Carson: Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil

[IronWing]

Oh that's right, the ptolemaic system held sway over scientific thinking for about 1,500 years.

<insert ORLY owl here>

Fifteen hundred years is a very long time given that the first Latin translation of the Tetrabiblos came in 12th century and it was on the way out by the 17th century. Perhaps you could provide evidence that the system was accepted by natural philosophers for a 1500 year period? The Ptolemaic system was adopted by the Church with the support of Thomas Aquinas as a crutch for theology. Systems that did not conform to Aristotle's cosmology (as elaborated by Ptolomy) were suppressed by the Church.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no contradiction. Christians belief that everything with a beginning has a cause. As far as the bible is concerned, God had no beginning, so he has no cause.

It's simply scriptural, insanely simple to understand.

It would be contradictory to say God has a beginning, but has no cause.

I don't get the hostility to religion that some people on this forum have, and so I'm not trying to denigrate your faith or anything here, but from a logical standpoint any problem the universe has from a necessity of creation, beginning, whatever standpoint, is also faced by God. (and arguably is a much larger problem for God as he is much more complex)

I mean if we can accept an eternal God then why not an eternal universe?

 

[Exophase]

I'm sure there is no way you could of discerned it was a joke. Autism is tough.

I love this brand of SJW who also calls people retarded and autistic.

And I think you meant "could have" but you'll probably call me autistic too for pointing that out.

 

[nakedfrog]

"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
— Deuteronomy 25:11-12

This seems like a weirdly specific ruling. Maybe that was a more common method of breaking up fights in that time/region?

Actually, the purpose of life is to live forever. Propagating our genes through reproduction is just the only means of that available to us now. But a perfectly evolved being would be immortal.
Every living being seeks indefinite survival, and all religions promise it.
A 13 billion year old universe and evolution smack at those promises. Many people don't want to hear that the universe wasn't made just for them, or that they're not the ones who get to live forever.

Well, I'm pretty sure our current mental state isn't compatible with existing that long.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you accept on faith that it's possible for something to have "beauty and order" without a designer, as long as the thing has no beginning. Great.

No, I accept that God has on beginning.

The pre-Big Bang singularity had no beginning - it always existed.

Well, its scientific that something has always existed, yet, you call Christians "lazy" for saying the same thing about God that you say about the singularity?

How interesting that God and the singularity has always existed!

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't get the hostility to religion that some people on this forum have, and so I'm not trying to denigrate your faith or anything here, but from a logical standpoint any problem the universe has from a necessity of creation, beginning, whatever standpoint, is also faced by God. (and arguably is a much larger problem for God as he is much more complex)

I understand, but disagree. Simply put, God is THE starting point, that's why from our standpoint, God doesn't suffer from the same issue.

Now, God would be subject to that if God's existence depended on, or was tied to, the material world, but since God isn't, God is the exception.

I mean if we can accept an eternal God then why not an eternal universe?

Because that doesn't match our observations in the physical world.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand, but disagree. Simply put, God is THE starting point, that's why from our standpoint, God doesn't suffer from the same issue.

I'm saying the universe doesn't require a starting point any more than God does.

Now, God would be subject to that if God's existence depended on, or was tied to, the material world, but since God isn't, God is the exception.

Sure, but this is just a statement of theology. You're of course welcome to believe that, but it's not like it's a statement grounded in empirical evidence. An identical statement could be made about the universe.

Because that doesn't match our observations in the physical world.

How does it not match our observations in the physical world? I'm unaware of any observations that would discount an eternal 'creation'. We don't know what happened before the big bang, for example. We also don't know what other universes might be out there, etc, etc.

 

[BxgJ]

No, I accept that God has on beginning.



Well, its scientific that something has always existed, yet, you call Christians "lazy" for saying the same thing about God that you say about the singularity?

How interesting that God and the singularity has always existed!

Actually the singularity is where the model(s) break down. So it's more accurate to say the big bang theory describes the expansion from a very early point, where the universe was incredibly hot and dense.

I would guess we at least need a theory of quantum gravity to proceed.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Carson's adviser -

And threads like this, are my favorite popcorn and lawn chair moments. I particularly enjoy when the religious use science against science. Then go on to tell us which science is believable to them, and which is not. It's gold Jerry, gold!

Playing the science has been wrong card, like it is an ace in the hole is epic stuff. Science wrong you say? It could be wrong again? You cannot make this stuff up, and it is comedy gold that seems to write itself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because that doesn't match our observations in the physical world.

ORLY? When did the physical world not exist?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

People like Rob just treat their God like some kind of get-out-of-rational-jail-free wild card.

Oh, why doesn't God have to have a beginning? Because God, duh. No, I can't show you. Why can't I show you? Because God, duh. But believe me, I know God. I also know what God wants, and he wants you to shut up and do what I say -- er, I mean what he says.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

ORLY? When did the physical world not exist?

Before God made anything, duh.

Reading the explanations of religious texts, offered up by adherents of a faith here, calls to mind an observation Shaw made "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."

You just beat me to it.

 

[shira]

No, I accept that God has on beginning.

So it's no stretch for you to also accept that the singularity had no beginning, either, right?

Well, its scientific that something has always existed, yet, you call Christians "lazy" for saying the same thing about God that you say about the singularity?

Just the opposite: YOU claim that it's possible for a thing to have no beginning. So I'm using your claim against you: The singularity has no beginning, either. Therefore, the universe has no designer.

How interesting that God and the singularity has always existed!

Actually, once you accept that the universe has always existed, you don't need God anymore, do you? I mean, how could God "design" a thing that already existed?

 

[JSt0rm]

I love this brand of SJW who also calls people retarded and autistic.

And I think you meant "could have" but you'll probably call me autistic too for pointing that out.

Who is pumping you full of this sjw meme? I meant whatever I say. The guy is autistic...

My first bible quote was this:

Originally Posted by Retro Rob
Ok does life have a purpose?

What is it?
dildos...

"You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them."
— Ezekiel 16:17 __________________


I mean it must be really hard to discern my joke. Lets talk about how he should of wrote "could have" and get mad he called us autistic. He must be a sjw (whatever the fuck that means)

 

[DAPUNISHER]

So it's no stretch for you to also accept that the singularity had no beginning, either, right?


Just the opposite: YOU claim that it's possible for a thing to have no beginning. So I'm using your claim against you: The singularity has no beginning, either. Therefore, the universe has no designer.


Actually, once you accept that the universe has always existed, you don't need God anymore, do you? I mean, how could God "design" a thing that already existed?

All you will get is mental gymnastics, cognitive dissonance, and debate fallacies. Which all equate to a simple position = Science can be wrong, and/or incomplete in scope of knowledge. Therefore, your position/arguments/beliefs/whatever they are, are invalid. However, the anthology of stories about the god of Abraham, written by primitives, that form the basis of the belief systems of billions of people, cannot be.

 

[Retro Rob]

So it's no stretch for you to also accept that the singularity had no beginning, either, right?

The singularity had no beginning because we can't see "before" the singularity.

Almost like the entire universe only had 9 planets at one time because we didn't "see" other planets.

Just the opposite: YOU claim that it's possible for a thing to have no beginning. So I'm using your claim against you: The singularity has no beginning, either. Therefore, the universe has no designer.

See my above post.

Actually, once you accept that the universe has always existed, you don't need God anymore, do you? I mean, how could God "design" a thing that already existed?

See above.

 

[BxgJ]

The singularity had no beginning because we can't see "before" the singularity.

Almost like the entire universe only had 9 planets at one time because we didn't "see" other planets.

Those two things are entirely different.

 

[Retro Rob]

Those two things are entirely different.

Of course, and I wasn't comparing the two, just the result when we have instruments that limit our abilities.

Better instruments increase our abilities and allows us deeper looks into the material world.

Really, our instruments don't allow us to see the 'supernatural', hence, scientifically, the supernatural doesn't exist.

That doesn't mean the supernatural actually doesn't exist.

 

[bshole]

All you will get is mental gymnastics, cognitive dissonance, and debate fallacies. Which all equate to a simple position = Science can be wrong, and/or incomplete in scope of knowledge. Therefore, your position/arguments/beliefs/whatever they are, are invalid. However, the anthology of stories about the god of Abraham, written by primitives, that form the basis of the belief systems of billions of people, cannot be.

I get no end of pleasure watching athiests shredding Dr Dino young earth creationism on youtube. I am addicted to it. Not the debates but the analysis of athiests on Dr Dino speeches. You should watch it. It is highly entertaining.

 

[Strk]

All you will get is mental gymnastics, cognitive dissonance, and debate fallacies. Which all equate to a simple position = Science can be wrong, and/or incomplete in scope of knowledge. Therefore, your position/arguments/beliefs/whatever they are, are invalid. However, the anthology of stories about the god of Abraham, written by primitives, that form the basis of the belief systems of billions of people, cannot be.

Yeah, it's kind of a nice way to distract from an argument by bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to it. We keep hearing about Ptolemy because he is for some reason relevant to modern science? I'm not sure where the method of bringing up something irrelevant to distract from the main discussion became the way to try and prove a point.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Almost like the entire universe only had 9 planets at one time because we didn't "see" other planets.

This is so wrong, I am forced to wonder if you are being deliberately disingenuous, or merely parading your ignorance. We were certain (the math was strong bro) there were other planets orbiting other stars, we just could not prove it. Until...we did.

 

[JSt0rm]

why does retro rob deserve 9 pages?

 

[nakedfrog]

Yeah, it's kind of a nice way to distract from an argument by bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to it. We keep hearing about Ptolemy because he is for some reason relevant to modern science? I'm not sure where the method of bringing up something irrelevant to distract from the main discussion became the way to try and prove a point.

Well, you see, the important thing to take away from it is that there are times when scientists haven't been perfectly accurate about how everything works, and the ability to take new information and revise your estimation of things is a fatal flaw that makes you completely untrustworthy and useless. Those morons a thousand years ago should have figured out the way the universe really works without having the necessary tools to do so, or at least had the intestinal fortitude to stick to their guns when there was evidence they were wrong.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Yeah, it's kind of a nice way to distract from an argument by bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to it. We keep hearing about Ptolemy because he is for some reason relevant to modern science? I'm not sure where the method of bringing up something irrelevant to distract from the main discussion became the way to try and prove a point.

For the proponents of the tactic it is very relevant. Science was wrong bro! Science will be wrong again bro! Why would you trust science bro? It will fail you bro! Now hold on to your hat bro, because I am going to use scientific evidence, to prove there is an intelligent designer!

 

[nakedfrog]

why does retro rob deserve 9 pages?

Because some of us want to see what dumb thing he's going to say next? :hmm:

Not that I'm one of them. At all. I am strictly here to engage in riveting debate ()