ID Theory & Young Earth Creationism

Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
ID Theory & Young Earth Creationism

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory? Evidences?

2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Milo and the art of mathematics...

 I have a dog.

His name is 'Milo' and he's a Border Collie / Labrador mix, reputed to be one of the smartest breeds of dog on the planet.


Milo is a gentle and patient creature who loves me. He will sit for hours as I talk to him only interjecting now and again in an attempt to mimic the sounds he hears or endangering the coffee table with massive swipes of his incredibly strong tail. He will sit there in rapt and joyous attention as I explain to him the fundamentals of Algebra. I can wax mathematically for hours and he will listen with full attentiveness, but in the end, he will never be able to solve a quadratic equation. He's a dog, after all.

This is the same reason I refuse to discuss science with primitives who accept magical answers to the question 'How did we get here?'
If you accept magic, then we can NOT discuss science because you neither believe or understand it.

Let's discuss the magic instead.

Tell me in detail, with documentation and peer reviewed literature, as well as experimental empirical and valid observational data in no less complexity that you demand of me and others about the scientific explanation.

Don't tell me THAT your god did it, tell me HOW he did it.
I insist.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:

So you have a degree in science but no degree in how to make valid inferences or a degree that has allowed you to study logic. I'm supposed to believe all your arguments on Evolution Theory are sound and valid...because you have a degree..... in Physics????  I wonder how many "degree'd" scientists and experts put thalidamide out on the market as a safe drug?

I could care less what you believe. A degree in science means I know the scientific meanings of fact and theory. You do not.

Thalidomide is an argument to an unrelated issue to discredit the issue at hand which you know for a fact is illogical because a degree in philosophy requires at least an introductory course in logic. Meaning you are lying.

Quote:
But you're right... it's an appeal to authority and illogical. As I have a degree in philosophy I think I can speak to any analysis of argument, and as I said before I look at remarks made by Evolutionists with an eye to their logic and rationality. I don't dispute the biology or the real science.

It is not a question of analyzing arguments. It is the fact you do not understand science and therefore you cannot understand what scientists say. That is impolite but not ad hominem as it is a fact. You cannot analyze the logic of what you do not understand.

Quote:
Dawkins clearly states that Evolution explains Life. If you dispute that Evolution explains Life, then we are agreed.

He did not say origin of life. Again you are lying. Of course you could quote his words to show you are not lying.

Quote:
I also agree that science is bound by evidence. Where is the evidence for the common ancestor between chimp and man, and how many chromosome pairs does this ancestor have to make the distinction?

As you would know if you knew anything about the subject the common ancestor is on the fossil record. if you understood the subject you would know the fossil is all that is required. You delusions about chromosomes are your own.

Quote:
ID is not a replacement for ET.

Remember either malevolent or incompetent by virtue of the evidence at hand.

Quote:
If the mechanisms of ET are ever shown to be true, which is to say if science ever uncovers actual evidence, then ET's mechanisms are just an example of the design of Life.

Again your display your willful ignorance or deliberate lies. You creationists are all alike.

Quote:
Darwin had no idea about DNA. Darwin saw similarities and inferred common ancestry. We now know that that commonality is DNA. We unfortunately still hang on to notions of direct descent. That requires independent proof BEFORE we declare it to be proven fact. DNA homology does not prove descent.

More ignorance and/or lies.

Quote:
"...IF you knew of the original meaning of Law as in of Gravity you would know better. Inferences from words are not permitted and generally foolish to try. Whatever the words or names it is only the math that matters."

I agree. Inferences from words are not permitted. The inference of 'designer' from design should not be permitted either. Of course, the reason "law" is being replaced is just for that reason:

is being replaced? Dumb shit. It is just a term which was common at the time. It is not being replaced as that is what it was called at the time. Today we would call it a theory. You have no idea what you are talking about ... but you know that.

Quote:
it implies a law-maker, so we prefer "theory" of gravity. All I am saying is that "designer" is inferred merely from the word, such that it is as silly to infer designer from design as it would be to infer a Divine Theory-Maker from the word Theory. I am just saying it is a non sequitor, and only two people do this: Creationists and anti-ID campaigners.

For someone who pretends to a degree in philosophy to drop in divine where it does not follow by analogy has to be a liar. Let me guess. You are a freshman, right?

Quote:
I will not address the remaining ad hominem parts of your last post. Your allegations that I misuse terms is only a mendacious distraction to allow you to avoid my points.

There are no ad hominems only statements of facts. Your statements about science barely rise to the level of gibberish. Note, I retract my previous statement that they are gibberish. Upon reconsideration I find that too high a rating. It is your "points" that do not rise to the higher standard of authentic gibberish.

Quote:
Why not address my request for the scientific evidence for this common ancestor of chimp and man. Let's get that out the way first.

I did. it is in the fossil record but you are too dumb to recognize the answer. Only an ignoramous would claim more than fossils are required as you have done.

Of all hundreds of the possible examples of descent and common ancestor the creationists always jump to the human one.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Sockra

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

So you have a degree in science but no degree in how to make valid inferences or a degree that has allowed you to study logic. I'm supposed to believe all your arguments on Evolution Theory are sound and valid...because you have a degree..... in Physics????  I wonder how many "degree'd" scientists and experts put thalidamide out on the market as a safe drug?

I could care less what you believe. A degree in science means I know the scientific meanings of fact and theory. You do not.

Thalidomide is an argument to an unrelated issue to discredit the issue at hand which you know for a fact is illogical because a degree in philosophy requires at least an introductory course in logic. Meaning you are lying.

Quote:
But you're right... it's an appeal to authority and illogical. As I have a degree in philosophy I think I can speak to any analysis of argument, and as I said before I look at remarks made by Evolutionists with an eye to their logic and rationality. I don't dispute the biology or the real science.

It is not a question of analyzing arguments. It is the fact you do not understand science and therefore you cannot understand what scientists say. That is impolite but not ad hominem as it is a fact. You cannot analyze the logic of what you do not understand.

Quote:
Dawkins clearly states that Evolution explains Life. If you dispute that Evolution explains Life, then we are agreed.

He did not say origin of life. Again you are lying. Of course you could quote his words to show you are not lying.

Quote:
I also agree that science is bound by evidence. Where is the evidence for the common ancestor between chimp and man, and how many chromosome pairs does this ancestor have to make the distinction?

As you would know if you knew anything about the subject the common ancestor is on the fossil record. if you understood the subject you would know the fossil is all that is required. You delusions about chromosomes are your own.

Quote:
ID is not a replacement for ET.

Remember either malevolent or incompetent by virtue of the evidence at hand.

Quote:
If the mechanisms of ET are ever shown to be true, which is to say if science ever uncovers actual evidence, then ET's mechanisms are just an example of the design of Life.

Again your display your willful ignorance or deliberate lies. You creationists are all alike.

Quote:
Darwin had no idea about DNA. Darwin saw similarities and inferred common ancestry. We now know that that commonality is DNA. We unfortunately still hang on to notions of direct descent. That requires independent proof BEFORE we declare it to be proven fact. DNA homology does not prove descent.

More ignorance and/or lies.

Quote:
"...IF you knew of the original meaning of Law as in of Gravity you would know better. Inferences from words are not permitted and generally foolish to try. Whatever the words or names it is only the math that matters."

I agree. Inferences from words are not permitted. The inference of 'designer' from design should not be permitted either. Of course, the reason "law" is being replaced is just for that reason:

is being replaced? Dumb shit. It is just a term which was common at the time. It is not being replaced as that is what it was called at the time. Today we would call it a theory. You have no idea what you are talking about ... but you know that.

Quote:
it implies a law-maker, so we prefer "theory" of gravity. All I am saying is that "designer" is inferred merely from the word, such that it is as silly to infer designer from design as it would be to infer a Divine Theory-Maker from the word Theory. I am just saying it is a non sequitor, and only two people do this: Creationists and anti-ID campaigners.

For someone who pretends to a degree in philosophy to drop in divine where it does not follow by analogy has to be a liar. Let me guess. You are a freshman, right?

Quote:
I will not address the remaining ad hominem parts of your last post. Your allegations that I misuse terms is only a mendacious distraction to allow you to avoid my points.

There are no ad hominems only statements of facts. Your statements about science barely rise to the level of gibberish. Note, I retract my previous statement that they are gibberish. Upon reconsideration I find that too high a rating. It is your "points" that do not rise to the higher standard of authentic gibberish.

Quote:
Why not address my request for the scientific evidence for this common ancestor of chimp and man. Let's get that out the way first.

I did. it is in the fossil record but you are too dumb to recognize the answer. Only an ignoramous would claim more than fossils are required as you have done.

Of all hundreds of the possible examples of descent and common ancestor the creationists always jump to the human one.

 

Like I said, when you grow up, we can talk again. Love your avatar, so appropriate, but I don't waste my time on mental midgets like you who can only resort to ad hominem.

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sockra Tease

Vastet wrote:
Sockra Tease wrote:
It was not proven false.
It was, unless or until you or someone else can provide an example of it in nature. So far noone has.
Quote:
I am concerned with the rationality, or no, of the inference of intelligent design.
Yes, you are indeed inferring the idea that there is design. Yet noone has ever shown any example of design. In fact, the universe is counter to the idea of design. It serves no purpose. It is chaotic and self destructive.
Quote:
I have met my burden: order points to design.
You have not. Your concept of order is based on your primitive senses and uneducated understanding of spacetime. There is no order. The universe is burning itself out at an exponentially growing rate. The fact that we even have the illusion of order is because of our ridiculously short lifetimes. The rest was just the same old theist garbage already refuted, with more fallacies and an ad hominem.

 

Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man. If you believe in Evolution, you should be comfortable with "facts" that have no evidential basis.

To argue the Universe has no purpose is to presuppose what the purpose would be, then show how the Universe is not 'fit' for that purpose. Not a very good argument against purpose.

What is your purpose presupposition for you to be able to declare the Universe has no purpose?

How is the Universe self-destructive? How many Universes have you seen destructed? Where is everything "expanding" to? When a star explodes, does it get destroyed into nothingness, or is the collected compressed stardust just reformed? Where is all this destruction you claim for? Burning out?? Who sees the Universe burning out? Just because individuals stars burn out? How can you claim it is chaotic? Surely if someone claiming the universe is "designed" is in error, then the claim the universe is "chaotic" cannot hold?

What comic book do you get your cosmology from? I suggest you do a more serious study of science and not reveal your propensity to simplemindedly dive into a atheist religiosity.

 

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sockra Tease

double post


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote: I have

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 I have a dog.

His name is 'Milo' and he's a Border Collie / Labrador mix, reputed to be one of the smartest breeds of dog on the planet.


Milo is a gentle and patient creature who loves me. He will sit for hours as I talk to him only interjecting now and again in an attempt to mimic the sounds he hears or endangering the coffee table with massive swipes of his incredibly strong tail. He will sit there in rapt and joyous attention as I explain to him the fundamentals of Algebra. I can wax mathematically for hours and he will listen with full attentiveness, but in the end, he will never be able to solve a quadratic equation. He's a dog, after all.

This is the same reason I refuse to discuss science with primitives who accept magical answers to the question 'How did we get here?'
If you accept magic, then we can NOT discuss science because you neither believe or understand it.

Let's discuss the magic instead.

Tell me in detail, with documentation and peer reviewed literature, as well as experimental empirical and valid observational data in no less complexity that you demand of me and others about the scientific explanation.

Don't tell me THAT your god did it, tell me HOW he did it.
I insist.

LC >;-}>

We seem to have common ground here. My dog is a King Charles Cavalier and I talk to her quite a bit. I test out arguments on her and see how they sound through the air. She is a family member for us pure and simple.

I also do not believe in magic. I do not propose a solution "ad magic" to the great questions we face. What I failed to get across, it seems, is that the very reason I reject the fundamental premises of Evolution Creation Myth is just that very reason: I don't adopt ad magic as explanations for how we got here.

Just as there are folks pretending there is evidence for Jesus and Jesus as Son of God, so there are folks who pretend there is evidence for that first Adam and Eve species that gave birth to ALL species that descended from it. There are folks who believe that species do more than just adapt, but that they actually jump the tracks and their DNA reformulates (somehow??) and a species becomes another species. This has never been evidenced to have happened from any tests or observations ever done, but that doesn't stop people from pretending it has been evidenced. Folks believe a chromosome fused in a chimp and that is how Man was formed, even though this fusion process has never been tested or evidenced in Nature. An alternate hypothesis that Man has a chromosome that tried to split but didn't ergo what was a telomere in progress became halted, and became a telomere in mid chromosome. But no. For some unexplained reason that is rejected. The fusion thesis is current orthodoxy because that one allows us to posit ape as ancestor.

I am not presenting an alternate theory here, so I can't provide peer-reviewed "evidence" of something I don't present in the first place. Have you noticed all the calls I have made for evidence for our common ancestor and received nothing in return? Why? Because ET adherents can even describe the DNA profile of this thing they dreamed up. Not only does it not exist. But try to find an ET biologist to even describe the chromosome pairs - good luck. If this thing has 23 pairs, it's an ape; if it has 24 pairs, it's human. What is the DNA profile of this mythical common ancestor?

If it is you trying to tell me that my great great great grandad was an ape, I expect YOU to provide ME with evidence, especially given the "wild" nature of that speculation. I don't care if it is peer-reviewed or not: we all know peer-review is a process that serves to protect the religious orthodoxy, and ET is the current orthodoxy. Theology colleges release peer-reviewed papers reinforcing their respective religions too. Peer review. Big deal; evangelists supporting their own clans and own orthodoxies.

Moreover, "natural selection" is no explanation. Saying "nature selects" explains nothing at all. Saying "the ground selected the apple" is no substitute for the Law, or Theory, of Gravity. So when it comes to it really, I am not in a position to provide an alternate theory, since there is nothing in the first place to be an alternate to. Natural selection explains nothing. It is a description, not an explanation.

Me and my dog, Jazzy, aren't into religions, even the ones that wear science as a disguise.

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:Curious

Sockra Tease wrote:

Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man. If you believe in Evolution, you should be comfortable with "facts" that have no evidential basis.

Yes, we have.  I have personally shown where geneticists have identified the fusion of two pairs of chromosomes to create one pair of our chromosomes.  With the genetic markers at the fusion points being identical to Chimps.

Others have responded with other proofs.

But you just ignore all the evidence and then claim no one has shown any.

Common tactic of creationists/ID proponets.   Gets really old really fast.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Sockra Tease

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man. If you believe in Evolution, you should be comfortable with "facts" that have no evidential basis.

Yes, we have.  I have personally shown where geneticists have identified the fusion of two pairs of chromosomes to create one pair of our chromosomes.  With the genetic markers at the fusion points being identical to Chimps.

Others have responded with other proofs.

But you just ignore all the evidence and then claim no one has shown any.

Common tactic of creationists/ID proponets.   Gets really old really fast.

 

Nice bluff. Try again with real evidence. "Pretend" evidence doesn't count.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:Nice

Sockra Tease wrote:

Nice bluff. Try again with real evidence. "Pretend" evidence doesn't count.

I rest my case.  Typical ID proponet tactic.  They can't dispute it logically so they just say it's "gibberish" or "fanciful" or some other nonsensical term. 

Ok Sockra, allow me to present you with a TED video explaining this FACT for you.  Maybe with pictures you can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Of dogs and gods...

 Saying you don't believe in magic but you do believe in god is like saying you don't fuck animals, just dogs...

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
Like I said, when you grow up, we can talk again. Love your avatar, so appropriate, but I don't waste my time on mental midgets like you who can only resort to ad hominem.
 

In your reality is pointing out you do not know the meaning of ad hominem also an ad hominem?

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man. If you believe in Evolution, you should be comfortable with "facts" that have no evidential basis.

Which is further evidence you are a liar as the evidence has been described to you. It is also evidence you lied about researching evolution because you could not have missed it.

Your constant lies are conclusive evidence you are another ignorant creationist who lies about having a degree of any kind. 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
Nice bluff. Try again with real evidence. "Pretend" evidence doesn't count.
 

The existence of creationists is sufficient evidence we are related to chimps.

Yes I feel bad for insulting chimps.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:Watcher

Sockra Tease wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man. If you believe in Evolution, you should be comfortable with "facts" that have no evidential basis.

Yes, we have.  I have personally shown where geneticists have identified the fusion of two pairs of chromosomes to create one pair of our chromosomes.  With the genetic markers at the fusion points being identical to Chimps.

Others have responded with other proofs.

But you just ignore all the evidence and then claim no one has shown any.

Common tactic of creationists/ID proponets.   Gets really old really fast.

 

 

Nice bluff. Try again with real evidence. "Pretend" evidence doesn't count.

 

Some thread. humpf.

 

I guess some things you just assume in a debate. I expect SockraOfGod is smugly triumphant. He just threw up smoke and blew away. Tease is an appropriate name for him. Saw nothing else he had to offer.

Seems to me instead of providing evidence when debating a theist it is first important to get him to explain what things he considers evidence. Like is his evidence the bible? Well, that is just a claim, an assertion of a god. If that's the starting point then there will be little progress.

Is DNA evidence? like would he accept it in a court? Then maybe some progress could be made.

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
  ID and YEC are definitely

  ID and YEC are definitely beliefs of passion and not logical in my opinion. It would be like if I walked into my bedroom and found my wife in bed with another man, shut my eyes, walked out and said to myself, "My wife is faithful."

The most stringent arguments come from philosophy instead of science. One creationist I know describes herself as "anti" evolution because she has such a hatred for it. The biggest philosophical arguments come from the Ben Stein types who like to draw analogies to Nazi Germany and they say, "See where this line of thought leads?"

 

Many take offense to being "put on the same level as an animal", that was my mom's favourite argument. I grew up in the deep south Bible Belt and it was forbidden by law to teach evolution in class (this was back in the 60's and 70's). It was very strange because no teacher would actually say that the world was only 6K years old, however when the question was brought up, many cited a passage in the epistle of Peter about "1 day to God being as a 1000 years to man", yet any refference to man sharing ancestry with apes was carefully edited out, much like pornography from the 50's where black boxes were placed over "naughty parts". I distinctly remember studying dinosaurs in 3 rd grade (1968-69) with these wonderful educational tools that were called SRA's, packets of learning materials in subjects ranging from math and science to literature and social studies. As the teacher and her aid were eagerly unloading an SRA packet, the teacher's aid pulled out an Ascent of Man chart. Her face turned milk white and she quickly hid it away as if she had run across hard core pornography, but not qucikly enough as many kids, myself included saw it, one boy shouted, "Cool! Ape Men!" The teacher wouldn't even discuss it, but said that the chart was sent to the school by mistake and she instructed us to disregard it. When I got home that day, I relayed the story to my sister, who is 5 years older. I told her about the chart and she turned milk white and ran into oour mom's bedroom and relayed the story. She came back and said, "Marty, that's not right, that's saying that God didn't create us and that we're no better than animals." As an 8 year old, I was very confused how Mom made that leap in logic, but I kept mouth shut for fear of family drama as my mom was a bit of a drama queen.

YEC and ID are emotional subjects to fundies and this is evidenced by their continuing to attempt to make scientific arguments that are continually shot down by competent scientists. They continue to argue it as though they are arguing in a court of law, which is not rational since the rigors of science are far more astringent than legally arguing in court. They still don't get it.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate the title of the

I hate the title of the thread. ID is a theory like Harry Potter flying on a broom explains lift.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Curious argument given that

"Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man."

LOL. There are too many common ancestors to list them all. Literally billions. Any biology textbook could furnish you with dozens. A 1 second google search would list every one that is known. Why don't you go do that now.

"To argue the Universe has no purpose is to presuppose what the purpose would be, then show how the Universe is not 'fit' for that purpose. Not a very good argument against purpose."

Uh uh, to assume there could be a purpose requires the presupposition that there could be a purpose. You skipped right through that to start talking fallacies based on fallacies, such as what a purpose may be.

Instead, how about we actually examine the universe?
What does it do?
It expands and cools.
What is accomplished by this?
Entropy.
What is the end result of entropy?
Uniformity.
Is the universe required for uniformity?
No.
So what then, is the purpose of the universe, since the end

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
result is no different with

result is no different with or without a universe?

When a star explodes, are not all its planets burned to a crisp? Yet nothing is destroyed? Our species and world would survive our star going nova? Nothing would be destroyed?

If you can pull your head out of your bible long enough to actually think for once, and learn something, it'll become a wonderful day.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.