Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Nothing became something = God Created the Universe!

What is not governed by space and time isn't going to be considered to be something in our time, IE it's what we would (in our minds) refer to as nothing.

God just adds a step, God created something out of nothing, so where did God come from? Nothing?

Or that "nothing" we cannot comprehend because it isn't bound by the time and space that was created when it became something always was, or add another step, making it infinitively more complex and an infinite number of steps more complicated to get to there, a God.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

Yes, the Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

And I've given you many arguments, and you've ignored them all. Don't expect me to do for you what you won't do for me.

While your "example" has already been discredited. The scientific community refutes this "scientific evidence" because it. is. not. science. You're not getting treated like a lunatic, you're being treated like an ignorant child. Did it take an intelligent design to make the sky blue?

Typical response for sure. When given an example it is refuted with you must be a child or ignorant without showing any direct evidence my supposition is wrong. What are you afraid of? You claim you want the truth but you won't even try to see all the evidence. Science you say is true definitive. But when science is used to refute past theories, it is ignorance. I for one want everyone to know what the truth is. If there is no God - prove it. If life evolved from the expanse of nothing - prove it. Until people are willing to see all the evidence nothing will change. So as someone else said - the argument is futile.

Look, it's not my fault that you're clearly stupid and haven't read any of my posts in this thread, okay?

And if you think that was uncalled-for, consider that I humored you earlier and tried to be nice and help you understand the actual argument being discussed, and this from you is what I get for it? You demand that I prove things that I have already demonstrated that I have no need nor desire to prove nor disprove?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Nothing became something = God Created the Universe!

Strange then that Mormons don't believe in ex nihilo.

How come I always know more about your own faith than you do?

 

[piasabird]

If you say look the universe is expanding that is only an observation. How small do you think it was when it satarted, and what made the universe Expand. Has the same amount of matter always existed? Use the theory and tell me when the Universe started expanding and lets test it?

What do you think about Kolob?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

I dont really know how the Unverse was started. I dont think you do either. My footnotes in the book of Genesis state the Word Create in the first verse of the Bible means literally "To Organize". I have always wondered what it all means and where it all came from. The Book of Abraham (Mormon Scriptures) and other Mormon Scriptures in the Pear of Great Price refer to God existing in a place that is not in our time or sphere of existence.

I am still studying that. I will came back and let you know maybe.

 

[leingod86]

I'm not a leading astronomer, but if you ask one I'm sure they can hook you up. The data as consistantly coincided with the Big Bang Theory.

This appears to be a decent site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you say look the universe is expanding that is only an observation. How small do you think it was when it satarted, and what made the universe Expand. Has the same amount of matter always existed? Use the theory and tell me when the Universe started expanding and lets test it?

Singularity. A point of infinite smallness and energy. No. Matter was created from energy from the singularity. There is never the "same amount" of matter as its always being turned into energy. We can get the calculations done showing the growth of the universe until the moment of the singularity, where Relativity and Quantum Mechanics simultaneously break down and become infinity.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

Yes, the Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

And I've given you many arguments, and you've ignored them all. Don't expect me to do for you what you won't do for me.

While your "example" has already been discredited. The scientific community refutes this "scientific evidence" because it. is. not. science. You're not getting treated like a lunatic, you're being treated like an ignorant child. Did it take an intelligent design to make the sky blue?

Typical response for sure. When given an example it is refuted with you must be a child or ignorant without showing any direct evidence my supposition is wrong. What are you afraid of? You claim you want the truth but you won't even try to see all the evidence. Science you say is true definitive. But when science is used to refute past theories, it is ignorance. I for one want everyone to know what the truth is. If there is no God - prove it. If life evolved from the expanse of nothing - prove it. Until people are willing to see all the evidence nothing will change. So as someone else said - the argument is futile.

You lost the arguement, you were wrong, but you can't give up, you even changed the topic and was ridiculed, can't you at least understand that this will not get better, the more you type the more ridiculed you'll be.

You REALLY don't think ALL the evidence is out there and has made evolution change a time or 1000? Well it has, it's just that "evidence" isn't the same as real evidence, what you have is an assumption that one beetle cannot fit into the evolutionary theory when mankind can and this is what you SAY is evidence.

And you are now adding the origin of life and mixing it with the theory of evolution, something all creationists do, always, since they cannot prove jack shit about their own beliefs, they try to mix evolution and origin of life to discredit either or both.

It's dishonest and any sane human being can see that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you say look the universe is expanding that is only an observation. How small do you think it was when it satarted, and what made the universe Expand. Has the same amount of matter always existed? Use the theory and tell me when the Universe started expanding and lets test it?

Observation beats the lack of any day of the week.
How small is small when there was no space at all?
What is expansion where there is nothing else that exists?
Yes, but what is matter and energy but 2 different forms of the same thing?
What is when?
Test what?

 

[piasabird]

Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

This initiative is very similar to "Ijaz al-Quran", which is the Muslim angle of the same phenomenon...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm

Wonderful!
Then again, it's no wonder that the U.S. is just as bent on religion as its deadliest enemies.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: piasabird
Nothing became something = God Created the Universe!

Strange then that Mormons don't believe in ex nihilo.

How come I always know more about your own faith than you do?

I commonly run into the same things, not with mormons but with Christians and it's because i TRIED, so i read everything, i really tried to understand how the faith worked.

With Islam it has been more of a forced learning since i'm dealing with Muslims every day.

If i'd answer your question i'd say it's because you have studied it more and questioned it more than he ever has, one who takes something for granted rarely thinks out of what he takes for granted.

I must say that i remain impressed, not only in this thread and not even in threads where i wouldn't disagree with you.

You're a smart man Vic and most of all, you think for yourself but base it on actual knowledge and THAT is rare.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Well one of them uses observations and observable data to calculate the most likely scenario given the information we are able to determine, constantly updated to reflect new ideas brought forth from recently discovered evidence, and the other one some guy made up in his head a couple thousand years ago. I can do that too, watch:

All was dark, then Azimodo and his sister Quazimodo, 2 all powerful beings from another dimension, ripped a fragment out of their reality, and nursed it into ours. They used their might and intellect to fashion space and time, blah blah blah.

That's what creation myths are. Someone makes up a story. And you consider what I just did the equivalent of Big Bang theory? Wow, I'm smrt!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

Wow... at least you can admit that the Creation Story is a myth.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

Nope, the chemicals have shown to interact in a way that could create the Big bang with all it's atoms and even the first organic matter through the primordial soup, this isn't something someone is just sitting here and guessing, this is something that tenths of thousands of people (if not more) is working on explaining every day, this is in contrast of the religions "these are the facts and that is the way it is" and anyone questioning it is dismissed.

You see, the scientific theories thrive on being disproven, it brings them further along, all they really aim for is to show the truth to the best of our knowledge, this is in contrast to religion which has the truth and doesn't give a fuck about evidence to the contrary.

See, if something proves the theory of evolution wrong, it makes it more complete, if something proves religion wrong it is discarded as "well, god made that light reach the earth and made those carbon atoms as old as they are found and made .................... whatever it is" and this is taken as TRUTH without any evidence what so ever, yet the religious people ALWAYS ask for evidence when it comes to science....

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Typical response for sure. When given an example it is refuted with you must be a child or ignorant without showing any direct evidence my supposition is wrong. What are you afraid of? You claim you want the truth but you won't even try to see all the evidence. Science you say is true definitive. But when science is used to refute past theories, it is ignorance. I for one want everyone to know what the truth is. If there is no God - prove it. If life evolved from the expanse of nothing - prove it. Until people are willing to see all the evidence nothing will change. So as someone else said - the argument is futile.

Yes, your response is typical. You present one bug as 'evidence' to back your claim and it is debunked. You of course ignore that. You also claim there is more evidence but you fail to provide any. You ask people to prove there is no god. Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. What you ask is impossible anyway. I'll ask you to prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or real life Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo. That's about as fair. Anyway, I don't claim there is no god. I'm agnostic and I honestly don't know one way or the other. Maybe there is a supreme being? If so, I don't think it has anything to do with the whole immaculate conception noah's arc fairy tale.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: piasabird
How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Well one of them uses observations and observable data to calculate the most likely scenario given the information we are able to determine, constantly updated to reflect new ideas brought forth from recently discovered evidence, and the other one some guy made up in his head a couple thousand years ago.

Well, yes and no.

Religion isn't something that some guy just made up thousands of years ago. At one point or another in the past, every religion was much like how science is today. Human beings studying their existence and trying to make sense of it all. The difference though is that, somewhere along the line, every religion decided that they already knew it all, stopped accepting any new evidence or thinking, and became unchanging.

That's why these Creationists have such trouble accepting science. They're expecting science to be like their religion and to claim to know it all, so they attack it for not knowing it all. It's silly, is all I can say.

 

[sandorski]

What Creator/Intelligent Designer made "God"? Surely even "God" didn't come from nowhere?


Arguing "Evidence" and "Reason" with a Creationist/ID proponent is a complete waste of time. They have a skewed view that ignores both, as evidenced in this thread, and come from a place of pre-accepted "Truth". That "Truth" is expounded in an ancient book that also praises Treachery, Terrorism, and even Terrorists as heroes of "God". Their "God" is both a "God" of Love and Hate, Peace and War, Kindness and Violence. Their "God" doesn't mind Genocide, but you're screwed if you're a Homosexual or even one who uses his/her much vaunted "Free Will". In short, their "God" is a Clinically Insane individual whose purpose for "creating" everything was to boost its' own ego, kinda like the first and biggest E-Peen extension in all History that pwns us all.

If "God" is "Righteousness", what need is there of a devil or "Satan"? Seems like "God" has all bases covered already and that if "Satan" really existed, It probably would be the better of the 2.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

Well, considering scientists are using supercolliders around the world to simulate the nanoseconds following the Big Bang, I'd say one big difference between the two is that there is actual evidence that supports the Big Bang besides a book written 2,000 years ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

Well, considering scientists are using supercolliders around the world to simulate the nanoseconds following the Big Bang, I'd say one big difference between the two is that there is actual evidence that supports the Big Bang besides a book written 2,000 years ago.

As Richard Dawkins puts it also, when you're talking about how the universe began you only really have two choices. Either matter was always here, or God was always here. A big bearded guy with an intelligence, vast magical powers, emotions, etc. is a vastly more complex item then a big ball of tightly packed matter. While certainly either one is possible, a being such as god is far far less probable. Of course, the creationists want to treat both possibilities as if they were somehow equal.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

Well, considering scientists are using supercolliders around the world to simulate the nanoseconds following the Big Bang, I'd say one big difference between the two is that there is actual evidence that supports the Big Bang besides a book written 2,000 years ago.

As Richard Dawkins puts it also, when you're talking about how the universe began you only really have two choices. Either matter was always here, or God was always here. A big bearded guy with an intelligence, vast magical powers, emotions, etc. is a vastly more complex item then a big ball of tightly packed matter. While certainly either one is possible, a being such as god is far far less probable. Of course, the creationists want to treat both possibilities as if they were somehow equal.

I really really hate Richard Dawkins, i agree with pretty much everything he says but he preaches it an there is absolutely no need for it, reality IS reality no matter what, but there is no denying Thor makes lightnings.

I'm going to Valhalla, where there is plenty of beer fights every night and sluts who'll do even an old warrior with a torn up face.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove it?

How does the big bang theory differ from the God Creation Story? It is exchanging one myth for another one.

Energy is a chemical reaction at best.

No matter = No energy.

Nope, the chemicals have shown to interact in a way that could create the Big bang with all it's atoms and even the first organic matter through the primordial soup, this isn't something someone is just sitting here and guessing, this is something that tenths of thousands of people (if not more) is working on explaining every day, this is in contrast of the religions "these are the facts and that is the way it is" and anyone questioning it is dismissed.

^^THIS is a stinkin' pile of inorganic bullshit that will never become organic by "accident" - and it won't fly in in the face of "real science" - Your *Story* of Spontaneous Origins is CONJECTURE of the order of "god created"

You see, the scientific theories thrive on being disproven, it brings them further along, all they really aim for is to show the truth to the best of our knowledge, this is in contrast to religion which has the truth and doesn't give a fuck about evidence to the contrary.

to me it sound like you already "have your own religion" - Your god is "Chance", his Prophet was Darwin, and you have ZERO to base evolution on - the base is the same shit as the religious one - conjecture turning to DOGMA that is never questioned.

See, if something proves the theory of evolution wrong, it makes it more complete, if something proves religion wrong it is discarded as "well, god made that light reach the earth and made those carbon atoms as old as they are found and made .................... whatever it is" and this is taken as TRUTH without any evidence what so ever, yet the religious people ALWAYS ask for evidence when it comes to science....

evolution is proven right by observation .. but what most evolutionists "hang it on" - CHANCE - is as stupid as "god" for a basis.

Prove how life began and i will worship at your Temple of Higher Learning .. and i will Spread the Gospel for you.
-Amen monkey-brother! . . haladarwinja!

 

[fskimospy]

The only people who say that evolution is based on random chance are those who do not understand evolution.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The only people who say that evolution is based on random chance are those who do not understand evolution.

if you are talking about me .. i not only understand natural selection i use modified Mendelson's principles in my own plant genetic manipulation to produce superior stock

no no

i am saying that "Spontaneous Generation of Life", AS the Origin of Life - is the 'same' for THEM [evolutionists]; - as "god created" - is for the Creationists

AFTER that .. the evolutionists choose "chance"

.. and the Creationists choose "purpose"

THEN - they begin their little debate over "evolution" [as here]

i am just going back to the Big Inning - to see what each of you base it on

and they are both pretty silly - either God as an originator OR Chance as generator

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The only people who say that evolution is based on random chance are those who do not understand evolution.

if you are talking about me .. i not only understand natural selection i use modified Mendelson's principles in my own plant genetic manipulation to produce superior stock

no no

i am saying that "Spontaneous Generation of Life", AS the Origin of Life - is the 'same' for THEM [evolutionists]; - as "god created" - is for the Creationists

AFTER that .. the evolutionists choose "chance"

.. and the Creationists choose "purpose"

THEN - they begin their little debate over "evolution" [as here]

i am just going back to the Big Inning - to see what each of you base it on

and they are both pretty silly - either God as an originator OR Chance as generator

Why are they both silly? Again, I do not understand the equivalence. So what if abiogenesis is extremely unlikely? The anthropic principle states that of course the only place we would even be around to argue about how likely it is, is the one where it happened. Considering the billions of stars in billions of galaxies out there, it's not unlikely at all.

What is strange to me is that people think a sky beardo is somehow more likely or even in the same ballpark as likely.

 

[apoppin]

Why are they both silly? Again, I do not understand the equivalence. So what if abiogenesis is extremely unlikely? The anthropic principle states that of course the only place we would even be around to argue about how likely it is, is the one where it happened. Considering the billions of stars in billions of galaxies out there, it's not unlikely at all.

What is strange to me is that people think a sky beardo is somehow more likely or even in the same ballpark as likely.

To *me* they are equally silly

the very idea that a giant "soup" needs to be brewed by chance in a precise sequence .. to produce a single precursor to an enzyme - and Scientists think they are witnessing a Cosmic Event when they try to replicate it with every favorable conditon that can be conceived of .. yet no life and nothing resembling ANYTHING that might reasonably become "life" .. that the most "simple" of life is far beyond our current Science to even reverse Engineer it

the sky-beardo would be Energy and not necessarily "intelligent"

both are just as [un] "likely" to me