407 replies to this topic

[Ion Cannon!]

Its still killing yes but the 3 examples you provided were all very different. You cannot simply lump them all together.

[SorataZ]

@Alias: do you even TRY to read what I write?
@IonCannon: I have got better things to do than arguing with you wether comparing the killing of people because of different reasons is right or not.

[Wizard]

I can see which way this is going to go and I'd like to remind EVERYONE that EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinions on these forums and that we are discussing WHAT IS YOUR RELIGION. Not who did what to whom, when, why and is it bad.

[Revan]

Despite being christened cathloic and thinking of myself as atheist for a while, I am really agonistic. My mother had me christened because my grandparents on my fathers side were making fuss about it and she didn't want any to start any family wars. Not that it mattered that much, I left christianity relatively soon, at the age of 10, I think, because all the religious rituals I had to go through pissed me off. Most of my friends stayed, if only to get tons of money from all their christian relatives once they got confirmed. Either way, I do not regret my choice. For a long time I didn't really know what I was (although I am Jedi in the school database ), until my maths teacher explained agnosticism to our class. Ever since then I've considered myself agnostic, as in my eyes it's the only "truthful" religious opinion, because it does not involve beliving in something that currently cannot be proved.

[amazin]

they still have not proven how life started though

[Golan]

How should they? Science isn't about being right, it's about not being as wrong as others.

Edited by Golan, 30 April 2009 - 14:30.

[Revan]

umm not dachamp, on 30 Apr 2009, 16:19, said:

they still have not proven how life started though

Neither has Religion. However both sides have theories, most classic religious ones can be disproven very easily, whileas the big bang theory can not (at current) be disproven.

[amazin]

when has creationism been disproven?

[Ion Cannon!]

If your talking about true creationism. Well we know for sure the world isn't 5000 years old.

[CommanderJB]

umm not dachamp, on 1 May 2009, 9:29, said:

when has creationism been disproven?

That's not what you asked. You asked whether or not it had been proved. Creationism hasn't. Taking the absence of disproof as proof and refusing to believe scientific evidence and logical argument that shows that the conditions described in Genesis go against all observed conclusions of the operation of the known universe is a skewed viewpoint to say the least.

[amazin]

have you seen the movie "Inherit the Wind"?

spencer tracy's character pretty much sums up my view in the end

[CommanderJB]

No, I haven't. Would you mind outlining it?

[Alias]

CommanderJB, on 1 May 2009, 10:54, said:

umm not dachamp, on 1 May 2009, 9:29, said:

when has creationism been disproven?

That's not what you asked. You asked whether or not it had been proved. Creationism hasn't. Taking the absence of disproof as proof and refusing to believe scientific evidence and logical argument that shows that the conditions described in Genesis go against all observed conclusions of the operation of the known universe is a skewed viewpoint to say the least.

There's as much logic in a God creating the universe as there is in a magical explosion appearing out of nowhere. They both have an equal amount of evidence: none.

Due to the 'colour' of my religion, as with an afterlife I don't really need to think about what happened at the "beginning".

[CommanderJB]

Alias, on 1 May 2009, 18:31, said:

CommanderJB, on 1 May 2009, 10:54, said:

umm not dachamp, on 1 May 2009, 9:29, said:

when has creationism been disproven?

That's not what you asked. You asked whether or not it had been proved. Creationism hasn't. Taking the absence of disproof as proof and refusing to believe scientific evidence and logical argument that shows that the conditions described in Genesis go against all observed conclusions of the operation of the known universe is a skewed viewpoint to say the least.

There's as much logic in a God creating the universe as there is in a magical explosion appearing out of nowhere. They both have an equal amount of evidence: none.

Are you familiar with Hubble's Law? This and a whole range of other methods (such as background microwave imaging, element distribution, and examination of stellar ages and life cycles) all point toward space having expanded from a single point and peg its age at around thirteen and a half billion years. I know that you have said that you believe the Bible is more a collection of parables - I actually take much the same view - but I was referring to creationism as it is generally referred to (and, in some cases, taught as) - as the story of Genesis, that God created the world in seven days et cetera et cetera, which is using the above evidence demonstrably not correct. I do agree however that plugging a God into the Big Bang theory works quite nicely however and would explain an awful lot, and has no more or less evidence than the scientific view on the origin of the Big Bang (so much as there is one, anyway).

Edited by CommanderJB, 01 May 2009 - 09:05.

[Alias]

The fact that matter originated from one location by no means rules creationism as 'wrong', who says that God didn't create the universe starting from this time and location? Even in a literal interpretation, the bible doesn't say that a "day" is 24 hours, you are simply taking the stereotypical interpretation. As with your last sentence, I wholeheartedly agree. No specification is said to the way the universe was created.

[CodeCat]

You might as well argue that the universe was created, including our memories, last Thursday. The main issue with this as well as with the general argument 'God created it that way' is that it's not falsifiable, so it's not scientific. For any hypothesis to be scientific, it must be logically possible to disprove it.

Edited by CodeCat, 01 May 2009 - 10:50.

[Alias]

The nature of this discussion is philosophical, not scientific, and as such does not need to be proven by science.

Edited by Alias, 01 May 2009 - 10:52.

[Chyros]

Alias, on 1 May 2009, 10:31, said:

CommanderJB, on 1 May 2009, 10:54, said:

umm not dachamp, on 1 May 2009, 9:29, said:

when has creationism been disproven?

That's not what you asked. You asked whether or not it had been proved. Creationism hasn't. Taking the absence of disproof as proof and refusing to believe scientific evidence and logical argument that shows that the conditions described in Genesis go against all observed conclusions of the operation of the known universe is a skewed viewpoint to say the least.

There's as much logic in a God creating the universe as there is in a magical explosion appearing out of nowhere. They both have an equal amount of evidence: none.

Did you know we can detect residual microwaves of the Big Bang, to such a degree that they disrupt measurements on Earth?

[Alias]

Chyros, on 1 May 2009, 21:31, said:

Alias, on 1 May 2009, 10:31, said:

CommanderJB, on 1 May 2009, 10:54, said:

umm not dachamp, on 1 May 2009, 9:29, said:

when has creationism been disproven?

That's not what you asked. You asked whether or not it had been proved. Creationism hasn't. Taking the absence of disproof as proof and refusing to believe scientific evidence and logical argument that shows that the conditions described in Genesis go against all observed conclusions of the operation of the known universe is a skewed viewpoint to say the least.

There's as much logic in a God creating the universe as there is in a magical explosion appearing out of nowhere. They both have an equal amount of evidence: none.

Did you know we can detect residual microwaves of the Big Bang, to such a degree that they disrupt measurements on Earth?

As I responded before, that by no means says that God did not cause the Big Bang. I never said the Big Bang never happened, I just said that it coming from nothing is as unlikely as it coming from a God, and as such the both have no evidence.

[Chyros]

Alias, on 1 May 2009, 13:33, said:

Chyros, on 1 May 2009, 21:31, said:

Alias, on 1 May 2009, 10:31, said:

CommanderJB, on 1 May 2009, 10:54, said:

umm not dachamp, on 1 May 2009, 9:29, said:

when has creationism been disproven?

That's not what you asked. You asked whether or not it had been proved. Creationism hasn't. Taking the absence of disproof as proof and refusing to believe scientific evidence and logical argument that shows that the conditions described in Genesis go against all observed conclusions of the operation of the known universe is a skewed viewpoint to say the least.

There's as much logic in a God creating the universe as there is in a magical explosion appearing out of nowhere. They both have an equal amount of evidence: none.

Did you know we can detect residual microwaves of the Big Bang, to such a degree that they disrupt measurements on Earth?

As I responded before, that by no means says that God did not cause the Big Bang. I never said the Big Bang never happened, I just said that it coming from nothing is as unlikely as it coming from a God, and as such the both have no evidence.

I disagree there. There is no evidence God didn't cause the Big Bang, true, partly because you can always postulate a god in such a way there is no way to disprove it, but this means there IS evidence for a Big Bang. Now and seeing as how the bible (or any other religious book) describes creation as the Big Bang, I very much consider this evidence for the scientific approach and evidence against creationism.

[TehKiller]

Chyros, on 1 May 2009, 12:42, said:

I disagree there. There is no evidence God didn't cause the Big Bang, true, partly because you can always postulate a god in such a way there is no way to disprove it, but this means there IS evidence for a Big Bang. Now and seeing as how the bible (or any other religious book) describes creation as the Big Bang, I very much consider this evidence for the scientific approach and evidence against creationism.

Care to elaborate this?

[Chyros]

TehKiller, on 1 May 2009, 17:58, said:

Chyros, on 1 May 2009, 12:42, said:

I disagree there. There is no evidence God didn't cause the Big Bang, true, partly because you can always postulate a god in such a way there is no way to disprove it, but this means there IS evidence for a Big Bang. Now and seeing as how the bible (or any other religious book) describes creation as the Big Bang, I very much consider this evidence for the scientific approach and evidence against creationism.

Care to elaborate this?

As I said, we can detect residual microwaves of the Big Bang. So there is direct evidence for it.

[Stinger]

This is going way off topic.

Please lead by example, Moderating Team.

[amazin]

how do we know that microwaves are from the big bang, im sure there are different forces in space that we cannot even begin to comprehend any time soon, until we find a way to see even further into space.

that is one of the reasons i disagree with the big bang...

"first there was nothing, then there was a big ball of something, then it blew up and there was the universe"

Quote

No, I haven't. Would you mind outlining it?

one of the ideas presented in the movie (it is about the trail that decided if evolution could be taught in U.S. schools, which i do not disagree with) is that a "day" to god could be totally different from the 24 hour earth day. so when the bible says a day (which, as i have said, i think much of genesis is a metaphor) for all we know it could have been billions of years.

i just believe that there is wayyy to much of a coincidence that there was a puddle with some chemicals in it, then lightning struck it and single celled organisms magically came to life. and over time, those organisms evolved into multi-celled, then developed appendages, and got a central nervous system (verrry hard to believe), then got a conscience, and then you have man.

[Revan]

umm not dachamp, on 3 May 2009, 0:20, said:

how do we know that microwaves are from the big bang, im sure there are different forces in space that we cannot even begin to comprehend any time soon, until we find a way to see even further into space.

that is one of the reasons i disagree with the big bang...

"first there was nothing, then there was a big ball of something, then it blew up and there was the universe"

You completely misunderstand the Big Bang theory, it does not at all state that at first there was nothing, it is not a theory about the creation of the universe itself, it is a theory (the theory supported with the most evidence) about how our current universe was created and states that at some finite time in the past all that we now know as the universe was condensed in a very small ammount of space etc... etc... it does NOT state what was before, especially not that there was nothing.

Quote

Quote

No, I haven't. Would you mind outlining it?

one of the ideas presented in the movie (it is about the trail that decided if evolution could be taught in U.S. schools, which i do not disagree with) is that a "day" to god could be totally different from the 24 hour earth day. so when the bible says a day (which, as i have said, i think much of genesis is a metaphor) for all we know it could have been billions of years.

It may well have been, we just do not know. However there are very fundamental creationists who try to prove that the world is only a few thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived together with cavemen (or was it in medievil? I don't remember, don't quote me on the dinosaur issue) either way, that is quite absurd in my eyes as we do have quite a lot of scientific evidence pointing the other way.

Quote

i just believe that there is wayyy to much of a coincidence that there was a puddle with some chemicals in it, then lightning struck it and single celled organisms magically came to life. and over time, those organisms evolved into multi-celled, then developed appendages, and got a central nervous system (verrry hard to believe), then got a conscience, and then you have man.

In my eyes aswell, the history of creation is a huge coincidence. I do not see, however, how that is in any way a problem. If you have billions of planets, a huge coincidence will happen on one at some point. The thing is, we are the only planet containing life that we know of, therefor we may as well be a very rare occurance.