frame of reference.
Anyway, neither of your arguments prove theism or are in any way logically sound.

to 'always exist' is to exist for an infinite amount of time. all you've done is redefine what it means to always exist

What dimensions are you talking about?Are you talking about multiverse theory?If you are that's unproven and we've never seen another dimension so we can't make judgements on them.

It would appear that way but it wouldn't be in reality.

dimensions exist independently of each other therefore its possible for something to exist in some dimensions and not others

Explain how something can exist in two dimensions.

an infinite cylinder, the shell of a sphere, the shell of a torus, if you zoomed in on each object, the surface would look like a flat plane

Explain how something could exist outside of time and how something like god could exist at all.

the same way something could exist in 2 dimensions

Forever would be since the beginning of time.

existing within time is not the only way something could exist. therefore that's incorrect

It's the same as always having existed.

always means forever

Always existed would mean since the beginning of time and since there was nothing before the universe there was no time. Therefore the universe always existed.
Since you refuse to qualify your arguments I imagine you can't do it therefore they are false.

'existing since the beginning of time' is not the same as 'existing forever'

The beginning of the universe was the beginning of existence therefore the universe did "always exist".
Now prove point one of cosmology and point three of ontology.

even if it was the beginning of all existence, that would just mean the existence has existed for a certain amount of time. it wouldn't mean that the universe always existed.

The first argument contains a special pleading fallacy. Is everything has a cause then the god must also have a cause and there you go into infinite regression.

Second argument does not recognize existence as a conditional. Also, 3 and 4 are matters of opinion.

the argument states that everything which beings to exist has a cause. God is eternal so he never began to exist, meaning he didn't need to be caused

"Second argument does not recognize existence as a conditional. "

please clarify

"3 and 4 are matters of opinion."

no, they follow logically from the previous premises

A "beginning" is again relative when you look at the nature of reality.What I meant by beginning was the point where entropy started.Since there was no time before the universe then it does technically have no beginning however there is also a point when everything started.
Anyway, none of this proves theism and it definitely doesn't prove Christianity.

" it does technically have no beginning however there is also a point when everything started. "

logically contradictory therefore false

Since the universe is everything it is also time. If it had a start time also had a start. "Always" is a relative term in this case.Also, again, a timeless cause for the universe doesn't have to be a god.It could be an immaterial force rather than any sort of divine intelligence.

so your admitting that the universe had a beginning?

and an immaterial force would have no ability to create anything

The universe would have to start existing at a set point.We're simply before the point of complete entropy.

if it had a starting point then it didnt always exist and therefore had a cause

Again,prove the universe has to have a cause.

entropy. if the universe always existed, if would be completely chaotic

The cause wouldn't have to be any of those things.In fact the universe doesn't even necessarily need a cause.

time exists within the universe so a cause outside the universe wouldn't be effected by time, it would have to be timeless. it would have to be immaterial for similar reasons,and it would have to be causeless to avoid an infinite regress

Uh huh.But it really doesn't prove god.Just that the universe had to have a cause.Also you need to find a proof of the first point.And you also need to prove point 3 of the ontological argument.

the cause would have to be timeless, causeless, immaterial, and all powerful, this is the definition of God.

But the first point of the argument says for it to exist it has to have a cause.So either the argument disproves God or God disproves the argument.

Sorry, replied to the wrong person.

Referring to comment 184 about omnipotence. Omnipotence means all-powerful and is logically impossible as proven by my example earlier. Given the counter example, it cannot be omnipotent and therefore it cannot be considered a maximal being. I'm pretty sure that I heard something about omnibenevolence being logically impossible as well.

the first point says everything that begins to exist has a cause not that everything that exists has a cause. see the difference?

Actually that's not even the inverse.

If God had no cause by the inverse of the first point God does not exist.

God has always existed so he didn't need to be caused to exist.

"No, logically incoherent and self-contradictory things are not possible. they do not exist in possible worlds."

And therefore your ultimate being cannot exist. Omnipotence which would be needed for a "maximal being" is a logical contradiction. For example, can this being create something so heavy that even it cannot lift it?

omnipotence means able to any possible thing

what you're describing isn't a possible thing, so no God couldn't do it, but that doesnt mean he's not omnipotent

I don't see why it would have to be immaterial. If something existed before the big bang it is already timeless. And anything can be causeless unless it has a cause. The laws of physics do not apply to anything before the big bang because the laws of physics only came after the big bang.

we're talking about laws of logic, not laws of physics

It's not logically incoherent, it's just quantum mechanics. Nothing on the quantum level is actually something and matter on the quantum scale is theorized to not obey the laws of physics.

So you mean possible reality by possible world. Perhaps, but we're talking about this reality. Anything can exist in a possible reality and then you can go through the same steps to "prove" that anything exists. Again the mistake of the whole thing is when you take it from the possible reality and then say it is a reality.

" Anything can exist in a possible reality"

No, logically incoherent and self-contradictory things are not possible. they do not exist in possible worlds.

And it could very well be causeless and timeless (Doesn't have to be immaterial) because before the big bang, time did not exist.

something would have to immaterial in order to be causeless and timeless

Well, one theory is that the universe was created from nothing (although not your definition of nothing, but the quantum mechanics definition of nothing which is to say it's something; quite weird). If that is so then it is definitely something that could of always existed.

If something is possible it doesn't necessarily exist in a possible world. Also, I still don't understand what you mean by possible world. Like possible plane of time or something?

"one theory is that the universe was created from nothing (although not your definition of nothing, but the quantum mechanics definition of nothing which is to say it's something; quite weird). "

this is a logically incoherent idea so it can be dismissed

"If something is possible it doesn't necessarily exist in a possible world. "

if something can not exist in a conceivable reality, then it cannot exist.

Referring to comment #144 because again, there's no room to reply

First argument: Then the thing needed for the big bang could of always existed.

Second argument: I don't understand what you mean by 'possible world' and the argument fails as soon as you go from possibility to it does exist. That's a leap that is not supported by logic.

"Then the thing needed for the big bang could of always existed. "

it would have to be causeless, timeless and immaterial. the only concept that fits this description is God

" I don't understand what you mean by 'possible world'"

If something is possible, that means it exists in a possible world. you're literally claiming that nothing is possible

First argument again is special pleading. You cannot say everything has a cause then go on to say something was always there. I could do the same and say the things needed for the big bang were always there.

Second argument: If god does not exist then the whole argument is already over. That is what I mean by it does not recognize existence as a conditional. The possibility of a maximally great being existing doesn't mean it exists in some world. It means it possibly exists in some world (some world? what does that even mean?). The real problem starts with number 2, but 3 and 4 are opinions on what a maximally great being is.

You completely ignored what i just wrote. please go back and read the argument carefully. it states everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause. God didn't begin to exist. the argument proves that there was a causeless being that created the universe.

" If god does not exist then the whole argument is already over."

yes if you reject the conclusion of an argument without attacking the premises the discussion is over, but you could do that with literally any argument, so its a pointless statement. it's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalala

if a maximally great possible exists, then he exists in a possible world, that's what 'possible' means

What does it mean by a cause? I mean, what is the cause of a photon emitted by a sun beyond the edge of the observable universe? Or a small chunk of rock that floats somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?

i don't think i fully understand your objection.

the argument states that the universe was created, or caused ex-nihilo by a creator.

If, by "a cause", the first statement means what I think it means, then I was proposing 2 counter-examples, since I can't see that 1 particular, unimportant photon has some kind of purpose, likewise with the asteroid.

by cause i mean something that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

the universe couldnt have come into existence from nothing, for no reason

authority/majority is what i meant to type

But there wasn't time before the very start of existence. There wasn't a nothing to be created from because existence didn't exist. Saying there was a nothing and then there was a huge creation expanding and condensing would be false because there was less than a black nothingness, an absense of a void in which things could happen.

" There wasn't a nothing to be created from because existence didn't exist. "

this is a problem with atheism, not theism.

In what way is it a problem for atheism?

are you saying that the universe always existed?

Well, since always is a measure of time, and time itself was created with everything else, then I suppose so, yeah.

so if we looked into the past we'd see an infinite amount of time/events?

No, there would just be a sudden abrupt stop to everything. To assume you can look back infinitely is to assume that time never had a beginning.

"No, there would just be a sudden abrupt stop to everything. "

then you're saying the universe didn't always exist. 'always exist' means to exist for an infinite amount of time

I would argue that always means for all of time, and since time stops at the very beginning of creation, the universe has always existed, but its existence is not infinite.
Perhaps my choice of words were poor, I apologise. When you go backwards in the timeline of the universe, there will come a point where you cannot go back any further. To say it stops would indeed be implying something outside of time before the creation of time itself.

That's because it is.....

Sorry, you're just wrong.

Science is not consisted of opinions. Science describes reality.

I agree. and science doesn't support evolution theory.

Explain.

comment #56

not gonna repeat myself

www.notjustatheory.com/

Dont feed the troll

explain how I'm a troll. I haven't been unnecessarily rude or confrontational to anyone in this thread

your reputation betrays you

im still taller than you

[url deleted]

hmmm i see your point. i was thinking that the people who go to the science channel were the ones that would appreciate it

Don;t listen to that guy, he's a special one

Don't*
Now who's special?

damnit, your brain belongs in the atheism channel

huh?

oh shit, I guess that's not applicable, my bad

Damn it Ziamous, we're tired of your shit already.

I'm assuming because it's science related.

Don't tell me -- Christian?

No, actually he's a troll. He was banned for a LONG-ass time. I believe I made friends with the next account he made, purely because he seemed to have gotten better at trolling. It appears he hasn't.