God didn't create the universe

[BSmack]

Is it possible for you to just once back up your assertions with something other than pure pablum?

LOL I didn't make any assertion.

You mean other than a white bearded guy created the universe while talking like a late middle ages Englishman. Shove it up your ass.

We don't have an observable physical law, which has never been deviated from, which tells us that God must be created. We DO have a never deviated from standard which tells us that energy can not arise from non-energy. Therefore your "gotcha" question to Jsc - "Then who created God," is no gotcha question at all.

We also have no observable evidence of such a creator and plenty of observable evidence that points to how the universe ACTUALLY was formed.

[poptart]

Is it possible for you to just once back up your assertions with something other than pure pablum?

LOL I didn't make any assertion.

You mean other than a white bearded guy created the universe while talking like a late middle ages Englishman. Shove it up your ass.

I didn't assert that God created the universe.

All I did in this thread is shoot down your "gotcha" to Jsc.

Stay on task.

We also have no observable evidence of such a creator and plenty of observable evidence that points to how the universe ACTUALLY was formed.

LOL

What evidence do we have that energy arose from non-energy?

~ zip


I did not assert that we have observable evidence of a Creator.


Again, my only intention here was to shoot down your faulty "gotcha" to Jsc.

You didn't think that through well at all.

As a simple point of debate, it was a very poor effort on your part.

[BSmack]

I didn't assert that God created the universe.

Well you certainly have before. If you've changed your mind, by all means let me be the first to welcome you to the side of reason and logic.

[Mikey]

Theory vs. Law

It's actually pretty funny watching a guy like you, who thinks he's pretty smart, flail around typing reams of complete bullshit.

You obviously don't know much crap about this.

In the scientific realm, "laws" are accepted as premises around which theories might be built. They haven't necessarily, in fact they most likely haven't been, "proven".

Ever heard of Newton's Laws?

They're the laws around which classical mechanics (which is actually a theory) was built. They break down, and have been physically shown to break down, in cases that are better described by quantum theory and/or relativity.

So, you think that "laws" somehow prove anything's validity better than "theories"?
This argument is just a way for know-nothing bullshitters to make a pseudo-scientific case for creationism. Anybody with any legitimate scientific or technical background knows it for what it is.

[Truman]

You are ignorant of the evolutionary subject matter.
Your responses prove that you're still mentally residing in a Jim Rome call segment.

And here I thought I was residing in your dome.[/Rome] :wink:

Lemme get this straight:

Even though I freely admit that I happen to agree with MOST of your initial take, but ALSO happen to vehemently disagree with your assertion that scientific evidence PROVES that man evolved, I’m ignorant of the “evolutionary subject matter”.

...pregnant pause...

Okey-doke.

"The argument… is that we know a great deal less (about evolution) than has been claimed. In particular, we do not know how the immensely complex organ systems of plants and animals could have been created by mindless and purposeless natural processes, as Darwinists say they must have been. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micro-mutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claim that biological creation occurred in that way. The philosophically important part of the Darwinian theory - its mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before - is therefore not really empirical science at all, but rather a deduction from naturalistic philosophy. In brief, what makes me a "critic of (Darwinian) evolution" is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter."

Is this the “value” that you’re looking for?

No, I didn’t write this. A gentleman by the name of Alex Paterson did. But it frames my skepticism for ANY definitive statement suggesting that Evolution is “proven” science. And I’d have to think tens of thousands of biologists, microbiologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, biochemists and half-a-hundred other scientific professions might just tend to agree with this sentiment, otherwise they would be pursuing other fields of study or worse yet, condemned to the purgatory of teaching brain-deads like Mikey the finer points of the Scientific Method.

[Truman]

Wanna give us an example of this Spirtual Evidence?

See tart, pop.

You DO realize that Evangelicals are every bit as dismissive and derisive of your empirical evidence of Evolution as you are of their "evidence" of Creationism, as expressed by their Bible?

So you're saying that poptart's beliefs (opinions) qualify as evidence?



Sorry - I don't think an opinion is going to satisfy even one iota of the Burden of Proof

You're really chasing your tail here - you should probably eject while the some shroud (not of turin) of the "Smart Truman" legacy remains

No. Try re-reading my post cognitively this time.

My point with that take is that Evangelicals do not regard the literal interpretation of the Bible as evidence of opinion. They regard it as evidence of Fact.

The only difference between the close-minded convictions of both the Evangelicals and the Evolutionists is that the Christers are convinced that you're gonna burn in hell for your beliefs. 'sayin'.

:D

[mvscal]

You DO realize that Evangelicals are every bit as dismissive and derisive of your empirical evidence of Evolution as you are of their "evidence" of Creationism, as expressed by their Bible?

Who gives a fuck? They're ignorant and so are you.

I see you're still struggling with the difference between actual physical evidence and baseless assertion without any supporting evidence.

The two claims are not equivalent.

[mvscal]

What evidence do we have that energy arose from non-energy?

Still waiting on a definition of this so-called "non-energy." Either that or you can stop talking out your ass and making shit up in a (failed) attempt to make it appear as if you actually have a clue.

[Mikey]

I wonder if

E=mc2

is a theory or a law?

[Truman]

Struggling with differences? Not so much.

Try to keep up, tough guy.

If you believe that scientific evidence difinitively proves that man evolved, then you are just as stupid as they are. PEOS.

[smackaholic]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that comparing "evidence" of evolution with "evidence" of a fukking fairy tale is laughable.

[Mikey]

All this "tough guy" talk is scaring poor lil' truman.

[Truman]

All this "tough guy" talk is scaring poor lil' truman.

:D

Heh. Who brought the funny guy?!

BTW, don't know if it was intentional or not, but:

I wonder if

E=mc2

is a theory or a law?

...will rack!

As pops and B rail at one another over the Properties of Energy, and Scott and I debate proof of the Origins of Man, Mikey chucks up THE post that brings this thread Full Circle.

Well played, Sir. [/golfclaps]

[Truman]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that comparing "evidence" of evolution with "evidence" of a fukking fairy tale is laughable.

I KNOW what he's saying, 'holic. I'm simply pointing out that the Christers think he's a fag for holding such beliefs. MY bitch comes on the "proof" end of things. Neither side of this argument can do so -

DEFINITIVELY...

- which has been my take all along.

Scott gets a pass because a) we're RL buds, and b) we're both from KC, which by Board Definition, makes us slow.

mvscal and Mikey on the other hand... Not so much. Our Enlightened Cali's are too stupid to recognize the irony of their sophistry.

[smackaholic]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that comparing "evidence" of evolution with "evidence" of a fukking fairy tale is laughable.

I KNOW what he's saying, 'holic. I'm simply pointing out that the Christers think he's a fag for holding such beliefs. MY bitch comes on the "proof" end of things. Neither side of this argument can do so -

DEFINITIVELY...

- which has been my take all along.

Scott gets a pass because a) we're RL buds, and b) we're both from KC, which by Board Definition, makes us slow.

mvscal and Mikey on the other hand... Not so much. Our Enlightened Cali's are too stupid to recognize the irony of their sophistry.

I get that every little detail of evolution hasn't been ironed out and therefore, it retains "theory" status. What I don't get is anyone, even a KCer, trying to say that they are essentially the same, unproven theories.

Evo is a scientific theory that has substantial evidence to back it.

Creation is something some old jew came up with to try to get everybody to fall in line and stop knocking one another over the head with clubs. This fairy tale has had pretty good legs and certainly has helped keep fukkers in line through the ages, but, it's still a fukking fairy tale.

[Truman]

MY bitch comes on the "proof" end of things. Neither side of this argument can do so -

DEFINITIVELY....

What do you call the Neanderthal Skull if not compelling evidence then?

What possible explanation can the Christers have for it?

Oh I dunno... Fred? Bill?

This has never been my argument, Scott, and you know it. Ask pops for an explanation.

[Truman]

I get that every little detail of evolution hasn't been ironed out and therefore, it retains "theory" status. What I don't get is anyone, even a KCer, trying to say that they are essentially the same, unproven theories.

The SAME unproven theories? Not in the least. The pigheadedness of the arguments presented by both sides? Spot on.

Neither side can "prove" their case. That's why this shit is so much fun! :D

Evo is a scientific theory that has substantial evidence to back it.

Don't disagree with you in the least.

[poptart]

Still waiting on a definition of this so-called "non-energy.

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

When you get right down to it, everything in the universe is energy.


And again, if you (or anyone) want to believe that the universe came about absent a Creator, have at it.
It's up to you.

I don't believe it.


I only came into the thread to let BSmack know his "Then who created God?" question to Jsc was very funnay - on him.

[mvscal]

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Nor can it be null. There is no such thing as non-energy and nobody other than ignorant halfwits such as yourself have ever suggested such a thing or chain of events.

When you get right down to it, everything in the universe is energy.

Wrong.

And again, if you (or anyone) want to believe that the universe came about absent a Creator, have at it.

So where did the Creator come from? Oh and we won't be forgetting that YOU just said that something cannot come from nothing.

God is...something, right?

[Truman]

This has never been my argument, Scott,

This WAS your argument.....

The bottom line is, Scott, that you can’t “prove” Darwin’s theory any more than pops can “prove” the existence of his Deity.

So What we have is tangible evidence that you can see and that you say you don't disagree with...... but don't agree with either...... so I guess that means you're....



(This will be added as a board Emoticon BTW - we'll call it "TRU-test")

Ah. SOMEBODY doesn’t like the asshat that he’s been fitted with...

Pity I missed the [/whiteflag] tag.

Can I have red letters in my moniker too? Oh the fun we would have... I could post an emoticon with its head up its ass denoting every take that you’ve posted up in this bitch.

We’ll call it a “a par usualm Scott post”.

I took a stand. You can’t prove your take, despite your bluster. And you HATE being called out, as well as having your inanity turned inside-out.

I’m good with that.

But I’m STILL waiting on that definitive "proof" of yours, Homer.[/holds breath]

You got any other quotes you care to parse, Br’er, or should we just go ahead and chalk this thread up in your “L” column?

FWIW Bro, I love ya to death, but I only argue with you when you’re wrong.

[Dr_Phibes]

But I’m STILL waiting on that definitive "proof" of yours, Homer.[/holds breath]

There is a difference between not having an experiment to falsify something with (which stands for most historical theories, really) and things which are inherently impossible to falsify. For instance, some beliefs in God postulate that all evidence found against God were in fact placed by God to test our faith - it is completely impossible to falsify.

Another, Freud's initial theories on psychology posited that if a patient denied the theory's truth, it was because they subconsciously did not want to confront it's conclusions.

[poptart]

When you get right down to it, everything in the universe is energy.

Wrong.

Then you disagree with Einstein.

Wow, who to listen to - Einstein or the blowhard internet messageboard beaner?

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Nor can it be null. There is no such thing as non-energy and nobody other than ignorant halfwits such as yourself have ever suggested such a thing or chain of events.

Energy comes from other energy.
Nothing comes independently.

Maybe you don't like the term "non-energy," and that's fine.
Label it however you like.

The bottom line is you want us to believe that the universe (energy) was created ... without a Creator.

Let's say that again -- created without a Creator.

Neat trick.

Show me the shadow bunnies again, uncle beaner!!

So where did the Creator come from? Oh and we won't be forgetting that YOU just said that something cannot come from nothing.

God is...something, right?

I already made the point clear (or it should have been made clear to his cloudy brain) to BSmack.

There is no law telling us that a Creator "comes from somewhere."

Perhaps the Creator always has been.

[poptart]

Scott, I don't know what you're carrying on about.

You waltzed into the thread, changed the subject to evolution, and took a shot at me - even though I was making NO assertion in the thread, and dealt this beauty in the process ...

There is Scientific evidence that proves man evolved rather than was created

Truman's "stand" is clear.

He called you out right away on that and said that it is NOT proven that man evolved.

Maybe it's something that you believe, but it is not something which is proven.

That's his stance.

Truman further said that he is personally unsure whether evolution is true or not.

His mind is open.

That's his stand.

No problem.

Not knowing for sure if something is true or not does not equal not taking a stand.

[BSmack]

Wow, who to listen to - Einstein or the blowhard internet messageboard beaner?

Why choose? They're both pwning you.

[poptart]

Einstein recognized there is a Creator.

Mvscal?
Like you, he thinks he is God.


:)

[BSmack]

This remains a mindfuck to me. As I've written previously, I've had a near-death experience that I cannot begin to properly explain. As a result of that, I'm quite convinced that there is something after we die, but exactly what I do not know. The notion of no Creator conflicts with both my logic as well as my experience.

What you felt was the rush of endorphins as your body mounted its final defense.

[Truman]

There is a difference between not having an experiment to falsify something with (which stands for most historical theories, really) and things which are inherently impossible to falsify. For instance, some beliefs in God postulate that all evidence found against God were in fact placed by God to test our faith - it is completely impossible to falsify.

Another, Freud's initial theories on psychology posited that if a patient denied the theory's truth, it was because they subconsciously did not want to confront it's conclusions.

Patience, Truman.

Again: The evidence is strong to support the evolutional development of man. But this evidence doesn’t make Darwin’s theory irrefutable. Far too many questions remain – and THAT is why I’m keeping an open mind, just as EVERY first year Biology student is taught to do when he first enters university.

Let me repeat: Evolution IS NOT settled science. If it were, then why are there so many people gainfully employed studying this very topic and clearly wasting their time trying to prove a fact?

BTW, Freud also suggested that women secretly wish that they had their own junk.

[Truman]

Grandma was slow, but she was eighty…

Christ, Scotty, I can only write em. Do I need to call you and read ‘em to you too?

Since perceptive reasoning gleaned from written language appears to be beyond your capabilities, let’s appeal to your spatial reasoning and take a look at a chart.

The pretty colors should hold your attention:



See all those (?) thingies?

Looks like Mr. Science forgot to erase all those enroute to publishing his definitive proof, which, of course, settles the question of evolution.

BTW, you might wanna make note that H.neanderthalensis didn’t give rise anyone, save a certain mulelish poster that clearly enjoys having his teeth kicked in on an Internet chat board.

I took a stand

No you didn't. You straddled the it may be...but maybe not.

Do I need to re-quote all of that again

Yes I did. You don’t like the stand. As for quoting me... Knock yourself out. You’ll creatively parse my words into something that resembles validation of your fence-sitter fallacy, and then I’ll have to log-in and make fun of you all over again.

...how could you argue something you've already said you may agree with?

Probably because you keep insisting that the evidence proves evolution. No it doesn’t. The evidence suggests proof of evolution. But this question is FAR from settled.

Hell, you’ve made the same mistake twice in this thread: Care to chuck up that skull pic of yours again and explain how our primitive cousin gave rise to Modern Man? Or maybe that’s just how things work in Blue Springs....

I’ll make this simple. All you need to do is post that there is Scientific evidence that suggests that man evolved rather than was created and I’ll leave you to making sport of pops while he laughs at you.

You are looking for the corners in a round room.

Yup. And if I find one I’ll pee in it. :P

[Mikey]

There is no way to "prove" any scientific theory. You can demonstrate its validity (or lack thereof) through empirical evidence, but there is no way, scientifically, to prove anything absolutely because no demonstration or set of demonstrations can take into account all possible conditions. Even if you think it does, it doesn't. People used to believe that Newton's laws were absolute, but they couldn't envision the conditions where where they would not apply. We now know that they break down under certain extreme conditions.

To reject any "theory" because it hasn't been absolutely proven is therefore a false argument. You can only look at the evidence and decide for yourself. A lot of people accept evolution because of what they see as a preponderance of empirical evidence, or because other people who they see as intelligent have told them that there's a preponderance of evidence. Fundies reject Evolution because of their faith that the Bible is the literal written word of God and/or G0D. That's another theory in itself.

Even the Vatican accepts that Genesis is a work of allegory, but there are alot of Luddites out there who think that it somehow appeared out of nowhere. I personally don't see how Evolution and Creation are that much in conflict, if you can accept the theory that God created Evolution. If not, then you have to believe that he put all of those fossils in the ground, and gave us the scientific method, just to fool us.

[Mikey]

Let me repeat: Evolution IS NOT settled science. If it were, then why are there so many people gainfully employed studying this very topic and clearly wasting their time trying to prove a fact?

Are you saying that because parts of the theory are incomplete or not completely "proven", this somehow casts doubt on the parts that are more completely confirmed through empirical evidence?

[Mikey]

Truman, even if you could fill in that timeline it would not "prove" anything absolutely. It would just demonstrate how it could have happened.

[Truman]

There is no way to "prove" any scientific theory. You can demonstrate its validity (or lack thereof) through empirical evidence, but there is no way, scientifically, to prove anything absolutely because no demonstration or set of demonstrations can take into account all possible conditions. Even if you think it does, it doesn't. People used to believe that Newton's laws were absolute, but they couldn't envision the conditions where where they would not apply. We now know that they break down under certain extreme conditions.

To reject any "theory" because it hasn't been absolutely proven is therefore a false argument. You can only look at the evidence and decide for yourself. A lot of people accept evolution because of what they see as a preponderance of empirical evidence, or because other people who they see as intelligent have told them that there's a preponderance of evidence. Fundies reject Evolution because of their faith that the Bible is the literal written word of God and/or G0D. That's another theory in itself.

Even the Vatican accepts that Genesis is a work of allegory, but there are alot of Luddites out there who think that it somehow appeared out of nowhere. I personally don't see how Evolution and Creation are that much in conflict, if you can accept the theory that God created Evolution. If not, then you have to believe that he put all of those fossils in the ground, and gave us the scientific method, just to fool us.

^^^^^^^^^^

Gets it. Well written. I agree.

[Truman]

Truman, even if you could fill in that timeline it would not "prove" anything absolutely. It would just demonstrate how it could have happened.

Again, we agree.

My bitch with absolutes can be found in Paterson's conclusion:

"(W)e do not know how the immensely complex organ systems of plants and animals could have been created by mindless and purposeless natural processes, as Darwinists say they must have been. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micro-mutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claim that biological creation occurred in that way."

Which is why I'm keeping an open mind. I haven't rejected a single word that Scott has written on this topic, save the word "prove". That's a definitive drawn upon a topic that any thinking person knows to be inconclusive, and there is FAR too much study that remains to be done in this field for someone to launch a three-page harrangue because one refuses to acknowlege that Evolution is settled science.

[Truman]

I see you're now in face saving mode - LOL

Heh! Well, now, one could hope...

Naw, Scotty-me-boy, you can pretty much expect your usual verbal thrashing with my reply

To bad you didn't bother to link the site that came from: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

Too bad you didn’t bother to read it.

Here's what the author says about the chart:

Human evolution is a puzzle made up of thousands of fossil pieces. The Chart of Human Evolution (below) shows the major pieces of that puzzle arranged in a likely solution.

The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.

So you've linked someone who doesn't question whether evolution occurred...

Imagine that! Posting a link from a person who doesn’t question whether evolution occurred by someone who doesn’t question whether evolution occurred. That just crazy! [/tracy morgan]

...but rather how it occurred beacuse all of the pieces haven't been found.

Big Difference.

How it occurred?

Really?

Mind scaring up a quote on that one for us?

I would be fascinated to know “how” evolution occurred. Sure would go along ways towards making your case and save us a whole buncha time....

BTW, I see that you’re still struggling with word definitions and meanings. What part of the words “likely”, “tentative”, and “open to clarification” defeat you?

Big Difference indeed. Fossil evidence has led to MacEvoy’s hypothesis, but his conclusions are far from definitive. Even he admits this, where you won’t.

Here's a simple yes or no question - Do you think Neanderthals are the ancestor of modern homo sapien?

Ancestral cousins. But not direct antecedents. What’s your point?

Here’s another simple question: Take another peek at Prof. MacEvoy's timeline. Can you tell me from where A. ramidus arose? Evidence from any Hominoidea species will do. TIA.

[War Wagon]

cousin; is a relative with whom one shares a common ancestor (or ancestors).

I'd hit it.

Shoalzie

[Truman]

Ancestral cousins. But not direct antecedents

cousin; is a relative with whom one shares a common ancestor (or ancestors).

What’s your point?

You're a clueless double talking tard

Good thing, 'cuz I've now had to ask you this twice:

Can you tell me from where A. ramidus arose?

Surely he wasn't... created. You know, with evolution being all settled 'n junk.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...the Jews...

It's always "The Jews" with you people!
Haven't they suffered enough? This is nothing but vile anti-Semitism!

[Dr_Phibes]

Again: The evidence is strong to support the evolutional development of man. But this evidence doesn’t make Darwin’s theory irrefutable. Far too many questions remain – and THAT is why I’m keeping an open mind, just as EVERY first year Biology student is taught to do when he first enters university.

You know, with evolution being all settled 'n junk.

Evolution is beyond question, it is settled. The human body adapts and changes to facilitate itself to its environment and conditions, this is not arguable. You can observe it over a period of two hundred years or less, it's as easy as measuring the length of a western military bunk from 1800, then measure one today.

Notice the difference? Yes, of course you did.

One is longer than the other. Why?

Because the average male evolved for obvious reasons, much the same way insects develop immunities to pesticides. Are you saying people and animals don't evolve :? Is Darwin's body of work and evolution limited to pedantry over a 4 million year old case-study listed as a talking point on Christian websites, with all the historical gaps that accompany something that rare?

[Truman]

*Sigh.

No, it isn’t.

Nobody likes having their convictions challenged. But I’ll ask you anyway: Can YOU answer my question, Phibes?

Short answer...

No, you can’t.

Nor can I.
Nor can pops.
Nor can Scott.
Nor can anyone else who has ever lived.

I will agree with you to a point: Microevolution IS undeniable. It’s on the the macro end of things that we struggle for answers. And Darwin’s theory comes up short.

We have learned when species arise. But we do not know Why they arise... Or How. We just know that they have. Natural Selection is too limited in scope, and science begs for answers to "why" and "how". THAT’s why Evolution is far from settled. Thanks for playing, Doc.

[poptart]

His (Truman's) blather was merely designed to divert away from the core point and serve as a human shield for you (poptart) to not address the evidence I presented.

:?

Scott, I didn't enter the thread to talk about evolution.

The only reason I came into the thread was to let BSmack know that as a point of debate, his "gotcha" question to Jsc - "Then who created God" - was not effective at all.

My own view on evolution is that microevolution happens, yes, as Truman just said.
Macroevolution, though?

lol

No, I don't believe it.

The concept might be fun to think about while you're trippin' on acid, but the theory is SO full of problems that it just doesn't come close to adding up, imo.

But again, if you want to believe it, that's up to you.

Go right ahead.