Something I found on creationscience.com

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution?changes in size, shape, and color?or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

Here is a simple point on how reatarded and stupid and oversimplifying AND most importantly how intellectually devious the xtians are.

Macroevolution is change over time....relative long time. You cannot show macroevolution by breeding dogs.. idiots... it is impossible, you cannot apply the selective pressures necessary to select for genes that would change a dog into another species in the short amount of time a breeder has..it's impossible....the theists know this but will lie and tell you that because it is not observable in dogs then.. obviously GOD CREATED DOGS and here is even more evidence of this idiocracy...

the mechanisms involved in microevolution are the exact same mechanisms involved in macroevolution. But you have tospan this over thousands and millions of years. Species change and re-form to adapt to the ever changing environments due to natural selection, NOT selective breeding, in short, a form of natural genetic engineering.. you are also seeing it now with designer pet reptiles "pie bald" pythons, red bearded dragons etc.... so in essence to use dogs as an example to discredit evolution is just plain intellectually wrong. And to do so by the theists is not surprising seeing as they lie about everything else.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Your philosophy is hopeless at explaining why we are here.

My philosophy never tried to explain the 'why' in 'why we are here'. It does on the other hand explain how. Looking for 'why?' in evolution is like looking for 'how' through god. One doesn't try to give an answer... the other doesn't have an answer to give.

You seem to be enslaved in the search for 'why?' when your dogma should have the answer for you. Some of us don't need to know the 'why?' because such a search would lead no where. We are happy knowing we can give ourselves the answers we need from nothing but ourselves. Why does a dog live? Because it's alive. Why do we live? Because we're alive. Looking farther than that will just lead you down a road of lies.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

You believe that there was no beginning.

NO you fucking fucktard, I DON'T KNOW!!!

There is nothing wrong with not knowing. But creating a god to explain yourself and the universe is irrational.

For this reason, the question that you ask over and over is irrelevant.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
nacker wrote:

You believe that there was no beginning.

NO you fucking fucktard, I DON'T KNOW!!!

There is nothing wrong with not knowing. But creating a god to explain yourself and the universe is irrational.

For this reason, the question that you ask over and over is irrelevant.

It's almost like we're arguing with a recorded message that is miraculously on loop in perfect timing to our responses.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:
Accept the best evidence.

That god is irrational? Ok, done. I feel better already.

You are ignoring the obvious. You are blinded by your naturalistic, materialistic philosophy.

Your philosophy is hopeless at explaining why we are here.

You write off God according to your philosophy. THAT... Is logical fallacy.

The true definition of God (if you can think freely to accept it) simply explains reality (singularity, nothing, infinity). You have simply written of a side of reality that doesn't fit your identity.

God is not irrational... your belief in us coming from nothing... or the infinite is.

God is the best fit for the evidence that we have. Open you mind. Think freely.

"What, this "god guy" is telling us to think freely???"

yep.

You are enslaved to your philosophy and refuse to acknowledge the irrationality of your beliefs to understand that only an unhindered God can explain our existence.

Nacker, if that is what you believe...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON AN ATHEIST FORUM?

Ban his ignorant lying ass.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

I'm sorry I offended you guys.

I came here to discuss evolution and learn from those discussions. You cornered me into a theological debate.

Bucket,

You are right... it isn't wrong to not know or not understand. But know this... that the best logical information is pointing to God now. And you'll never understand everything about God. He is God... and we aren't. He created our minds. They just won't measure up to His own. This isn't a cop out, or a creation to make me feel good. This is where the logic points. I'm sorry, Opiate, that I sound like a broken record, but neither of you have offered a better theory to explain our present circumstance of existence... not from nothing, not infinite... now you say "not God." What is the better model to fit these circumstances?

This argument that we are discussing (nothing from nothing) is logically sound and has been since it was first recorded over 1000 years ago by a Muslim thinker. Known as the kalam argument it has stood the test of time and has yet to be refuted. Actually it has been supported by science in discoveries and theories on the Big Bang and models of singularity.

That is why "science" is trying to come up with a way to explain the universe as infinite. That way they can hide from the overwhelming burden of truth that is pointing to a beginning and a beginner. But the trap of the infinite, coupled with inexcapable singularity, is doing nothing but supporting the kalam argument and its end result... acknowledgement of God.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:
Your philosophy is hopeless at explaining why we are here.

My philosophy never tried to explain the 'why' in 'why we are here'. It does on the other hand explain how. Looking for 'why?' in evolution is like looking for 'how' through god. One doesn't try to give an answer... the other doesn't have an answer to give.

You seem to be enslaved in the search for 'why?' when your dogma should have the answer for you. Some of us don't need to know the 'why?' because such a search would lead no where. We are happy knowing we can give ourselves the answers we need from nothing but ourselves. Why does a dog live? Because it's alive. Why do we live? Because we're alive. Looking farther than that will just lead you down a road of lies.

Your philosophy falls short on the how as well. We didn't appear from nothing. the universe can't be infinite... how did it all start? Evolution didn't start it all. By "it all," I mean time and space and the existence of reality. Your philosophy, being purely naturalistic and materialistic, has to clinch to an empty belief that the "how" is defined by nothing... or an irrational infinite.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

I came here to discuss evolution and learn from those discussions. You cornered me into a theological debate.

Lies. You did not come here to discuss you came here to post rediculous theistic propaganda.

Yes, we did corner you into a theistic debate, because it has become clear from your correspondence that you are not interested in reality, you are exclusively interested in defending your religion with ANY argument as long as it serves your purpose, with complete disregard for the rationality and/or validity of both your arguments and your evidence.

I think it was Mr Hemmingway who said 'All thinking men are atheists' ...
You have to remember most of us are ex-christians. We've been there, done that...

If you are here to change minds you are wasting your time, and ours.

(BTW if the powers that be are reading this is still think Nacker should be banned...)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.

How about calling it the "Lord of something that came from nothing, even though something coming from nothing is irrational" ???

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:

(BTW if the powers that be are reading this is still think Nacker should be banned...)

For what offense?

We have no set rules here yet, however we err on the side of excessive free speech. I was called irrational by King David 3 times with no logical defense behind his argument, and that twats still here, so obviously we're being lenient. Anywho... what do you think Nacker should be banned for?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

For raping the truth.

But oh well i guess it wouldn't be any fun catching chickenses if there weren't any chickenses :smt117
so nm don't ban the chickenses.

my biggest complaint is actually straying off topic... six pages ago this thread was about dogs ffs.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Actually I've been enjoying flexing my muscles in attempts to bring rationality to the discussion. If anything Nacker is a natural resource we should come to love... we just have to lie to ourselves that something, just something, might get through to him.

We're here because we can ignore the follies of theist doctrine so his attempt to spread any faith shouldn't be feared.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Sapient wrote:
nacker wrote:

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.

How about calling it the "Lord of something that came from nothing, even though something coming from nothing is irrational" ???

That eloquent and humurous/nonsensical rhetorical device of a definition would work except that if He really is God... and Lord... then He didn't "come." He didn't come into being. He didn't start existing. He just was. And all things that came into being (including time) came into being by Him.

Here is another way to look at it.
We had to come from something. It is irrational to look for an infinite amount of beginners. There had to be a Beginner to start it all off. That Beginner must be above all that there is, because all that is extends from him.

Do you see that you are doing the very thing that you accuse me of. You say that God is a made up theory stemming from ignorance (I don't believe it is). But atheism is that. We can't understand the depths of what it is to be God so we write it off. The super - natural can't exist because we don't understand it. That is a theory stemming from ignorance.

You can attack me. Beg me to be banned and all that fun stuff, but don't put your hands over your ears and say la la la. We agree that anything from nothing is ridiculous. But so is the infinite. This agrees with the definition of what God would be if He was God. This is the best theory for our understanding of reality.

Sapient,
Thanks for not banning me by the way.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
nacker wrote:

I came here to discuss evolution and learn from those discussions. You cornered me into a theological debate.

Lies. You did not come here to discuss you came here to post rediculous theistic propaganda.

I'm not lying. You don't know why I'm here. I didn't jump in the "defend God" forum. I jumped into the evolution forum b/c that is what I was interested in. You pressed the issue of God.

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
Yes, we did corner you into a theistic debate, because it has become clear from your correspondence that you are not interested in reality, you are exclusively interested in defending your religion with ANY argument as long as it serves your purpose, with complete disregard for the rationality and/or validity of both your arguments and your evidence.

You and I both know these arguments are valid and rational. What is irrational is your ducking the issue that you must believe that reality stems from the irrational. Either from an irrational nothing... or an irrational infinite.

I'm not the one on defending my beliefs here. You asked for my beliefs and I offered them. I'm not even trying to "change your mind." If that was my goal then I would have opened up with the discussion we are having now when I first came to this forum. I've presented my argument and after 7 pages, i'm still waiting for a propper response to it.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

He didn't "come." He didn't come into being. He didn't start existing. He just was.

You mean like the best explanation we have for the Universe? The Universe just was. If you can so easily see it's possible with an invisible boogeyman skydaddy, occams razor says you should be able to see it with what we have evidence for. We know the Universe exists, we don't know a god exists. The simplest explanation is the Universe just was.

Quote:
We agree that anything from nothing is ridiculous.

If we agree on that, then we agree the god you created is ridiculous.

Quote:
Thanks for not banning me by the way.

Yup. I'm all for free speech.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
How long has the law of converservation existed... oh yeah... forever... an infinite amount of time... that is IRRATIONAL. or ok... who created thermodynamics? Must have been a pretty powerful fellow.

Did the law of conservation (which you are substituting for God) create time? No. God did. B/c He is above time. We would only expect such of the Creator and Definer of reality. You are dressing up the universe and mater is infinite in time argument.

Any time you wish to actually address the argument, let us all know. I have no time to write lengthy responses to pure, empty rhetoric.

Thanks.

diddo.

Tell me. Is you law of conservation infinite???

Wrong question to ask. The law is a description of phenomen, not something physical.

Quote:
Has it always existed in time?? That is irrational.

I don't see how.

Why don't you start by defining time for us, nacker. What is this thing you keep insisting cannot be inifite?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Sapient wrote:
nacker wrote:

We can't come from nothing.

And obviously neither can god since as you say that would be irrational.

correct.

so... since He can't come from nothing, and can't be merely infinite... He must be above the idea of "comming into existence" and above the idea of time. Those absolute qualities are inferred in the title of God.

No, they are qualities you've pulled out of your ass without justification.

Quote:
You are attacking God instead of looking at the logic. You are left open to yourself extending from nothing, or your time being infinite which are both ridiculous. You aren't left with many other options. I'm waiting for a theory that fits our logical position besides the obvious of an unbounded God.

Why must you keep repeating the same false dichotomy over and over again? Is it some sort of mantra?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Ok Bucket...

Breath taken...

You believe that there was no beginning. That everything just was. Obviously, b/c of the law of thermodynamics.

So therefore, we (as humans) have come to exist from the laws of nature (i.e. thermodynamics, natural selection acting on random mutations) from some point in the INFINITE past (that some how we have surpassed by this moment) from a big bang that had to occur b/c of the laws that govern reality extending from a singularity into the expanding present... and through various random genetic mutations, conserved by natural selection (forgetting about the Cambrian explosion, fossil record, and the stasis of the amount of phyla since that period) we have arrived from a single cell organism from the primordial soup (of which there is no physical evidence) along with all animal and PLANT LIFE.

And all of that has either come from Nothing... or an infinite amount of time.

ALL OF THAT IS IRRATIONAL.

No, all of that is a strawman.

Read my argument on page 3, again.

Define time for us, nacker.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

One thing I will say is that this topic no longer belongs on a science board. It's degenerated into philosophical flaming.

I'm not sure where to put it, but we certainly are not discussing biology or science any longer.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
One thing I will say is that this topic no longer belongs on a science board. It's degenerated into philosophical flaming.

I'm not sure where to put it, but we certainly are not discussing biology or science any longer.

It makes me think we need some sort of enter the darkness forum. I wonder if we should come up with a policy of breaking certain types of posts off into threads of darkness while leaving the original thread in tact. And where that policy should be instituted. Got ideas?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
What is irrational is your ducking the issue that you must believe that reality stems from the irrational. Either from an irrational nothing... or an irrational infinite.

Okay no i want him banned again.

FFS nacker, For the tenth time...

1) I do not know everything.
2) I am not going to explain the things i don't know with an improbable God.
3) i am not going to answer your stupid fucking question.
4) if you repeat that question one more time i'm going to come to your house and sacrifice your pets to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What this whole thing boils down to, is that you believe in God.
You are using the LACK of knowledge as motivation that it must have been God!

Mind you, this actually makes sense... this is where religion comes from in the first place... one caveman to another:

"ooga booga hey Nacker where the fuck did us cavemen come from?"
caveman Nacker: "I don't know, therefore it must be a supernatural entity in the sky ooga booga"

and so religion was born.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

I've got it! How about we call the forum:

"Evidence for the Theory of Inherent Dishonesty in Theism"

???

We could split off posts from topics in which extreme dishonesty and ignorance was spotted.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Sapient wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
One thing I will say is that this topic no longer belongs on a science board. It's degenerated into philosophical flaming.

I'm not sure where to put it, but we certainly are not discussing biology or science any longer.

It makes me think we need some sort of enter the darkness forum. I wonder if we should come up with a policy of breaking certain types of posts off into threads of darkness while leaving the original thread in tact. And where that policy should be instituted. Got ideas?

good idea...
call it enter the darkness, and make it a no holds barred forum, and sticking to the topic is strictly optional.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

severe chronic irrationality disorder quarantine


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

'The Pit of Doom'
or
'Intensive Care Unit'
or
'Conversion Wars'
or
'The Looney Bin'


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

cute.

time: b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

These events in the universe cannot be infinite. The universe cannot just have always been, b/c the universe exists in time... It exists in a nonspatial continuum with a number of events which succeed one another from past, through present, to future.

If all of those past events are infinite, then the past should be never ending and we could never reach the present.

The continuum that is time had to have a beginning. That calls for a beginner. That is why the theory of the infinite universe is boo boo, and a God is logically necessary to exist outside the continuum of time to create it and everything else.

He didn't stem from anything and only God would have the power to exist in His own essence. That is the very nature and definition of what God would be, should be, and is.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

holy crap, I leave for a few days and this thread explodes


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
cute.

time: b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

So, IOW, cause and effect. This is addressed in my original argument. Please read it.

It is actually more apropos to view time as space-time, a coordinate system, however even if you do not, time only began to exist as we know it after the singularity of the Big Bang.

Quote:
These events in the universe cannot be infinite. The universe cannot just have always been, b/c the universe exists in time...

No, this isn't quite true. Time is NOT an entity independent of the universe. Either it is part of a spatial coordinate system or it is a word we use to describe a progression of events - IOW cause and effect. You are are really doing nothing more than making an underhanded First Cause argument - an argument I've already address on page 3.

BTW, how can the universe exist in time if time is as you said simply a progression or measure of events?

How could God magically exist outside of time, unless He participated in no events at all? For God to be "timeless" he cannot have volition.

Quote:
The continuum that is time had to have a beginning. That calls for a beginner.

Wait, I though that something couldn't come from nothing? Or is God the only magical exception to what we've agreed upon?

Quote:
That is why the theory of the infinite universe is boo boo, and a God is logically necessary to exist outside the continuum of time to create it and everything else.

Right, because something existing outside of time really makes logical and scientific sense :roll:

Making up an answer, like "god exists outside of time", then ranting about it for 6 pages is the only real booboo here.

Quote:
He didn't stem from anything and only God would have the power to exist in His own essence. That is the very nature and definition of what God would be, should be, and is.

So I was right. Something cannot come from nothing, unless it's God. God is super magical, becuase he's friggin' God :roll:

Pure special pleading garbage.

Speaking of time, nacker, stop wasting yours and ours. Thanks.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

LeftofLarry wrote:
holy crap, I leave for a few days and this thread explodes

Honestly, you didn't miss a thing.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

time does exist as its own continuum. We may measure it by our unverse, rotation and orbit of earth, or atomic clocks, but the time exists on its own to be measured by means of the universe it operates over.

If God is going to be God, then he necesarrily must be above all things... including time. The nothing/infinite argument supports the definition of what God must be.

Don't write God off just b/c you don't understand Him. It is a rational belief. The most rational. The alternative is to believe that we came from nothing, or an infinite universe. The universe has no intelligence and can therefore not operate outside of the laws of reality (whether we fully understand these laws or not). One of those laws is time. It is bound by time. Time cannot be infinite. If God has intelligence, then He can exist in His own essence and operate from a will and an intelligent, creative power to move time and reality as we know it into existence.

Yes this is a big concept. A life changing concept. But it is better than nothing. (emphasis on the pun). And it is better than the infinite. B/c both are irrational. Your beleifs are on the unknown. How silly to belief that we came from nothing. How silly to speculate on how the universe could may have been always there with no intelligence and the irrationality of infinite time. Our best cosmological models, singularity, and the big bang deny such a speculation. It is much more logical to infer a God from the obviousness of our present situation of existence from something beyond being created and beyond time. It is a necessary premise. To deny it is to have faith in nothing or speculation on the infinite... no matter how you dress it up. What an empty faith.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
time does exist as its own continuum.

I never said it did, in fact I said quite literally that time was not independent of the universe.

If you actually responded to what I wrote, this would be evident - though it would be tougher for you to create strawmen and ignore criticism.

Quote:
We may measure it by our unverse, rotation and orbit of earth, or atomic clocks, but the time exists on its own to be measured by means of the universe it operates over.

I never disagreed. That is time as it is now and as we currently understand it in everyday scenarios.

Quote:
If God is going to be God, then he necesarrily must be above all things... including time. The nothing/infinite argument supports the definition of what God must be.

No, nacker. Simply saying God is magical does not make him exist, give him the magic powers you claim or make your repeated assertions true.

The rest of your post contains nothing of substance pertaining to this discussion, just the same assertions you've been repeating for 6 or 7 pages now.

Feel free to actually comment on the points I made in my last post or my actual argument any time you wish.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Dude seriously... you've made no points.

You said, "in fact I said quite literally that time was not independent of the universe. "

And I said that it is independent of the universe. We use the universe to measure time, but time is not dependent on the unverse for its existence... it ticks on its own. We just measure the ticks by the best means we can find in the universe.

You've tried to dress up an infinte amount of time with some pointless speculations. Time is all the universe has ever known. There is a finite time between now and singularity. If singularity wasn't the absolute beginning of the universe, then there was a finite time between singularity and the events before it or those events would never have ended and the creation of our present universe beginning at such singularity would never have come to pass. Time had to be created by an intelligent entity above it. To begin the motion of time. Yeah.. .that is a huge power. A crazy "magic" as you rhetorically call it. Call it what you like... whip out your empty rhetoric and dressing up of the irrational infinite time... God is the only rational choice.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Dude seriously... you've made no points.

Right, I made absolutely no lucid points or valid criticisms here:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
cute.

time: b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

So, IOW, cause and effect. This is addressed in my original argument. Please read it.

It is actually more apropos to view time as space-time, a coordinate system, however even if you do not, time only began to exist as we know it after the singularity of the Big Bang.

Quote:
These events in the universe cannot be infinite. The universe cannot just have always been, b/c the universe exists in time...

No, this isn't quite true. Time is NOT an entity independent of the universe. Either it is part of a spatial coordinate system or it is a word we use to describe a progression of events - IOW cause and effect. You are are really doing nothing more than making an underhanded First Cause argument - an argument I've already address on page 3.

BTW, how can the universe exist in time if time is as you said simply a progression or measure of events?

How could God magically exist outside of time, unless He participated in no events at all? For God to be "timeless" he cannot have volition.

Quote:
The continuum that is time had to have a beginning. That calls for a beginner.

Wait, I though that something couldn't come from nothing? Or is God the only magical exception to what we've agreed upon?

Quote:
That is why the theory of the infinite universe is boo boo, and a God is logically necessary to exist outside the continuum of time to create it and everything else.

Right, because something existing outside of time really makes logical and scientific sense :roll:

Making up an answer, like "god exists outside of time", then ranting about it for 6 pages is the only real booboo here.

Quote:
He didn't stem from anything and only God would have the power to exist in His own essence. That is the very nature and definition of what God would be, should be, and is.

So I was right. Something cannot come from nothing, unless it's God. God is super magical, becuase he's friggin' God :roll:

Pure special pleading garbage.

I'm not playing this game with you any longer.

You seem to simply ignore the points and criticism laid out for you and then create a strawman watered down version of the few criticisms you have the where with all to address. Then you repeat your naked assertions. At this point, you're simply trolling and spamming and I've had enough of it.

Why won't you respond using the quote feature? I think it is VERY telling that you do not. It's much easier to cut down an argument when you don't actually have to address the argument or criticism, isn't it?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

If The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to be The Flying Spaghetti Monster, then he necesarrily must be above all things... including time. The nothing/infinite argument supports the definition of what The Flying Spaghetti Monster must be.

I agree completely Nacker. You have proven conclusively, without a doubt, that the FSM exists. This will put an end to all AvT debates!

Sweet.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
God is the only rational choice.

Nacker, please read the WHOLE post and respond.

The Bible is the best evidence against the existence of God. (Check out the other forums here). Also the differences between different religions show that they are not based on truth but evolved seperately in social and geographic isolation.

There is MASSIVE evidence that suggests that the Christian god is the product of man's imagination. (look through the rest of these forums).

Therefore, i don't even need to know that the Big Bang happened...
Science has not been able to provide ALL the answers.
Now there are two options left:
a) Accept that there are gaps in our knowledge
b) Explain your existence with a random god (oh there are many, all of them equally absurd, pick one)

b) is the choice that many people over thousands of years have made, indeed it is why religion has developed in almost(?) every culture on earth!!!

One caveman to another:

"ooga booga hey Nacker where the fuck did us cavemen come from?"
caveman Nacker: "I don't know, therefore it must be a supernatural entity in the sky ooga booga"

Can't you see how rediculous it is?


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

You say things like, "That is a stupid argument."
Or, "That is irrational." Or "you are retarded."

Unlike you i justify my statements by quoting you directly and giving reasons.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Dude seriously... you've made no points.

It's this type of blatant disregard for reality that shows anyone with half a brain who has the untenable position in this debate.

<keeps eating popcorn>

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
nacker wrote:
God is the only rational choice.

Nacker, please read the WHOLE post and respond.

The Bible is the best evidence against the existence of God. (Check out the other forums here). Also the differences between different religions show that they are not based on truth but evolved seperately in social and geographic isolation.

There is MASSIVE evidence that suggests that the Christian god is the product of man's imagination. (look through the rest of these forums).

Therefore, i don't even need to know that the Big Bang happened...
Science has not been able to provide ALL the answers.
Now there are two options left:
a) Accept that there are gaps in our knowledge
b) Explain your existence with a random god (oh there are many, all of them equally absurd, pick one)

b) is the choice that many people over thousands of years have made, indeed it is why religion has developed in almost(?) every culture on earth!!!

One caveman to another:

"ooga booga hey Nacker where the fuck did us cavemen come from?"
caveman Nacker: "I don't know, therefore it must be a supernatural entity in the sky ooga booga"

Can't you see how rediculous it is?

The New Testament is by far the most accurate and documented document in antiquity. With thousands of copies, the earliest dating within years of the autographs, cross referencing can be done among these multitudes of copies found in different geological areas to determine the New Testament to an unprecedented degree of accuracy (somewhere in the ball park of 99%) with no doctrine hindered by the unconsequential discrepencies.

The best the rest of history has to offer is Homer's Illiad with some where around 640 copies. That is pretty weak compared to the thousands of copies. The earliest dates 3 centuries after the autograph (original). That's 300 years of copying. Who knows what the Illiad really said!!! And that is Histories best runner up to the Gospels. Who knows what Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, etc. really wrote. Maybe Aristotle never existed. Maybe Plato was a hoax. The best kept historical documents are those reserved for Jesus of Nazereth. There is no comparison. The burden of proof lies with you to disprove those eye witness accounts, and the careful study of Luke who has had his work studied in references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine-islands finding not a single mistake. If he was so exact in other matters, perhaps he was exact in recording the truth about Jesus. He was writing about a person which his beliefs in meant persecution, so there isn't a lot of motive to lie. Your burden of proof is very heavy at this point.

There are differences in different religions... but there are also similarities... Aristotles Ethics were a good shot at God. Budhism seeks denial of self to escape evil (dukha), That's funny, Jesus said to deny yourself and take up your cross and follow Him, the idea of holiness found in religion, the concept of sacrifice, etc.
One thing to do is to look at the differences and say they are too different to point to a real god...
Another thing to do is to look at the massive longing for god found in humanity and the similarities in how we view god and see that there is something written on the heart, mind, and soul of man that pulls him to the true God. This implies that God wants to be known.

There are Gaps in our knowledge... and there always will be. One gap that does not have to exist is the disacknowledgement of the necessary beginner. He actually makes the things we know for sure... make more sense. It isn't a sacrifice of knowledge to accept God... it is the acquiring of knowledge that allows that acceptance.

One scientist to another... "I can't measure God. Therefore he can't exist." "Yeah Mr. Bucket, let's just be ignorant of what ever we want to be and speculate about what we want science to be"

Don't you see how ridiculous that is???

Yellow,
I read your first cause argument argument... again. You have yet to escape your problem of time. The tools for measurement may change as the universe changes, but time is a reality that would require the power of God to rise above. Since it cannot be infinite... then it must have been begun. Since it would require the power of God to control time... He is your best scientific theory for why we are here in this finite continuum called time.

Thanks for the conversations. I think this closes out our discussions b/c You think I'm blind to reality so I'm afraid you won't really listen. You think I'm looking past your points, and I think you are ignoring mine, so this is not really going anywhere.

Just remember... infinite universe = irrational.

And none of you have provided any acceptable alternatives better than God who fits the mold of the beginner that must be. Write it off as "magic." Or an imaginary friend named the spaghetti monster... but those empty rhetorical devices won't get rid of your irrational faith in the infinite universe.

Late.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Incredible.

I am dumbstruck. No seriously a truck full of dumb just ran over me.

So what is happening with that forum... 'enter the darkness' or whatever its being called?

I think this thread should get posted there ASAP.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

I agree. The New Testament is 99% accurate?? That's about as accurate as saying shit tastes good! Laughing out loud

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:

I am dumbstruck. No seriously a truck full of dumb just ran over me.

MattShizzle wrote:

That's about as accurate as saying shit tastes good!

:smt043

I am so stealing those lines Smiling

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Sapient wrote:
nacker wrote:
Dude seriously... you've made no points.

It's this type of blatant disregard for reality that shows anyone with half a brain who has the untenable position in this debate.

<keeps eating popcorn>

And that sums up the thead.

I'm done with this unless nacker actually takes my actual words and attempts to dissect them point by point rather than simply continue screaming the same naked assertions at the top of his lungs over and over again.

Not using the quote function to respond to what a person has actually written is simply a dishonesty tactic, and I've called him on it several times now.

He's wasted enough of my time and yours, and even if you do pin him down, he'll simply leave the thread as he's done in a half dozen or so other theards in this forum.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.