Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/30/08 04:26 PM, poxpower wrote: Oh my God. What do they teach you people in schools? Shit, read a book. There's probably 20-30 different elements you can use to count, using radiometric dating.

And yes, newsflash, the decay is constant. There's no possible way it CAN'T be constant, it's the property of the matter itself. You couldn't even change it if you wanted to, unless you destroyed the elements in a nuclear reactor, which doesn't happen in nature except in a SUN.

I admire your blind faith. I could never believe in scientists that blindly. Sometimes it's hard for me to have faith in God to the level you trust scientists! After all, scientists are people too. People are cabable of lying and making mistakes. God in the other hand...

How many people in the world have seen how radiometric dating works? How many people know how we calculate the amount of isotopes? I wanna go see that myself before I believe it works.

I myself don't know how people have calculated the earth to be 6600 years old according to the bible. I haven't found the verse saying that God created the earth 4600 years before christ. People in the Bible have lived hundreds of years so it wouldn't be impossible that the earth is older than 10 000 years old, of course. I suppose 6600 years just makes the most sense. Not saying it's the truth tho, I just don't know.

---

At 8/30/08 04:30 PM, ZuiGe wrote:

so now your telling me that I shouldnt believe in the bible and people who commit adultry should be stoned homosexuals deserve to spend an eterneity in hell for having sex with another man and so on and I deserve to die Painfully and I deserve to tortured for eternaity A man cures cancer goes back in time and stops hitler from rising to power making the world a better place deserves to be tortured for not beilieving in God Answer me
if you say yes you are a sick bastard

---

At 8/30/08 04:59 PM, ZuiGe wrote: I admire your blind faith. I could never believe in scientists that blindly.

uh you don't have to, you can do the experiments yourself.
You just have to learn it. It all makes perfect sense.

All you're doing is "well I don't understand it, I don't want to learn it, so it must be faith".

People are cabable of lying and making mistakes.

Do you have any idea how the scientific world works?
Every scientist CONSTANTLY tries to fuck the other guy's shit up. The dream of any scientist is to prove as many other scientists wrong as he possibly can. And they try all the time, that's practically their job.

That's what peer-review is. Scientists don't 'stick together", they work to prove each other wrong, and when no one can prove you wrong, you know you've done the science right.

How many people in the world have seen how radiometric dating works?

Probably millions at this point. In fact the whole of physics and chemistry operates on the notion that phenomenons like radioactive decay do work constantly and 100% predictably.

And lo and behold, it does.

I myself don't know how people have calculated the earth to be 6600 years old according to the bible.

They read it, unlike you.
The bible tells how long each person lived and traces the lineage of Adam all the way down to Jesus.

here's the chart: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/bible2.htm l

and holy shit, is it ever complicated. What a long, boring book that thing must be.

And here's the chart, from our dear insane friend Kent Hovind, that shows you from adam to jesus:

---

At 8/30/08 03:58 PM, ZuiGe wrote: 1) Every culture on earth has stories about a "flood" of some kind, with one man and his family being saved by a boat or a raft. Many are thousands of years old. They all made it up at the same time?

So these ancient, and may I add incredibly STUPID (through no fault of their own) cultures had access to the weather channel then?

I ask because, how the hell would they know what in the fuck the rest of the world is like?

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, there were small respective floods which were confined to their specific habitats.

2) Scientists all over the world recognize this layer, but disagree on what caused it. Forty days and nights of standing muddy water maybe?

HAHAHAHAHA LMAO.

Your definition of 'scientists disagree" is without a doubt: 99% of scientists agree it wasn't by the "great flood", and 1% of creationist moron n scientists assert it was.

If I'm wrong, then by all means post some proof.

3) The earth is crissed crossed with ancient river beds, some over ten miles wide. Where did they come from? Where did they go? Near Vernal Utah you can stand and look at one such ancient river bed. It stands near vertical due to upheavel in the earths crust and contains virtually every species of animal, including dinosaurs and fossilized palm trees and wood, fish, turtles, birds, etc. How did they all die and get deposited together in one huge sand bar? Receeding flood waters?

ARGH.

You're such a fucking moron.

You're WANTING THE ANSWER TO BE THE FLOOD.

Hmm...how did this form? MAYBE IT WAS THE FLOOD LOL

Well, maybe large groups of people testifying the miracle would please you? no? video tapes? history books?

Lol, again, people WANT these miracles to occur, so they're not exactly going to think critically about it.
But anyway, name one miracle like that and I'll find a source refuting it.

Science tries to explain all this stuff and is not always succesful. If they can't

LOL, only because the religious whackjobs that claim the miracle and all secretive and give ambiguous answers when questions, making it practically impossible for it to be investigated properly.

And on miracles, I'll give you an example. In the nineties the BBC filmed a documentary about Mother Teresa.
They were filming in one of her hospitals, but it was really poorly lit and the producer said to the crew that it would be too dark to use, so they had to film somewhere else instead.
When they got back to the editing studio, they had a look at the film from the dark hospital, and the lighting was perfect. There seemed to be large amounts of light pouring in through the small slits in the roof, as if it were holy.
MIRACLE they proclaimed, MIRACLE.
It turns out that the cameraman was using some new film developed by Kodak designed to be extra-light sensitive, and forgot to tell the producer.
But you think they listened to him? Of course not, they still claimed God had intervened.

Here's a miracle from scientists: Where did all this come from? Where did the space come from? Where did your big bang come from?

That's NOT A MIRACLE.

It's called "We don't know yet". Jesus.

Nothing comes out of nothing.

Guess what. The singularity that the big bang was NOT ntohing. It contained all the matter in the univrese. That's the exact opposite of nothing.

The universal law of increasing entropy

You don't know ANYTHING about thermodynamics, so stop reciting you read of some bullshit propaganda creationist website.

I'm sure as a scientist you are familiar with the laws of physics.

LMAO, I love the way you think these uneducated creationist fuckwits who know nothing about science JUST HAPPENED to discover something that scientists who have been studying their respective fields FOR THEIR WHOLE LIVES happened to overlook.

I've seen it. Seriosly. I've seen a paralyzed man dance, and yes, i had seen him in a wheelchair earlier. I'm sure many others have seen same kind of healing happen, because it often happens in a big service where people pray for God to heal.

yeah, I've seen perfectly healthy CHRISTIANS die, just like that, from a heart attack, for no apparent reason.
But let me guess, god had nothing to do with that, right?

I don't believe Radiocarbon dating is accurate. We just assume that isotope fractination is constant.

HMMM. But scientists who are experts in the field DO!

MAYBE, AGAIN, YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE.

Seriously, if you think the world is 6000 years old, then you deserve to be shot.
You're just that fucking stupid.

Have we done that? Correct if I'm wrong but I don't think we have just yet.
So we can really trust in Radiocarbon dating if the measured object is 2008 years old at best.

If we wanted to be able to calculate to exact, specific individual years, then we would perhaps have to do that.

But our current methods are more than capable of proving that the world is not 6000 years old.

I've done my share of reading about the theory of evolution, they make us study that in school. Do they tell us about creationism? No. In some rare cases it's mentioned under the category "old theories".

HMM. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC.

But I've debated about the same topic so much that I've had to read books that support the theory of evolution and books that oppose to it. I have come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is a line of shaky facts based on other shaky facts. Well explained tho.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
WHAT DO YOU CALL THE BIBLE.

I myself believed that people are a bunch of evolved apes

when i was 10 years old.

You know NOTHING about science so shut the fuck up.

I find it hilarious that you think you're actually qualified to come to a conclusion about AN ACCEPTED BIOLOGICAL THEORY, and that the experts in the subject of evolution JUST HAPPEN TO BE WRONG.

---

At 8/30/08 04:08 PM, ZuiGe wrote:

At 8/30/08 12:19 PM, 10nitro wrote: Another interesting approach is "Gap Creationism," which states that there was a large gap (thousands, millions, billions of years) between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so that it is:

(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Dinosaurs come and stuff. The meteor comes and destroys the world.
(2) Now the earth was a formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
(3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. [blablabla, the rest of the 7 days...]

Then the 7 days happens, but it may or may not take 7 days.

That doesn't really make sense. Aren't dinosaurs animals then? Did the dinosaurs live without light? Was the earth formless back then?

Sure it does. When the meteor came, it wasn't the earthquake, or volcanoes that caused mass extinction, it was a giant, Earth covering dust cloud that blocked out the sun. God saying "let there be light is the cloud settling. The Earth was formless in the same way a desert is formless.

That's just how God explained it to us. It didn't necessarily take exactly 7 days, that is what we call a metaphor. Could've happened in a split second or a billion years.

That's what I was getting at with "but it may or may not take 7 days." Some days I like the idea that it took 7 days, some days I like that it happened more like most scientists tell us.

On the 7th day everything was done so God rested. That was the time when all people and animals lived in the same place called the garden of eden. Yupp, dinosaurs too!

While there is some evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, most people scoff at this idea. What I find a bit more plausible is that a few isolated species survived in small numbers. This happened with crocodiles (minus the small numbers), so why not a few others? Doing a Google search of "dinosaurs and humans" (without the quotes) and clicking the first one leads me to this It looks like it is also riddled with bullshit though. Whatever, I'm lazy.

Anyway, Gap creationism takes care of any lack of coexistence.

---

At 8/30/08 10:37 PM, 10nitro wrote: Doing a Google search of "dinosaurs and humans" (without the quotes) and clicking the first one leads me to this It looks like it is also riddled with bullshit though. Whatever, I'm lazy.

I looked at most the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, appears to be mostly bullshit free, anything goes for the other stuff though.

---

At 8/31/08 12:18 AM, 10nitro wrote: I looked at most the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, appears to be mostly bullshit free, anything goes for the other stuff though.

The co-existance of humans and dinosaurs... bullshit free? My god man; you are aware The Flinstones wasn't a documentary?

---

At 8/31/08 08:11 AM, Pontificate wrote: The co-existance of humans and dinosaurs... bullshit free? My god man; you are aware The Flinstones wasn't a documentary?

Lol was about to say that.

---

At 8/29/08 09:44 PM, 10nitro wrote: Hey, what if God created the entire universe with all the particles prearranged to look like it was billions of years old? For all you know, God created us all 5 minutes ago, you were created with all your memories, and the universe was created exactly like it was 5 minutes ago. There is no possible way science can prove that wrong.

Here's a quick question, why?

What would be the point? There isn't one. What you're doing here is basically saying that we could be wrong because God did it.

What way are you going to prove your hypothesis? You've made the claim now where is your evidence?

Besides, a lot of this isn't scientific fact, but theory. Much of science ends up being wrong. When the atom was first discovered, it was thought to be the smallest possible unit, impossible to divide, in fact, "atom" is Latin or something for "that which cannot be divided"

Umm...so? Just because something is given a name doesn't dictate it's actions. My surname is Miller, does that mean I'm a beer?

Also, yes Science is making new discoveries each day which confirms or denies a hypthothesis (not really a theory because that's a explaination of facts)

But what you're doing here is saying "One thing in Science is wrong, so therefore it all is"

As scientific theories seem to disprove religions, others seem to confirm them.

Ok, show me one. Show me a scientific theory that confirms something in Religion.

Oh and the Catholic church is now saying that Genesis 1-2 (Adam and Eve) was a metaphor. Bull Crap. Most Jews can trace their family tree back to Adam and Eve (it is a tradition to maintain a family tree back to Abraham, this is commonly displayed when they get married; In the Bible/Tanakh (the "Jewish Bible", the Torah is just 1 of 3 parts) it traces Adam and Eve to Noah, then Noah to Abraham). Or the church was last year, they probably changed their mind again by now. I liked the old pope better. He liked Harry Potter.

The Jews have? Where is the DNA to trace back the ancestory? Where are the genetic markers to trace back to Adam and Eve? Because all our gemone does is trace back our common ancestor (which isn't Adam and Eve)

---

At 8/31/08 08:11 AM, Pontificate wrote:

At 8/31/08 12:18 AM, 10nitro wrote: I looked at most the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, appears to be mostly bullshit free, anything goes for the other stuff though.

The co-existance of humans and dinosaurs... bullshit free? My god man; you are aware The Flinstones wasn't a documentary?

Jeez, I'm just saying that they appear to present valid evidence towards this "possibility" I'm not saying what they're claiming isn't bull, but the way the present it with archaeological facts is notable.
Except the Native American one, they were drawing stick figures anyway.

At 9/1/08 12:13 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/29/08 09:44 PM, 10nitro wrote: Hey, what if God created the entire universe with all the particles prearranged to look like it was billions of years old? For all you know, God created us all 5 minutes ago, you were created with all your memories, and the universe was created exactly like it was 5 minutes ago. There is no possible way science can prove that wrong.

Here's a quick question, why?

What would be the point? There isn't one. What you're doing here is basically saying that we could be wrong because God did it.

What way are you going to prove your hypothesis? You've made the claim now where is your evidence?

There is no way we can prove it right, ether, so If the creationists here take that approach, then we can move past creation, and on to other stuff.

Besides, a lot of this isn't scientific fact, but theory. Much of science ends up being wrong. When the atom was first discovered, it was thought to be the smallest possible unit, impossible to divide, in fact, "atom" is Latin or something for "that which cannot be divided"

Umm...so? Just because something is given a name doesn't dictate it's actions. My surname is Miller, does that mean I'm a beer?

Also, yes Science is making new discoveries each day which confirms or denies a hypthothesis (not really a theory because that's a explaination of facts)

But what you're doing here is saying "One thing in Science is wrong, so therefore it all is"

No, I'm just saying that they were so confident about the nature of the atom, then ended up being wrong, so don't be overly confident in some of these theories.

Oh and the Catholic church is now saying that Genesis 1-2 (Adam and Eve) was a metaphor. Bull Crap. Most Jews can trace their family tree back to Adam and Eve (it is a tradition to maintain a family tree back to Abraham, this is commonly displayed when they get married; In the Bible/Tanakh (the "Jewish Bible", the Torah is just 1 of 3 parts) it traces Adam and Eve to Noah, then Noah to Abraham). Or the church was last year, they probably changed their mind again by now. I liked the old pope better. He liked Harry Potter.

The Jews have? Where is the DNA to trace back the ancestory? Where are the genetic markers to trace back to Adam and Eve? Because all our gemone does is trace back our common ancestor (which isn't Adam and Eve)

Through written records, nothing scientific.

---

At 9/1/08 01:46 PM, 10nitro wrote: No, I'm just saying that they were so confident about the nature of the atom, then ended up being wrong, so don't be overly confident in some of these theories.

Even after electrons, protons, neutrons, hadrons and quarks were discovered, it didn't stop atoms from existing or affect how they behave. Nor did Einstein's revolutionary views of gravity and physics void any of Newton's work. What makes you think that the next scientific discovery in biology will blow evolution out of the water?

Still waiting for those fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian era.

---

At 9/1/08 12:13 PM, Brick-top wrote:

No, I'm just saying that they were so confident about the nature of the atom, then ended up being wrong, so don't be overly confident in some of these theories.

That's where science gets it's merits. The theory revolves around the evidence.

The Jews have? Where is the DNA to trace back the ancestory? Where are the genetic markers to trace back to Adam and Eve? Because all our gemone does is trace back our common ancestor (which isn't Adam and Eve)

Through written records, nothing scientific.

Bullshit. Give me a DNA sample otherwise records mean nothing.

---

At 8/20/08 07:34 PM, Saruman200 wrote:
Science will never be able to disapprove or religion because people are stubborn and hate being wrong. Religion used to deny that Earth revolves around the sun and that the Earth is round. When the evidence become overwhelming they finally admitted it, but in the end they read through the bible and found "hay, look, a theistic metaphor. The bible was right all along." This will happen with evolution and the big bang eventually too.

Theistic metaphors are hardly accurate however. The people who find these things find them because they specfically look for anything that might hint as some kind of metaphor. When you already have a certain view in your head before you read something, your going to come up with the conculsion you want. Say someone has never heard of George Orwell or Animal Farm. I could tell them George Orwell is a renowned kid's writer, and they would read Animal Farm and determine it's a story about some pigs that take over a farm. If I tell them George Orwell wrote that book as a criticism of Soviet Communism, they'll see the metaphors right away.

In the end theistic metaphors are crap, and really, all religion has to prove it's theory is a book. A book that could have been written by anybody. They believe it's true because the authors are claimed disiples of Jesus. But if I tell a naive person J. K. Rowling is a visionary prophet, they just might believe Hoggwarts is real. So, which is more true, the Bible or Harry Potter? I mean, Religious people may say "God works in mysterious ways", but doesn't Harry Potter explain that there are magic invisibility spells or something that Muggles can't see the wizard world? It really isn't that different. Harry Potter's explanations are just as believable as the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or any other religious text) if you go into it with the right mindset. In the end, there is not suitable explanation for religious belief other than faith in a single book or scroll.

This post, by me, awhile back, explains why theistic metaphors are stupid and unreliable. Have fun.
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
.....

---

At 9/1/08 04:18 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Bullshit. Give me a DNA sample otherwise records mean nothing.

Records like that are usually pretty good. You wouldn't really need DNA evidence to convince historians.
But I doubt they actually have records of frickin Noah and Abraham, that is bullshit.

---

At 9/1/08 05:28 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/1/08 04:18 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Bullshit. Give me a DNA sample otherwise records mean nothing.

Records like that are usually pretty good. You wouldn't really need DNA evidence to convince historians.
But I doubt they actually have records of frickin Noah and Abraham, that is bullshit.

Records (especially in that era) mean jack shit to me. I need DNA evidence because that's more acurate.

---

At 8/30/08 04:26 PM, poxpower wrote: Anyway, I could devote days to telling you about all the way in which the flood story is retarded but you probably wouldn't read.

Because by your very admission, your point is stupid.

"The entire known world for these people was underwater."

There's nothing else to it than that.

oh my God, read a book. Jesus Christ.

That's a basic scientific tenet. Until modern days, the idea that something caused itself, or that life popped out of nothingness would be ridiculed. Why? Because the idea is stupid. The theory that the universe made itself and then continues to creat life goes against science.

Pre-emptive strike: Since the athiest always uses the moronic claim that "Entrophy only works in a closed system....WE HAVE A CLOSED SYSTEM. According to the big bang theory...there was no universe til this lil ball of all the matter that is in our system now exploded. Either one must argue the big bang is wrong (and be mocked as unscientific) or argue that, despite the Big Bang theory, the system isn't closed (which is a textbook argument for God).

You know who I'll believe? A scientist who does a double-blind study of thousands of people.
Not a christian leader who doesn't know dick about setting up experiments and who has everything to gain by "finding out" that miracles work.
The only people who find miracles are the people who are extremely partial to them existing. That is bullshit, that is not science.

Except it's not. As every study ever done on the question shows, Prayer matters.
Regardless of whether or not God exists, we know that the "Placebo effect" exists. This is an unquestioned truth, and no drug study exists without a placebo. As even the most skeptic of observers admit, prayer makes a difference for it's mental effects. The fact that prayer works is uncontested. Whether it proves there's a God or not is the debate now.

To miracles, how do we define a miracle? If a miracle is something that can't be scientifically explained, miracles happen EVERYDAY.

That's not what we get with prayer. Only the believer's experiments seem to yield "prayer works!" results. As soon as you look into it, you find out that they have shitty experiments or they're plain lying about it!

Again, or not.
http://www.stats.org/stories/faith_healt h_mar27_06.htm
As even the skeptic Stats.org says, the benefits are undeniable. But is it the placebo effect?

And yes, newsflash, the decay is constant. There's no possible way it CAN'T be constant, it's the property of the matter itself. You couldn't even change it if you wanted to, unless you destroyed the elements in a nuclear reactor, which doesn't happen in nature except in a SUN.

Incorrect. Carbon dating can be affected by quite a few factors. Including fire.

But you really want to learn about it? Tell me, I'll show you videos on it, you'll know exactly how it works, why we know what we do etc. in just 1-2 hours.
Because you are A LIAR. I know you haven't read the books. Don't lie to me. I know you haven't looked into it. I know what you did watch is bullshit like Kent Hovind videos.

I call your bluff. I used to be a huge believer in evolution. But the ID arguments are simply more scientific, require less assumptions, and are in line with what we currently know.

That's what you did. You really want to learn about it?
Tell me and I'll show you. Otherwise, stay ignorant and keep holding humanity back.

Go for it.

---

At 9/1/08 08:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Records (especially in that era) mean jack shit to me. I need DNA evidence because that's more acurate.

If it would be good enough for historians, it would have to be good enough for you.
But it's not good enough for any historian, archaeologist etc. It's in fact, shit.

At 9/2/08 02:59 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/30/08 04:26 PM, poxpower wrote:

"The entire known world for these people was underwater."
There's nothing else to it than that.

Yeah, that's not the bible story and that's not was flood proponents try to prove.

That's a basic scientific tenet. Until modern days, the idea that something caused itself, or that life popped out of nothingness would be ridiculed. Why? Because the idea is stupid.

Thank God no scientist is supporting that idea.
You know who is though? Religious people. God pops out of nothing and nowhere, and then starts creating.

Except it's not. As every study ever done on the question shows, Prayer matters.

haha yeah, what studies?
Here's the best one that's ever been made:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health /31pray.html === prayer does nothing

Where are your studies that show it has a positive effect?

To miracles, how do we define a miracle? If a miracle is something that can't be scientifically explained, miracles happen EVERYDAY.

No. A miracle is something that bypasses all known laws of the universe. We haven't observed that a single time in any experiment ever.

And even if we do observe very strange things that push the limits, never once has that thing been related in any way shape or form to a claim by a religious person.

http://www.stats.org/stories/faith_healt h_mar27_06.htm

Huh, I suggest you read your link again. It clearly separates the people who pray for themselves and the people who know they're being prayed for from the actual double-blind study of having people not knowing if they're getting prayed for.

The placebo effect is well-known and has nothing to do with the power of God. Prayer yields absolutely no results at all when tested properly, even if it should according to the claims of the religious, since a prayer is something YOU are GOD to do, and he does it regardless of it other people know you're asking it or not.

Incorrect. Carbon dating can be affected by quite a few factors. Including fire.

No, the decay rate is not affected. What is affected is the amount of different levels of decayed isotopes in the system. That's why they compare each date using several methods, they don't date a single thing these days with just a single test.

I call your bluff.

alright, then start watching:

The "made easy" serie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9 Ok&feature=related
Why people laugh at creationists serie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4Gk EY&feature=related
shitload of DonExodus videos are awesome: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?us er=DonExodus2
And this is funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAFOdKjJE Tg

Still confused after spending the 5-6 hours it would take to watch all that?
Then feel free to ask me any specific questions. I'm sure Elfer could answer them better than me, but I think I've learned enough watching all this shit while debating people on here.

---

At 9/2/08 04:29 AM, poxpower wrote: Thank God no scientist is supporting that idea.
You know who is though? Religious people. God pops out of nothing and nowhere, and then starts creating.

Just a minor note. Religious people tend to believe God has always been and always will be - not that he popped out of nowhere.

It's funny. Alot of religious people would argue that science says the universe popped out of nowhere.

My stance: If both God and the universe are seens as things that always were and always will be... if eternal existence is a constant between both sides... how can one side use it as principle to invalidate the other?

---

At 9/2/08 02:59 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Incorrect. Carbon dating can be affected by quite a few factors. Including fire.

too bad the variables are known and taken into account when calculating the age of something using radiometric dating.

---

At 9/2/08 02:59 AM, WolvenBear wrote: That's a basic scientific tenet. Until modern days, the idea that something caused itself, or that life popped out of nothingness would be ridiculed. Why? Because the idea is stupid. The theory that the universe made itself and then continues to creat life goes against science.

We're not certain how the universe came about; it's not something scientists claim to know. It is, however, what creationists claim to know (burden of proof, anybody?). The big bang, which has a considerable amount evidence for it, is all the matter in the universe expanding rapidly but doesn't actually concern itself with the genesis of the universe.

Pre-emptive strike: Since the athiest always uses the moronic claim that "Entrophy only works in a closed system....WE HAVE A CLOSED SYSTEM. According to the big bang theory...there was no universe til this lil ball of all the matter that is in our system now exploded. Either one must argue the big bang is wrong (and be mocked as unscientific) or argue that, despite the Big Bang theory, the system isn't closed (which is a textbook argument for God).

Yes the universe itself is a closed system (as far as we are aware) which is why eventually universal entropy will increase until further habitation is rendered impossible. The Earth's system, however, is quite clearly not closed: when you are lifting your eyes to god I take it you notice a seemingly small radiant disk in the sky?

---

At 9/1/08 05:28 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/1/08 04:18 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Bullshit. Give me a DNA sample otherwise records mean nothing.

Records like that are usually pretty good. You wouldn't really need DNA evidence to convince historians.
But I doubt they actually have records of frickin Noah and Abraham, that is bullshit.

The Jewish people maintain trees back to Abraham, anything further is from the Bible/Tanakh.

At 9/2/08 12:13 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 9/2/08 04:29 AM, poxpower wrote: Thank God no scientist is supporting that idea.
You know who is though? Religious people. God pops out of nothing and nowhere, and then starts creating.

Just a minor note. Religious people tend to believe God has always been and always will be - not that he popped out of nowhere.

It's funny. Alot of religious people would argue that science says the universe popped out of nowhere.

My stance: If both God and the universe are seens as things that always were and always will be... if eternal existence is a constant between both sides... how can one side use it as principle to invalidate the other?

That's actually really similar to Einstein's concept of God (he was Jewish). He thought of God as the universe and all of it's workings. When he figured out relativity, he thought of it as reading God's mind.

At 9/2/08 04:29 AM, poxpower wrote:

To miracles, how do we define a miracle? If a miracle is something that can't be scientifically explained, miracles happen EVERYDAY.

No. A miracle is something that bypasses all known laws of the universe. We haven't observed that a single time in any experiment ever.

And even if we do observe very strange things that push the limits, never once has that thing been related in any way shape or form to a claim by a religious person.

Dictionary.com defines "miracle" as:
:1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
:2. a wonder; marvel.

If you were to somehow interact with a caveman, and show him modern technology, would he not consider it magic? If you ask me magic is just something we haven't explained yet.

To me, a miracle is just "magic" attributed to God, but it doesn't stop being a miracle once it has been explained. This also agrees with Einstein's concept of God.

---

At 9/2/08 04:00 PM, 10nitro wrote: That's actually really similar to Einstein's concept of God (he was Jewish). He thought of God as the universe and all of it's workings. When he figured out relativity, he thought of it as reading God's mind.

Yeah. It's similar though; I'm not really trying to say they're the same thing. Just that... if one belief can be validated through a particular principle, why can't the other. I mean, there may be other variables... but 'timelessness' really doesn't seem to favor either side.

My mom's jewish :P ... No really!

---

At 9/2/08 04:00 PM, 10nitro wrote:

The Jewish people maintain trees back to Abraham, anything further is from the Bible/Tanakh.

I'm pretty sure that is bullshit but it doesn't seem like you're going to look it up, so I will.

"Mainstream scholarship in the course of the 20th century has given up attempts to identify Abraham and his contemporaries in Genesis with historical figures.[14] While it is widely admitted that there is no archaeological evidence to prove the existence of Abraham, apparent parallels to Genesis in the archaeological record assure that speculations on the patriarch's historicity and on the period that would best fit the account in Genesis remain alive in religious circles."

on the wiki. I read other website, they confirm it. There is no evidence whatsoever for Abraham.

And you don't have to go as far back as Abraham ( 4000 years ago ) before you find only bullshit fictional characters. They don't have trees that go back that long, that's bullcrap. If you can find it, I'd love to see it.

That's actually really similar to Einstein's concept of God (he was Jewish). He thought of God as the universe and all of it's workings. When he figured out relativity, he thought of it as reading God's mind.

Einstein probably didn't speculate on what God was at all. All he ever suggested was there there might be some vague God-like force, but even then. I don't remember a single quote from him that suggests he's even deist, even if they claim he was.

He seemed pretty flusterred that the universe could be explained so well without any God.

To me, a miracle is just "magic" attributed to God, but it doesn't stop being a miracle once it has been explained. This also agrees with Einstein's concept of God.

No, you can't do that. That's not a miracle like how religious people see it, you can't run around redefining the terms pretending you're right.

In religion, a miracle is CLEARLY, AND ONLY something that:
1- God does either on demand ( through prayer ) or through his will
2- Bypasses the laws of physics

Meaning that even IF you could actually observe a miracle occuring, you couldn't possibly ever explain it unless you were God yourself. That's what it means. It doesn't mean some advanced alien technology, it doesn't mean "a baby is born, wow what a wonder" it's not any of that, it's precisely what I wrote it is.

---

At 9/2/08 04:22 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/08 04:00 PM, 10nitro wrote:

The Jewish people maintain trees back to Abraham, anything further is from the Bible/Tanakh.

I'm pretty sure that is bullshit but it doesn't seem like you're going to look it up, so I will.

"Mainstream scholarship in the course of the 20th century has given up attempts to identify Abraham and his contemporaries in Genesis with historical figures.[14] While it is widely admitted that there is no archaeological evidence to prove the existence of Abraham, apparent parallels to Genesis in the archaeological record assure that speculations on the patriarch's historicity and on the period that would best fit the account in Genesis remain alive in religious circles."

on the wiki. I read other website, they confirm it. There is no evidence whatsoever for Abraham.

And you don't have to go as far back as Abraham ( 4000 years ago ) before you find only bullshit fictional characters. They don't have trees that go back that long, that's bullcrap. If you can find it, I'd love to see it.

It appears I was wrong.

That's actually really similar to Einstein's concept of God (he was Jewish). He thought of God as the universe and all of it's workings. When he figured out relativity, he thought of it as reading God's mind.

Einstein probably didn't speculate on what God was at all. All he ever suggested was there there might be some vague God-like force, but even then. I don't remember a single quote from him that suggests he's even deist, even if they claim he was.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." That's a quote.

He seemed pretty flusterred that the universe could be explained so well without any God.

"Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality" -Wikipedia.

To me, a miracle is just "magic" attributed to God, but it doesn't stop being a miracle once it has been explained. This also agrees with Einstein's concept of God.

No, you can't do that. That's not a miracle like how religious people see it,

I'm a religious person

:you can't run around redefining the terms pretending you're right.

Dictionary: "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
Can I clarify "known when it happens"? Cuz that's how I interpret it.
If not, I just fall back on the alternate definition: "a wonder; marvel."

In religion, a miracle is CLEARLY, AND ONLY something that:
1- God does either on demand ( through prayer ) or through his will
2- Bypasses the laws of physics

If we take the approach of Spinoza's God, there is not difference between the laws of the universe and God's will. Magic is just what we haven't explained yet. Miracle is just pushing the limits.

Meaning that even IF you could actually observe a miracle occuring, you couldn't possibly ever explain it unless you were God yourself. That's what it means. It doesn't mean some advanced alien technology, it doesn't mean "a baby is born, wow what a wonder" it's not any of that, it's precisely what I wrote it is.

"the miracle of birth" yeah it is.

Hey, have you seen the Star Trek Voyager episode "Sacred Ground"? You entirely should.

---

its just sexed up atheisim for Einstien
however by your standards the wonder of the internet is a miracle birth is so normal and not (gonna sound like an ass here) is not all that miraclous and the famous argument that prays are answered and those that dont are forgotten or god doesnt allow that prayer to come to pass and so it means you can never be wrong with prayer how about that

---

You should also see the episode "Emanations", and the Next Gen episode "Who Watches The Watchers" Yes, all 3 explore ideas relevant to the discussion

---

At 9/2/08 05:00 PM, 10nitro wrote:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." That's a quote.

Yeah but then you have to read what Spinoza's God is.
Not really convincing what he means by "God" or if people would really even call it "God".
Meh.

I'm a religious person

Well it's time you learned what an actual religious miracle is.

Dictionary: "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

That's a religious miracle.

The other definition is the more literary definition of the word used to marvel at something incredible, it doesn't appeal to the supernatural, hence is not religious in nature.

If we take the approach of Spinoza's God, there is not difference between the laws of the universe and God's will.

Again, don't try to confuse what a miracle is to try and say "well under this and this and that definition, a miracle might be possible".

Whenever scientists say miracles don't exist, whenever they're trying to test for a miracles, they're talking about the definition I gave you.

"the miracle of birth" yeah it is.

That's not a miracle to science, we can explain it perfectly. It might be a miracle to a peasant.

Hey, have you seen the Star Trek Voyager episode "Sacred Ground"? You entirely should.

I've never watched any Star Trek episode ever.
I'm proud of that.

---

At 9/2/08 05:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/08 05:00 PM, 10nitro wrote: I'm a religious person

Well it's time you learned what an actual religious miracle is.

I also know quite a few [religious] people who believe that all miracles can be scientifically explained, but many have not yet.

Hey, have you seen the Star Trek Voyager episode "Sacred Ground"? You entirely should.

I've never watched any Star Trek episode ever.
I'm proud of that.

Oh, come on, it's not as bad as everyone says.

---

About Einstein's religious beliefs (from Wikipedia)

"Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: 'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.' "

Einstein's religious views are a matter of constant debate. Also, we must remember Einstein lived half a century ago. If he were alive today, who do you think he would have sided with in this debate, science or religion? I highly doubt it would have been religion.

We must also remember Einstein was also a Zionist and a socialist. Does that mean we should all be Zionist socialists? Einstein may have been a genius, but I find it stupid everyone brings up his name in order to prove there side is the "smart side". Einstein was but what man, his views on the subject shouldn't be anymore important than yours or mine.

---

At 9/2/08 05:48 PM, 10nitro wrote:

At 9/2/08 05:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/08 05:00 PM, 10nitro wrote: I'm a religious person

Well it's time you learned what an actual religious miracle is.

I also know quite a few [religious] people who believe that all miracles can be scientifically explained, but many have not yet.

But isn't the idea of a miracle something that cannot be explained in any other light than a religious one?