Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- ********0
And here's an interview with the Rupert Sheldrake guy. He's not related to the former link I put up at all. I got introduced to Sheldrake bc he was one of the talking heads on a PBS show a few years back that featured a whole bunch of scientists (evolutionary biologists, physcis guys..mostly) discussing the origin of th euniverse called The Glorious Accident or something like that - had Feynmann, Gould, Dawkins..and Rupert Sheldrake
Rupert looked like Dr. Who's anemic kid brother and talked some whacked out shit about Lamarkism and then at a roundtable makes the suggestion that maybe the fundamental laws evolve as well - which of course got him weird ass stares from around the table. But I keened into the idea as I thought their was somethingintriguing and sensible about it...anyway, here's an interview with the guy:
- discipler0
trainer -
1. WHAT??? Holy moses. I hope you aren't serious.
2. Read what I just wrote to Hym in my last post.
- discipler0
It is illogical and downright absurd to suggest that something came from nothing.
- ********0
I find intriguing the idea that if the fundamental laws of the universe do infact evolve does that suggest that god, or a creator being evolves as well. Now that is an idea that blows my mind, but also one which I find intellectually and spiritually invigorating...
And JazX in case you missed the link here it is again:
- ********0
JazX - here's something I found quick - looks pretty good:
www.physicsweb.org/art...
TheTick
(Jun 15 05, 10:45)Interesting, now there's some science.
'The strange story of the Oklo reactor
Natural uranium contains two isotopes. Uranium-235, the isotope that is useful for nuclear energy, is relatively rare and accounts for just 0.7% of all natural uranium. Its less-radioactive sibling, uranium-238, makes up the other 99.3%. In 1972 scientists from the French atomic energy commission noticed something mysterious in soil samples taken from a uranium mine in Gabon in Central Africa: the relative abundance of uranium-235 was a factor of two lower than expected..."
"One possibility was that a band of hi-tech terrorists had been stealing and stockpiling the missing uranium for purposes even more evil than blowing up innocent atolls." - wtf hahaha
That's interesting. Anomalies make my heart beat faster.
"Alexander Shlyakhter of the Leningrad Nuclear Physics Institute."
Looks like he was a Ruski.
"It should be noted that the present status of all these experiments is one of consistency. For example, the geological results do not conflict with the quasar results or the atomic-clock experiments because they probe very different epochs in the history of the universe."
hmmmm...
- Hym0
discipler i was 8 years old and just an annoying angry kid willing to fight anything that cared to answer and losing parents early didn't really help.
But that doesn't matter, i feel satisfied with my view on life and so do you. You probably can't live in a world without a God, well i take the reverse.
- ********0
It is illogical and downright absurd to suggest that something came from nothing.
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:53)
----------------In Western Christiantian and most Greek thought yes. But Buddhism has Mu and form arriving from emptiness as a very basic concept. So I suppose all civilizations west of the Iran are absurd?
- trainer0
It is illogical and downright absurd to suggest that something came from nothing.
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:53)ehhh... which is exactly what you did:
an infinite uncaused being doesn't require a creator, by definition
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:47)
- ********0
See JazX - I can and do recognize science of value as well as theology of value. I am one versatile Tick...
The Oklo reactor thing was interesting...
We really do need to consolidate this entire thread somewhere and print it up or put it online somewhere...
- ********0
It is illogical and downright absurd to suggest that something came from nothing.
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:53)ehhh... which is exactly what you did:
an infinite uncaused being doesn't require a creator, by definition
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:47)
trainer
(Jun 15 05, 10:56)
------------------Good catch trainer...a wee bit of a gotcha there...but of course we'll just go off into semantics now...
- discipler0
No, Tick, logic dictates this. matter and life do not spring from nothingness. Pasteur's experiments proved that life must come from life. Again, logical suicide to think otherwise.
trainer, no... if the nature of God is infinite, he is without beginning and without end (something our little brains can't wrap around). By nature he is uncaused - not requiring a beginning and not having one. Everything else in the universe has a beginning and thus requires a cause, by definition.
- discipler0
it's really pretty simple logic.
- GeorgiePorgie0
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19
- k770
it's really pretty simple logic.
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 11:01words of clarity sound confused. © lao tzu
- Jaline0
777!
- discipler0
restated:
God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question "Who created God?" is illogical, just like "To whom is the bachelor married?".
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?" It's simple:
1. Everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God, however, does not have a beginning, so He does not have a cause.
The universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it was brought into existence, a logical absurdity.