Darwin Presents Another Swift Boot To The Lifeless, Bloody Corpse Of The Idea Of God!

ib1yysguy said:
By the way, unicorns are in the Bible.
Click to expand...

well, actually no they aren't....unless you are counting an errant translation of the Hebrew word for "wild oxen" that is found in the King James translation of the Latin transcription of the Hebrew Old Testament text.......hopefully you weren't silly enough to be referring to that, were you?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, actually no they aren't....unless you are counting an errant translation of the Hebrew word for "wild oxen" that is found in the King James translation of the Latin transcription of the Hebrew Old Testament text.......hopefully you weren't silly enough to be referring to that, were you?.......
Click to expand...

Hilarious.

The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick . . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.”3

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

You call it a translation problem. Your evangelical brethren call it factual history. I call it make believe.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not at all......if you can speak of a "beginning" of the universe, it must need be that which preceded what can be examined scientifically.....because that which can be examined scientifically IS the universe......



I will withhold my thanks momentarily, but I expect your instant reaction was based on the fact your knowledge of science is limited to counting how many things continue to writhe in a petri dish after a weeks' incubation....consider this...what is there for biology to study if there is no life....no amoeba, no petri dish....what I engage in is philo-sophistry, not sophistry.....if a logical conclusion of abiogenesis forces us to conclude there was a time prior to the existence of life, then there is nothing for biology to study prior to that time.....if there was a time prior to the existence of the physical laws, there is nothing for physics to examine prior to that time.....if there was a time prior to everything that science examines, then there is nothing for science to examine, prior to that time.....axiomatic.....
Click to expand...
Sighhhh....more sophistry.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not at all......if you can speak of a "beginning" of the universe, it must need be that which preceded what can be examined scientifically.....because that which can be examined scientifically IS the universe......



I will withhold my thanks momentarily, but I expect your instant reaction was based on the fact your knowledge of science is limited to counting how many things continue to writhe in a petri dish after a weeks' incubation....consider this...what is there for biology to study if there is no life....no amoeba, no petri dish....what I engage in is philo-sophistry, not sophistry.....if a logical conclusion of abiogenesis forces us to conclude there was a time prior to the existence of life, then there is nothing for biology to study prior to that time.....if there was a time prior to the existence of the physical laws, there is nothing for physics to examine prior to that time.....if there was a time prior to everything that science examines, then there is nothing for science to examine, prior to that time.....axiomatic.....
Click to expand...


And if there's nothing in nature for anyone to examine, that concept should not be taken seriously by rational people. Fairy tales are equally as probable as god.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that simply isn't a true statement......you could properly say there is no evidence on which to base a conclusion he exists, or that there is no rational basis upon which to determine he exists.....but it is simply wrong to say there is no reason to think he exists.....that which cannot be proven impossible must be accepted as possible.....
Click to expand...

That which may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.
 
AnyOldIron said:
That said, evolution does not disprove God's existence. It disproves what is written by man in the bible and other religious texts as to the time line they believe in.

It demonstrates the man-made nature of the notion of 'god'. 'The god of the gaps', one of the two uses of 'god' by mankind, has been so totally eroded that 'god's' use has retreated to some vague notion of 'first cause', starting in motion a sequence that is far better explained by natural processes.

Explaining abiogenesis by divine process simply doesn't make sense. What created the creator? It bares all the hallmarks of an idea not properly thought through. A human trait, rather than divine.
Click to expand...

This assumes that the creator was created. SOMETHING had to have existed for all of time... you cannot create matter from nothing (at least according to what humans have discovered with regards to physics). That said... this finding does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

hence, I will remain agnostic.
 
Superfreak said:
This assumes that the creator was created. SOMETHING had to have existed for all of time... you cannot create matter from nothing (at least according to what humans have discovered with regards to physics). That said... this finding does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

hence, I will remain agnostic.
Click to expand...
Excellent deduction SF. Yes, you are correct. That is the logical paradox that undermines the argument from design. If life and matter were created by a creater, then who created the creator?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, I don't think you do know what an organic compound or an organic reastion is. Here's a little test. Which of these compounds are organic and which are inorganic and why would you consider them inorganic or organic?

graphite
cyanide
carbon dioxide
sodium thiocyanate
Click to expand...

dude, fuck your tests....that's irrelevant to what we are discussing and I'm not going to let you play "let's change the subject"......the statement I made is true...do you deny it?.....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Excellent deduction SF. Yes, you are correct. That is the logical paradox that undermines the argument from design. If life and matter were created by a creater, then who created the creator?
Click to expand...
Which attempts to put natural limits on a supernatural creature.
 
Superfreak said:
This assumes that the creator was created. SOMETHING had to have existed for all of time... you cannot create matter from nothing (at least according to what humans have discovered with regards to physics). That said... this finding does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

hence, I will remain agnostic.
Click to expand...

From Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Approximately two dozen parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in order for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 - 110

1. gravitational coupling constant

* if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
* if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

2. strong nuclear force coupling constant

* if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
* if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

3. weak nuclear force coupling constant

* if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
* if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

4. electromagnetic coupling constant

* if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
* if smaller: no chemical bonding

5. ratio of protons to electrons

* if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
* if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

6. ratio of electron to proton mass

* if larger: no chemical bonding
* if smaller: no chemical bonding

7. expansion rate of the universe

* if larger: no galaxy formation
* if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

8. entropy level of the universe

* if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
* if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

9. mass density of the universe

* if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
* if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

10. age of the universe

* if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
* if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

11. initial uniformity of radiation

* if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
* if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

12. average distance between stars

* if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
* if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized

13. solar luminosity

* if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
* if increases too late: frozen oceans

14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)

* if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
* if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

15. decay rate of the proton

* if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
* if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio

* if larger: insufficient oxygen
* if smaller: insufficient carbon

17. decay rate of 8Be

* if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
* if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton

* if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
* if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form

18. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

* if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
* if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even two percent stronger or two percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.111, 112 More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.110 The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive.113 It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055! Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.
Click to expand...
http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_astroevidgodbible.html#Creator or chance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top