Intelligent design? Surely intelligence has to come from a source, intelligence is not a single being or source or thing on its own. Intelligence is manifested from an individual, it cannot manifest itself. Neither can the universe create itself. Anything that is created has to have a creator! So how then can people actually beleive the universe was randomly formed by an intelligent design? When you really think about an intelligent design has to come from an intelligent designer = God. Duh
@memonkeyfaceme1 Complete fail, every time I turn around someone is spouting that off. You fail because at the same time as you are saying there must be a cause therefore god caused it you fail to see the fallacy of who then created god. Oxymoron, seriously is totally obvious and yet time and time again people use this argument as the greatest argument ever when in itself cancels itself out.
@splicedenergy Simple answer. No one made God. The bible tells us God IS ALPHA and OMEGA meaning the begining and end. (John1:1-3) in the begining there was God and the word was god. All things were made through him. The bible was given to us so that we may understand this, hence the name "book of life" But if you reject it then you only have yourself to blame. Therefore you fail to see what God has already told you, not me.
@memonkeyfaceme1 so... why can't you apply that same logic of infiniteness to energy and matter in our natural universe that you do to god... why can't energy that makes up our universe be the alpha and omega, too? It doesn't make any sense. When you say god is the only infinite thing based on the rational of an ancient book, you neglect the fact that the rational of the ancient book has no logical backing whatsoever.
@pianoman8778 Aww my dear, i feel so sorry for you. Listen, If you choose to make energy and matter your alpha and omega or your god than that is your decision, you have free will but good luck coz youre gonna need it. :S
@memonkeyfaceme1 I never said energy and matter is my "alpha and omega." I was just asking why you don't when you apply the same principles to a character in an old book. I was questioning your logic, not presenting mine hence the question mark at the end of the statement.
@pianoman8778 Because i am not stupid enough to apply priciples of "alpha and omega" to energy or matter. I am fascinated by science and nature but i do not worship it. God is not a character - the bible is not fiction. why? many christians will tell you the bible alone counts for roughly 50% of their faith. The rest comes through personal experince of God. Thus is supported by the bible. Not the other way round.
@pianoman8778 Ans no 2. Is in exodus 20:3 of the bible. "you should have no other Gods before me". << see it for yourself .(And just to feed your confused but inquisitive mind) This verse doesnt imply there are other Gods in the universe but know that anything you put before God( to the extent of worship) becomes your own personal God. For some this if food(comfort eaters) others sex(sex addicts) for some this is money(greed) ect...it can be anything. For some this is "energy and matter" lol
@memonkeyfaceme1 So it all comes back to what the bible says... I understand now. Your logic is based on the assumption that the bible is undeniably right, the people who wrote it are undeniably right, and your interpretation is undeniably right. But this is all besides the point. You say the universe cannot be infinite and God can. I'm not saying the universe is god, I'm saying why can't it be as old as time like God can? And your answer was because the bible says so. And that is flawed.
@pianoman8778 lol the funny thing is that atheists critizise beleivers for not using logic and using assumption, when to me it seems more logical to think that someone had to have created this spectacular world that we live in, than to think the world created itself. The latter is is actually idiotic. ("Why cant it be as old as time like God can?" dear, do some research! ) Another thing is science will show you that this world is so dynamic and beautiful for eveything to have created itself.
@memonkeyfaceme1 The world didnt "create" itself, you are completely misunderstanding the forces that formed the earth. The earth didnt decide one day "Hey, I should make myself" and procede to create itself. That makes no sense.
@memonkeyfaceme1 Than he should probably start trying to reveal himself to me like he does to all of those people in the bible because hearsay isn't working for me. If there is an ultimate "creator" or "God," I doubt he would care if we worship it, and I highly doubt it'll be anything like the biblical God. Why would a creator care if these tiny tiny tiny little creatures on a tiny tiny planet in a gigantic universe acknowledge his existence (especially an omnipotent God)
@memonkeyfaceme1 That's an imaginative interpritation. You do realize you're using the same term in two ways to fit your interpritation, and certainly the Hebrews were not monothestic at the time. The Bible is flat out wrong about when it says Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was actually the son of Nabonidus, no relation. Ezekiel doesn't really have a good track record, either. In chapter 29, he predicts that Egypt will be destroyed, which didn't happen.
Creationism and "Intelligent Design" are neither good science nor good theology. Likewise the idea of order emerging from ontological randomness (the atheist spin on evolution) is equally bad science. Anyone who has studied quantum theory knows that the only random process is observation (See Susskind's The Black Hole War). Until the advent of man, there were no observations. Thus, no step of human evolution was random. (See "Mind or Randomness in Evolution" xianphil.org/Intent_evol.htm)
@dfpolis Random is what scientists use when they can't predict the outcome beforehand. I can't predict a coin toss, so that makes it random for me. The organism cannot predict where the mutation is going to take place, making it random for them too. The complexity does not come from this randomness, but from the fact that resources are limited to the point that not all offspring can reproduce. Those that by chance are more adept are selected on because of this. The selection is not random.
@sharkjack We agree except on one point. The details of the selection process are not predictable. If the shark does not come by to eat the slower fish, its genotype will endure another generation. This is like statistical mechanics. We can't predict the details, but the law of large numbers lets us to predict bulk properties. My late brother studied small island populations. I never discussed this with him, but I suspect that the law of large numbers fails there with interesting results.
@dfpolis You're absolutely right. Like the lions in the Ngrongoro crater, completely isolated from all other populations and coming from only 15 original founders, have high levels of sperm abnormality (two tails for example) even though this is a really negative trait. Other populations have very few of these individuals that have arisen through mutation in the previous generation or two.
But yeah, selection needs large populations, otherwise the random genetic drift is too strong.
LOLOL - THE UTTER HYPOCRISY of this caller. - Try watching "Ex-Pelled." Science books present scads of "Scientific" Bullshit as "THEORIES" to corrupt the minds of children and shut out the idea of a Creator. It's rather sad when these theories are "scientific" but take just as much faith to believe in. Schools have fired teachers on the BASIS of their personal beliefs when they have not influenced the classroom what-so-ever.
I believe in intelligent design but I don't believe in god. I think there is another explanation. Watch Ancient Aliens... THAT show changed my views.
@don28104 the ancient aliens show is great entertainment, but im afriad to say its complete pseudo science. ive watched alot of it and the things they say have just as many logical fallacies as any religion. the entire ancient alien "theory" is based on an argument from ignorance. they say "we dont know exactly how the pyramids were built, therefore aliens did it". its the exact same line as "i dont know how the earth was made, therefore god did it".
@ihmen --- In most cases I agree with you in that there may be a logical argument such as, maybe our ancestors were just really smart. But, some things like the ancient ruins of Puma Punku there is no possible way our ancestors could have made perfect lazer cuts in stone harder than granite with an accuracy of 1/1000th of a mm. We can only do this today with our most advanced technology. Clearly, there was advanced life involved since no tools exist; they would have taken when they left.
@don28104 well like i said. just because we dont know how puma punku was built doesnt mean we can conclude aliens did it. to say otherwise would be a logical fallacy. maybe if the aliens left some of their laser cutters around puma punku it would be more convincing. but all we have are giant cut stones. you could say aliens did it just as much as you could say time travelers did it, or super intelligent humans did it, etc. but theres no evidence pointing to one conclusion or another.
@ihmen - I agree, could be the other beings besides just aliens. The things the show points out about flying chariots and angels decending with fire and smoke do point out a possibility of aliens however. Makes you think. One thing is for certain... our ancestors must have seen something pretty incredible or perhaps they were far more advanced then we believe.
@don28104 thats another thing the show does, they take ancient myths and assume the myths are based on real events, rather than made up stories. then they use that as evidence for aliens. first they should see whether the myths have any truth to them before they start explaining how it was aliens. but i stopped watching that show after they said the moon as an alien space station and that chromosome 2 was like a tornado in a junkyard.
Nope, no positive claim, other than I see no reason to have a problem with design research.
"or seem to think the positive claim is valid somehow,"
Nope, no positive claim.
"so it is YOUR job to provide evidence."
Now you've retreated into defeated atheist mode. You have run out of logical reasons to support your position so instead you repeat the "burden is on you" mantra.
@kmsoileau Oh noes, you've caught me again. How could I ever compete against your undeniable logic? (/end sarcasm) You have been denying all along the need to provide evidence for your position - does that mean you've been in "defeated atheist mode" all along? All you've done is try to push unsupported value judgments onto scientific thought and psychoanalyze their behaviors without once providing a good, sound reason for anyone to do as you say.
@Nuzzlemeister LOL If anyone has been pushing value judgments, it has been you. You are the one who has the temerity to say, "design research is not valid research." That is about as qualitatively judgmental as it gets. My position has been in support of freedom of intellect, and supporting anyone who wants to study the possibility of the Universe having been designed. You want a reason? I believe in intellectual freedom to explore any question that interests one. Not good enough? Tough.
@kmsoileau I supported my assertion that design 'research' is an invalid pursuit with explanation of how the scientific process works. If you want to take your telescope and try to find evidence that everyone missed, that's your prerogative, but when demanding that scientists devote time/resources to a hypothesis or surrender to the label of "coward", you have to give a good reason WHY - which you have continually not done. You can't arbitrarily redefine what constitutes good scientific inquiry.
@Nuzzlemeister "demanding that scientists devote time/resources to a hypothesis" Maybe you should put down the bong. I never made any such demand. You are arguing with an imaginary voice in your head, not any argument I have made here.
Another straw man. "is it possible to transmit chocolate bars via television" is not an important question, while "was the Universe intelligently designed" is arguably one of the most important.
@kmsoileau Calling something a strawman doesn't make it a strawman - call it what it is: an analogy. And actually, transmitting chocolate bars via television is potentially one of the most important inventions ever, because theoretically this would be the application of teleportation technology - which is hugely important to the modern world. "Was the universe intelligently designed", on the other hand, has no real application and no explanatory power given what we know of the universe. (cont)
@Nuzzlemeister ""Was the universe intelligently designed", on the other hand, has no real application and no explanatory power given what we know of the universe." Another "fact" freshly delivered from your backside. Suppose a message was left by the designers with instructions on how to contact them? Wouldn't that be applicable?
@kmsoileau The fact that you think it's important is a qualitative judgment, which you claimed earlier to not be making. Why is it so important, especially if nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena?
@Nuzzlemeister "qualitative judgment, which you claimed earlier to not be making" I never claimed anything about qualitative judgments. Are you drinking heavily?
@Nuzzlemeister "Why is it so important, especially if nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena?" What evidence is there that we can ever reach that point? Under what scenario could we ever truthfully say, "We now know for certain all of the laws of the Universe, and can explain everything?"
@kmsoileau@kmsoileau "scientific consensus once agreed..." THAT is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether scientific consensus was wrong in the past. Scientific consensus is necessarily linked to the amount of information and technology available at the time. And for the record, Galileo was not the first man to study the planets, and there was evidence to warrant his research. You cite an incompatible case.
As for your final point, it's irrelevant. Science doesn't operate in realms of (cont)
@kmsoileau complete certainty, and never assumes it will EVER be able to say it knows everything or anywhere near everything. That STILL doesn't give scientists any reason to chase after an unsupported hypothesis just because someone thinks it might be interesting. You still haven't provided a good reason.
@Nuzzlemeister "never assumes it will EVER be able to say it knows everything or anywhere near everything"
LOL You seem here to be contradicting your earlier "Why is it so important, especially if nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena?"
You seem confused as to whether or not science is potentially able to explain everything.
@Nuzzlemeister "You still haven't provided a good reason." Are you slow? It's not my burden to give reasons for research. It's your burden to give reasons NOT to do certain research. YOU still haven't provided a good reason.
@kmsoileau You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific inquiry works. If a person makes a positive claim (an alien intelligence created the universe), that person is obligated to provide evidence supporting that claim. If there is no evidence to support a claim, or there's evidence against, or the claim is just someone saying "wouldn't it be cool if...", there's no reason to investigate it. Me saying that nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena (cont)
@kmsoileau is poorly worded, I freely admit, but only someone whose only recourse was quibbling over semantics would interpret it as something more significant than the intended "nothing we have observed and measured in the universe contradicts the laws of nature as we understand them". Stop getting your wires crossed - you made a positive claim, or seem to think the positive claim is valid somehow, so it is YOUR job to provide evidence.
If a hypothesis can be tested, and no one is asking you to pay for the experiment or to spend time working on it, it seems incredibly unscientific of you to have a problem with those who want to do the experiment. If your opposition isn't based on fear of the implications of such an experiment, what IS it based on? Why should you care if Dembski and others examine the evidence of design and propose experiments to test the design hypothesis?
@kmsoileau When you make ANY positive claim of existence, the burden of proof lies with you to provide evidence supporting your position. Your assertion that scientists should be looking for evidence that the universe was designed runs on the assumptions that a) the universe is likely to have been designed and b) that you could tell the difference between a designed universe and a naturally-occurring universe. Scientists have made no observations about the universe which are (continued)
@kmsoileau inconsistent with the laws of nature as we know them, so why exactly should ANYONE posit the idea that the universe is designed by aliens or by gods or look for evidence supporting it? If I were to say that an alien civilization existed on the surface of the sun, I would be expected to support my claim with SOME observational evidence before anyone wasted the crazy amount of resources, time, and money necessary to scour the entire sun's surface looking for my alien civilization.
@Nuzzlemeister "inconsistent with the laws of nature as we know them" You obviously don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Order doesn't appear out of disorder. The existence of the Universe is itself an apparent violation of the "law" of entropy. This fact alone is reason to look for what designed the Universe in the first place.
And why would ANYONE oppose research to detect evidence that the Universe was intelligently designed? Unless perhaps they were terrified of the implications...
@kmsoileau Every time I've ever heard someone invoke the laws of thermodynamics to refute a scientific theory they've invariably not understood the laws themselves. I am not an expert on the laws of thermodynamics, but if few to no accredited, established scientists think the laws of thermodynamics prohibit the existence of the universe, I doubt there's a problem. Also - you've made an undemonstrated assumption. Why should a singularity be classified as disordered? Why should the entropy (cont)
@kmsoileau of a singularity (assuming there is any) be greater than the collective entropy present in the entire universe 13.75±.17 billion years later? The laws of thermodynamics, as I understand them, do not have anything to offer on the possibility of the universe occurring naturally. Thus, this "fact" (aka assumption) that you've made alone is NOT good reason to look for a designer.
Nobody's opposing researching to detect a designer - the people who matter obviously just don't (cont)
@kmsoileau If scientists had to test every testable hypothesis that was EVER posited, nobody would get anything useful done.That's why scientists don't test things just because they're testable. Scientists don't stop searching for an answer because they're afraid of what it means - the shape of the universe is an example. Why is a flat universe so bad? Because it dooms the entire universe to an irreversible and ever-increasing expansion which eventually leads to a total breakdown of (cont)
@Nuzzlemeister "If scientists had to test every testable hypothesis that was EVER posited, nobody would get anything useful done." LOL, an absurd straw man. No one is suggested that scientists should test every testable hypothesis. I'm talking about your irrational opposition to anyone looking for evidence of design.
@kmsoileau matter as we know it. I, also, do not pretend to be an astrophysicist or a theoretical physicist. I have however examined the evidence and physics applied to the question and agree, as does the scientific community, that it is sound. A closed universe is better for self-perpetuation. You claim that I am ignorant of my own body - an ignorance you must necessarily share - so I don't have the authority to make qualitative judgments about the universe, and yet you feel justified in (cont)
@kmsoileau sitting there and making poorly-supported or unsupported qualitative judgments about the universe yourself. YOU don't think the laws of nature allow for a naturally-occurring universe, so YOU think it must have been designed. Don't be a hypocrite, please.
I care about our scientists researching things for which they have valid reasons to be curious because scientists serve an invaluable role in expanding our technology, medicine, and understanding of the universe. if they're (cont)
@Nuzzlemeister "so YOU think it must have been designed." You really should read what I write. I never said it must have been designed. I said it is worthwhile to look for evidence of design and to do experiments to obtain more such evidence, if it exists.
I think your reasons for resisting design research are purely personal and emotional, and account for your unscientific opposition to it.
@kmsoileau Valid according to scientific consensus. And yes, you totally caught me, I am absolutely terrified of the idea that maybe I or my universe was invented by a really smart extrauniversal alien civilization (/end sarcasm). Scientists don't not study astrology (and I don't dismiss it) because the possibility of astrology being true is scary. It's disregarded because there is NO EVIDENCE to support it. You still have yet to offer any good reason to look for a designer of the universe.
@Nuzzlemeister "You still have yet to offer any good reason to look for a designer of the universe." That's because I'm not accountable to you or anyone else for what I do with my intellect. On the other hand, the burden is on you to explain why you have a problem with others using their minds to look for evidence of design, especially when such research costs you nothing.
@Nuzzlemeister "Valid according to scientific consensus." Scientific consensus once agreed that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. You sound like one of the crowd who castigated Galileo for his "invalid" research topics.
@kmsoileau doing expensive (and yes, price is a problem - science is limited by the budgets assigned to it) research for which there is little or no supporting evidence, they're wasting time and effort which harms progress in another area of scientific inquiry. I might be curious to see whether it's possible to, like Willy Wonka, transmit chocolate bars via television, but if I have no evidence that it can be done and the available evidence says it can't be done, it's wasteful to pursue it.
@kmsoileau think it's necessary to do so because there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the universe is remotely close to having been designed. For one thing, it would be a pretty poor design - the shape of the universe is probably the worst possible shape it could be. If people didn't look for my sun-aliens, it's not because they're afraid to find them. It's because there's no evidence for - or lots of evidence against - their existence. Period. Science isn't hindered by fear.
@Nuzzlemeister "it would be a pretty poor design" Who do you think you are? Are you REALLY qualified to state that the Universe is poorly designed? You don't even fully understand the workings of your own body, much less the design of a Universe. Too funny.
"Aliens creating the universe is still a wild speculation based on absolutely zero evidence."
Of course. That's not my point. Are you inebriated or just slow-witted? I'm advocating efforts to do experiments to shed light on the question and possibly obtain evidence one way or the other.
Your lack of curiosity is your problem, not mine.
@kmsoileau Well before you try to convince people that aliens or some immaterial being created the universe you're going to have to present GOOD evidence, I think this is what the fella was talking about. Most creationists I've come across rely too heavily on fallacies, misinformation/poor evidence which is why we tend to dismiss them so much. If I were a god believer (I used to be), I'd be a heck of a lot more honest than this, I did have a similar opinion to you about "openmindedness".
Creation science does not equal religion. Even if you were to completely debunk religion, the follwoing question remains: Suppose our Universe was created by unfathomably intelligent and powerful aliens, as an experiment of sorts? In this case, creation science would actually be the correct view, because evolution fits neatly into this scenario: a Universe designed to evolve.
All completely religion free. So if you are honest, you will discuss this possibility as well as creation-by-deity.
@kmsoileau If only Creation science didn't specifically propose the biblical account of Creation, then you'd be correct. Even so, this supposition would be as completely unsupported by facts as creation by deity, and would also bear the question "from where did these aliens come?"
@bicokun Take your eyes off of your nemesis, religion, for a moment and understand my point. Those that truly seek after truth should be designing experiments to detect subtle clues as to whether ANY intelligent designer created the Universe, be it Deity or alien. William Dembski has already taken steps in this direction. Evolutionists should be as eager as he is to find answers here.
@kmsoileau I don't care about religion. Aliens creating the universe is still a wild speculation based on absolutely zero evidence. If we can explain the universe via natural events without a crazy powerful alien theory, I think said theory is pretty much pointless.
Mr88playmaker I've found you again! and your still rambling on about your DNA is information therefore it must of been designed! Quite simply, we can observe positive mutations to genetic information that give beneficial biological functions to the organism. This, as observed, is due to mis-replication. Therefore an observable example of the genetic information being changed to give a function without any design! Observable evidence trumps your word games any day.
Bollocks. Would you say the same of the book that describes the clouds, mountains or stars? DNA coding describes the make up of the cell in the same way. It then takes a transcription into the machine language of the cell (RNA sequence) which in turn uses this to sequence the correct amino acids into a protein in the correct shape for use. A bit more specifically organised than your computer let alone relatively random jumbles of molecules such as clouds, mountains or stars.
The History Channel's fare now is basically "Did UFOs Help Nostradamus Write the Bible?" Well, that and Modern Marvels, which is basically an hour-long, totally uncritical look at a different industry each week.
I kind of miss when they had The Black Sheep Squadron, and buffered the commercial breaks with interviews with actual members of the Black Sheep.That was cool.
It depends why you asked Chris. Is it because you want to say "HA! Gotchya" or do you wish to know?
Nitrogen in rock originates as organically bound nitrogen associated with sediment. Also half-life does not mean you have 1 gram and then 0.5 gram etc
You can find the information with a simple Google. Just stay away from answers in genesis or any rubbish like that.
Just out of curiosity, you do know every single writing about Jesus was written after his death, so you quote an unsubstantiated source. Moreover you failed to refute my statement about the requirement of religious intervention in the prison system. Most importantly you stated that humans without Christ's influence naturally chose evil, how about the gravely immoral Christians of the bible belt and how bout the exemplary morality of many Buddhists, I call you an idiot because you are one.
So what that the gospels were written after Christ's death....even the Apostle Paul who wrote even later than the 4 gospels wrote about the some 500 eye witnesses to the resurrected Christ and spoke of the fact that still many years later many individuals were still alive who had seen the resurrected Christ. Are you just looking for excuses to NOT have to believe in this Jesus Christ to whom you will someday given an account? I think so! I'm glad to be an "idiot" with the truth.
I'm finding it hard to argue with you because you fail to see the fallacy in your own arguments. Paul wrote that there were 500 eye witnesses doesn't detract from the fact that its still a secondary source, a clever con artist would definitely state others support his claim (not to say that Paul is a con artist). More over you once again failed to address my argument on immorality because, I assume, you have no viable counter argument.
I'm not looking for an excuse not to believe It just annoys me that you downplay humanity in its entirety to an immoral population whom would have been lost if it weren't for some theoretical being. What you are saying about this savior is reductive to every human's ability to be good and contribute constructively to society, by your logic the government should adopt the Christian equivalent of Islamic Sharia law. Please attempt to debate me without quote mining from an unreliable source.
Yes, it's obvious that you think the Bible is an unreliable source, whereas I believe it is a highly reliable source...in fact, more reliable than any other book.
Your inability to grapple simple logic frustrates me, I have no idea why you would deem the bible a supremely reliable source considering all the evidence with stands against such a statement. The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you are either a small child who has not been able to break away from their parent's religious influence, or you have experienced great emotional anguish and cling to faith as a form of security from any potential uncertainty and you ignored my argument.
MarkPianoMan is probably one of those who live in an enviroment where spouting that kind of nonsense is not riduculed, but accepted as normal . He has a chance to see the truth if he opens his mind ;-)
It's not my theory...it's from the Word of God -- the Bible. God maintains that He had no beginning because He was not created. The universe and everything in it was created by the Almighty Always-Having-Existed God...the only one capable of creating the universe. Totally logical!
I was told the book of momon is the word of god, no the koran? they too say they are correct. Many senior clerics don't even call the bible the 'word of god' nowdays.
hey habbadasher, as soon as someone references that peice of crap joke of a film by ben stein dont even bother responding to them.
tthe mention of the global flood as well, my god, the fool probably also believes in hovinds idea of the atmosphere being covered in a layer of water preflood and the fossil distribution is due to the heavier animals (dinosaurs) sinking to the bottom after the flood. I mean you cant use logic with a person who believes such things
Intelligent Design is the ONLY logical conclusion for the existence of that which was created: universe, earth, man, animals. There is evidence for variation within species, but no evidence of macro-evolution. That is nothing but wishful thinking from depraved God-rejecting men who do not want to have to give an account of themselves and their morals to the Creator God - the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is no record of this census ,there would be and it is a crazy idea if you examine it. Return to your ancestors city of 20 -40 odd generations ago ( depending again on which biblical geneoloy you want to believe.
You think he fullfiled the messiahic prophecy .. The jews do not., despite the Luke claims, who probably misunderstood it , didn't write that anyow.!
And you are going to say that the census never transpired because there is no still existing record of it?
"Justin Martyr and Tertullian say that this census can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist, the fact that these contemporaries appealed to them suggests that they did exist at the time. In the l00's AD these men and others had access to this information and their writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so."
""can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist"" Doh.!! thats not verified then.. and a rediculous concept too.
"writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so."
easily..?
or wanted to, don't forget xtianity was busy burning other books then, and checking facts and editing the bible is not what the bible is about. Do you think they would have left that gospel out then. naaaa
If you read the quote I quoted in my earlier entry here, you could correctly deduct that Justin Martyr and Tertulian must have been historians from the 1st century AD who said that the census can be verified in Rome. That fact seems to have slid right by you.
Are you interested in truth, or interested in looking for excuses to dismiss the truth as a lie?
"Are you interested in truth" yes and you just declaring to know it without evidence doesn't make it true..
The historians you mentioned were 2nd century.!!! to start with and all that is know of Justin is what he wrote of himself., but he became a christian apologist.. To find truth you need corroberated independent information.
would you be able to go back to a town of 20-40 generations ago, to fill in a census. Its such a rediculous idea,
That this historians were 2nd century makes it even more trustworthy. The Europeans are great record keepers...I lived there for 26 years. My ancestors are from Holland and it was possible by going through the archives to search out my family tree back 500 years!
And besides that, there are tons of other evidence for the truth of the Bible for those unwilling to stick their heads in the sand like ostriches.
With or without records of the census from the time of Christ doesn't change all the other evidences. Also just take a look at how archeology has confirmed 100s of thousands of Biblical facts. Therefore, one very reliable source for the fact of the census at the time of Christ's birth is the Biblical record!
"Europeans are great record keepers" there is a program here "who do you think you are" tracing back famous live people. It can never go that far back.. Where were your ancestors at the battle of Hastings.! A cencusr requires you to go back there.!!butr its in da bible so it must be true.!!! What about other holy books.! are they not true too.!?
no the other "holy" books are not true....and do not have the extensive evidence for their truth that the Bible has....the archeological evidence in itself is overwhelmingly conclusive to the truth of the Bible. I don't care where my ancestors were at the battle of Hastings....we have records that trace back our family tree in Holland to the early 1500s.
israeli archealogist still havn't been able to fine any of the evidence of their biblical wanderings, despite being well funded and wanting to prove it. So archeology actually disproves many of the biblical claims..
Archaeology has also disproved several Biblical stories not to mention that several stories are impossible (though I don't know if you think those stories are literally true or not). So whilst the book does contain accurate information it contains just as much inaccurate information and thus can't be considered to be a usefull historical record. Concerning the historicity of Jesus what needs evidence isn't so much the fact that he existed as the divine and miraculous claims made about him.
What Biblical stories has archaeology disproved? Please give specific examples with details.
I believe that every "story" in the Bible is true. When God is involved then all bets are off for what is possible. Don't forget, this book is all about God and his interaction with men through the ages. This book isn't about the tooth fairy.
"What Biblical stories has archaeology disproved?"
there is as much evidence for the jews wandering around the desert as there is for the Morman claims about Jesus being in the US. NONE, despite israilis using a lot of money and expertise to prove them true. Remember the claims about Jesus cannot be verified by independent contemporary witnesses outside of the bible.
When I say that certain things in the Bible are impossible I'm referring to those things that contradict the very history of the Universe and this planet. For example the creation account and the global flood. The creation story flat out contradicts most of what we have discovered about the history of the universe and of mankind. Similarly a global flood would leave a truly astounding amount of evidence, yet we can find none. Thus we can be certain that neither of those events took place.
Now then some examples concerning the Bible contradicting archaeological evidence. First of the book contains several anachronisms, that is details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E.
There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all.
The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records (and the egyptians were very good at keeping records). There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people.
Lack of archeological evidence is no indication that an event described in the Bible did not take place. My point was that there are no archeological finds which contradict the Bible. And tons of evidences for the truth of the Bible. And there are top middle-eastern archeologist who have attested to this fact.
The site that is generally thought to be the city of Ai was in fact not occupied or destroyed at the time the Bible claimed it was but rather it prospered for another 1000 years before being destroyed.
Evidence suggests that the Jewish tribes first settled in what you would refer to as the holy land long before the Bible says they did. And they were in fact living there at the time when they were supposedly being held as slaves in Egypt. Historians generally consider the exodus mythological...
You can always find some archeologist / scientist / or any other "ist" who has drawn "conclusive" evidence that the Bible is wrong on some historical point. However, I will remind you that the Jews were absolutely meticulous about their record keeping, so any modern-day conclusions (highly subject to change) about the "error" of the Biblical record should be taken with a grain of salt.
All due respect there is a difference between some archaeologist or scientist and the consensus of the archaeological or scientific community. And it is the consensus of the archaeological community that there was no Jewish mass exodus from Egypt.
Also when evidence contradicts an ancient record the correct the correct thing to do is not to dismiss the evidence but rather to reevaluate how accurate you consider that record to be with the evidence taken into account.
I've attempted to post links to "evidence for a world-wide flood" now twice. Either links are prohibited or the authors of this video clip are deleting my comments. You can search and find excellent sources under "evidence for a world-wide flood."
I had the same problem with links a while ago, it seems they're prohibited though as mentioned I've heard what is supposed to be the evidence of a global flood a couple of times now and I've already described my basic problems with it down below.
However whilst some Biblical stories don't seem to be true a number of places and people mentioned did to our knowledge actually exist so in those cases I suppose the Bible might be usefull. However I would very much like to know what top middle-eastern archaeologists you're referring to.
feel sorry for you lot in the u.s with all them crazy christians
lwvok 1 month ago 2
Martin must have been a very cute baby. He still looks like one
azzy314159 7 months ago
"you mean younger like kindergarten?" lol. yeah, pretty much.
GuacamoleKun 10 months ago
God is very intelligent indeed.
memonkeyfaceme1 11 months ago
Intelligent design? Surely intelligence has to come from a source, intelligence is not a single being or source or thing on its own. Intelligence is manifested from an individual, it cannot manifest itself. Neither can the universe create itself. Anything that is created has to have a creator! So how then can people actually beleive the universe was randomly formed by an intelligent design? When you really think about an intelligent design has to come from an intelligent designer = God. Duh
memonkeyfaceme1 11 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 Complete fail, every time I turn around someone is spouting that off. You fail because at the same time as you are saying there must be a cause therefore god caused it you fail to see the fallacy of who then created god. Oxymoron, seriously is totally obvious and yet time and time again people use this argument as the greatest argument ever when in itself cancels itself out.
splicedenergy 9 months ago
@splicedenergy Simple answer. No one made God. The bible tells us God IS ALPHA and OMEGA meaning the begining and end. (John1:1-3) in the begining there was God and the word was god. All things were made through him. The bible was given to us so that we may understand this, hence the name "book of life" But if you reject it then you only have yourself to blame. Therefore you fail to see what God has already told you, not me.
memonkeyfaceme1 9 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 so... why can't you apply that same logic of infiniteness to energy and matter in our natural universe that you do to god... why can't energy that makes up our universe be the alpha and omega, too? It doesn't make any sense. When you say god is the only infinite thing based on the rational of an ancient book, you neglect the fact that the rational of the ancient book has no logical backing whatsoever.
pianoman8778 9 months ago
@pianoman8778 Aww my dear, i feel so sorry for you. Listen, If you choose to make energy and matter your alpha and omega or your god than that is your decision, you have free will but good luck coz youre gonna need it. :S
memonkeyfaceme1 9 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 I never said energy and matter is my "alpha and omega." I was just asking why you don't when you apply the same principles to a character in an old book. I was questioning your logic, not presenting mine hence the question mark at the end of the statement.
pianoman8778 9 months ago
@pianoman8778 Because i am not stupid enough to apply priciples of "alpha and omega" to energy or matter. I am fascinated by science and nature but i do not worship it. God is not a character - the bible is not fiction. why? many christians will tell you the bible alone counts for roughly 50% of their faith. The rest comes through personal experince of God. Thus is supported by the bible. Not the other way round.
memonkeyfaceme1 9 months ago
@pianoman8778 Ans no 2. Is in exodus 20:3 of the bible. "you should have no other Gods before me". << see it for yourself .(And just to feed your confused but inquisitive mind) This verse doesnt imply there are other Gods in the universe but know that anything you put before God( to the extent of worship) becomes your own personal God. For some this if food(comfort eaters) others sex(sex addicts) for some this is money(greed) ect...it can be anything. For some this is "energy and matter" lol
memonkeyfaceme1 9 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 So it all comes back to what the bible says... I understand now. Your logic is based on the assumption that the bible is undeniably right, the people who wrote it are undeniably right, and your interpretation is undeniably right. But this is all besides the point. You say the universe cannot be infinite and God can. I'm not saying the universe is god, I'm saying why can't it be as old as time like God can? And your answer was because the bible says so. And that is flawed.
pianoman8778 9 months ago
@pianoman8778 lol the funny thing is that atheists critizise beleivers for not using logic and using assumption, when to me it seems more logical to think that someone had to have created this spectacular world that we live in, than to think the world created itself. The latter is is actually idiotic. ("Why cant it be as old as time like God can?" dear, do some research! ) Another thing is science will show you that this world is so dynamic and beautiful for eveything to have created itself.
memonkeyfaceme1 9 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 The world didnt "create" itself, you are completely misunderstanding the forces that formed the earth. The earth didnt decide one day "Hey, I should make myself" and procede to create itself. That makes no sense.
ShroomFuu86 8 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 ("Why cant it be as old as time like God can?" dear, do some research! )
Now I am convinced you are either retarded or trolling.
ShroomFuu86 8 months ago
@pianoman8778 Indeed my friend there is a creator. He knows you but you just dont yet know him.
memonkeyfaceme1 9 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 Than he should probably start trying to reveal himself to me like he does to all of those people in the bible because hearsay isn't working for me. If there is an ultimate "creator" or "God," I doubt he would care if we worship it, and I highly doubt it'll be anything like the biblical God. Why would a creator care if these tiny tiny tiny little creatures on a tiny tiny planet in a gigantic universe acknowledge his existence (especially an omnipotent God)
pianoman8778 9 months ago
@memonkeyfaceme1 That's an imaginative interpritation. You do realize you're using the same term in two ways to fit your interpritation, and certainly the Hebrews were not monothestic at the time. The Bible is flat out wrong about when it says Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was actually the son of Nabonidus, no relation. Ezekiel doesn't really have a good track record, either. In chapter 29, he predicts that Egypt will be destroyed, which didn't happen.
gamesbok 4 months ago 2
@memonkeyfaceme1
And now you threaten the guy. Nice. That may not have been wordeactly as the usual threat, but the "Good luck" thing says it all. you lose.
NUTCASE71733 7 months ago
Thinking that religion and science are on the same lever, is like thinking that technology and magic are on the same level!
MrNemitri 11 months ago 5
@MrNemitri But they arrrrrrre! Like the cybernetics and shaman powers- wait, wait, that's Shadowrun. Nevermind.
RamoneHoffman 1 month ago
Creationism and "Intelligent Design" are neither good science nor good theology. Likewise the idea of order emerging from ontological randomness (the atheist spin on evolution) is equally bad science. Anyone who has studied quantum theory knows that the only random process is observation (See Susskind's The Black Hole War). Until the advent of man, there were no observations. Thus, no step of human evolution was random. (See "Mind or Randomness in Evolution" xianphil.org/Intent_evol.htm)
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis Random is what scientists use when they can't predict the outcome beforehand. I can't predict a coin toss, so that makes it random for me. The organism cannot predict where the mutation is going to take place, making it random for them too. The complexity does not come from this randomness, but from the fact that resources are limited to the point that not all offspring can reproduce. Those that by chance are more adept are selected on because of this. The selection is not random.
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack We agree except on one point. The details of the selection process are not predictable. If the shark does not come by to eat the slower fish, its genotype will endure another generation. This is like statistical mechanics. We can't predict the details, but the law of large numbers lets us to predict bulk properties. My late brother studied small island populations. I never discussed this with him, but I suspect that the law of large numbers fails there with interesting results.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis You're absolutely right. Like the lions in the Ngrongoro crater, completely isolated from all other populations and coming from only 15 original founders, have high levels of sperm abnormality (two tails for example) even though this is a really negative trait. Other populations have very few of these individuals that have arisen through mutation in the previous generation or two.
But yeah, selection needs large populations, otherwise the random genetic drift is too strong.
sharkjack 1 year ago
Actually I needed a lot of faith to understand algebra...
MrCapitalfinal 1 year ago
Students are FORCED to BELIEVE this garbage instead of ACTUALLY being open-minded. The utter bias and ignorance of professors disgusts me.
TheD00dster 1 year ago
LOLOL - THE UTTER HYPOCRISY of this caller. - Try watching "Ex-Pelled." Science books present scads of "Scientific" Bullshit as "THEORIES" to corrupt the minds of children and shut out the idea of a Creator. It's rather sad when these theories are "scientific" but take just as much faith to believe in. Schools have fired teachers on the BASIS of their personal beliefs when they have not influenced the classroom what-so-ever.
TheD00dster 1 year ago
@TheD00dster What theories are being taught that need faith? I'm honestly curious as I dont remember any where I was still in school a few years ago.
RockJosiah 1 year ago
i think that religion is just training wheels that we no longer need and could be much better off without it.
ragal123 1 year ago
@ragal123 Indeed religion is not needed. Religion is corrupt. But the word of God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
memonkeyfaceme1 11 months ago
I believe in intelligent design but I don't believe in god. I think there is another explanation. Watch Ancient Aliens... THAT show changed my views.
don28104 1 year ago
@don28104 the ancient aliens show is great entertainment, but im afriad to say its complete pseudo science. ive watched alot of it and the things they say have just as many logical fallacies as any religion. the entire ancient alien "theory" is based on an argument from ignorance. they say "we dont know exactly how the pyramids were built, therefore aliens did it". its the exact same line as "i dont know how the earth was made, therefore god did it".
ihmen 1 year ago
@ihmen --- In most cases I agree with you in that there may be a logical argument such as, maybe our ancestors were just really smart. But, some things like the ancient ruins of Puma Punku there is no possible way our ancestors could have made perfect lazer cuts in stone harder than granite with an accuracy of 1/1000th of a mm. We can only do this today with our most advanced technology. Clearly, there was advanced life involved since no tools exist; they would have taken when they left.
don28104 1 year ago
@don28104 well like i said. just because we dont know how puma punku was built doesnt mean we can conclude aliens did it. to say otherwise would be a logical fallacy. maybe if the aliens left some of their laser cutters around puma punku it would be more convincing. but all we have are giant cut stones. you could say aliens did it just as much as you could say time travelers did it, or super intelligent humans did it, etc. but theres no evidence pointing to one conclusion or another.
ihmen 1 year ago
@ihmen - I agree, could be the other beings besides just aliens. The things the show points out about flying chariots and angels decending with fire and smoke do point out a possibility of aliens however. Makes you think. One thing is for certain... our ancestors must have seen something pretty incredible or perhaps they were far more advanced then we believe.
don28104 1 year ago
@don28104 thats another thing the show does, they take ancient myths and assume the myths are based on real events, rather than made up stories. then they use that as evidence for aliens. first they should see whether the myths have any truth to them before they start explaining how it was aliens. but i stopped watching that show after they said the moon as an alien space station and that chromosome 2 was like a tornado in a junkyard.
ihmen 1 year ago
@don28104 Zacharia Sitchin was a great thinker,I think he was right too.
VFXTutorials 1 year ago
I believe in intelligent design but I don't believe in god. I think there is another explanation.
don28104 1 year ago
TAX ALL CHURCHES!!!!!
ElvisKnucklehead 1 year ago 22
@ElvisKnucklehead just churches?
degillin 1 year ago
@ElvisKnucklehead THANK-YOU!!! Finally, someone who agrees!
rennat24 8 months ago
"you made a positive claim,"
Nope, no positive claim, other than I see no reason to have a problem with design research.
"or seem to think the positive claim is valid somehow,"
Nope, no positive claim.
"so it is YOUR job to provide evidence."
Now you've retreated into defeated atheist mode. You have run out of logical reasons to support your position so instead you repeat the "burden is on you" mantra.
Not gonna play your game.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Oh noes, you've caught me again. How could I ever compete against your undeniable logic? (/end sarcasm) You have been denying all along the need to provide evidence for your position - does that mean you've been in "defeated atheist mode" all along? All you've done is try to push unsupported value judgments onto scientific thought and psychoanalyze their behaviors without once providing a good, sound reason for anyone to do as you say.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister LOL If anyone has been pushing value judgments, it has been you. You are the one who has the temerity to say, "design research is not valid research." That is about as qualitatively judgmental as it gets. My position has been in support of freedom of intellect, and supporting anyone who wants to study the possibility of the Universe having been designed. You want a reason? I believe in intellectual freedom to explore any question that interests one. Not good enough? Tough.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I supported my assertion that design 'research' is an invalid pursuit with explanation of how the scientific process works. If you want to take your telescope and try to find evidence that everyone missed, that's your prerogative, but when demanding that scientists devote time/resources to a hypothesis or surrender to the label of "coward", you have to give a good reason WHY - which you have continually not done. You can't arbitrarily redefine what constitutes good scientific inquiry.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "demanding that scientists devote time/resources to a hypothesis" Maybe you should put down the bong. I never made any such demand. You are arguing with an imaginary voice in your head, not any argument I have made here.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmsoileau "I'm advocating efforts to do experiments to shed light on the question and possibly obtain evidence one way or the other."
"...Unless perhaps they were terrified of the implications..."
Oops.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmsoileau "I'm advocating efforts to do experiments to shed light on the question and possibly obtain evidence one way or the other."
"...Unless perhaps they were terrified of the implications..."
Oops. Hello, imaginary voice in my head. You're remarkably corporeal.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
Another straw man. "is it possible to transmit chocolate bars via television" is not an important question, while "was the Universe intelligently designed" is arguably one of the most important.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Calling something a strawman doesn't make it a strawman - call it what it is: an analogy. And actually, transmitting chocolate bars via television is potentially one of the most important inventions ever, because theoretically this would be the application of teleportation technology - which is hugely important to the modern world. "Was the universe intelligently designed", on the other hand, has no real application and no explanatory power given what we know of the universe. (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nuzzlemeister ""Was the universe intelligently designed", on the other hand, has no real application and no explanatory power given what we know of the universe." Another "fact" freshly delivered from your backside. Suppose a message was left by the designers with instructions on how to contact them? Wouldn't that be applicable?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau The fact that you think it's important is a qualitative judgment, which you claimed earlier to not be making. Why is it so important, especially if nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena?
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "qualitative judgment, which you claimed earlier to not be making" I never claimed anything about qualitative judgments. Are you drinking heavily?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "Why is it so important, especially if nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena?" What evidence is there that we can ever reach that point? Under what scenario could we ever truthfully say, "We now know for certain all of the laws of the Universe, and can explain everything?"
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau @kmsoileau "scientific consensus once agreed..." THAT is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether scientific consensus was wrong in the past. Scientific consensus is necessarily linked to the amount of information and technology available at the time. And for the record, Galileo was not the first man to study the planets, and there was evidence to warrant his research. You cite an incompatible case.
As for your final point, it's irrelevant. Science doesn't operate in realms of (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister My comment wasn't in regard to Galileo's planetary research, it was about his work with falling objects.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau complete certainty, and never assumes it will EVER be able to say it knows everything or anywhere near everything. That STILL doesn't give scientists any reason to chase after an unsupported hypothesis just because someone thinks it might be interesting. You still haven't provided a good reason.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "never assumes it will EVER be able to say it knows everything or anywhere near everything"
LOL You seem here to be contradicting your earlier "Why is it so important, especially if nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena?"
You seem confused as to whether or not science is potentially able to explain everything.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "You still haven't provided a good reason." Are you slow? It's not my burden to give reasons for research. It's your burden to give reasons NOT to do certain research. YOU still haven't provided a good reason.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific inquiry works. If a person makes a positive claim (an alien intelligence created the universe), that person is obligated to provide evidence supporting that claim. If there is no evidence to support a claim, or there's evidence against, or the claim is just someone saying "wouldn't it be cool if...", there's no reason to investigate it. Me saying that nothing in the universe cannot be explained by natural phenomena (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@kmsoileau is poorly worded, I freely admit, but only someone whose only recourse was quibbling over semantics would interpret it as something more significant than the intended "nothing we have observed and measured in the universe contradicts the laws of nature as we understand them". Stop getting your wires crossed - you made a positive claim, or seem to think the positive claim is valid somehow, so it is YOUR job to provide evidence.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
If a hypothesis can be tested, and no one is asking you to pay for the experiment or to spend time working on it, it seems incredibly unscientific of you to have a problem with those who want to do the experiment. If your opposition isn't based on fear of the implications of such an experiment, what IS it based on? Why should you care if Dembski and others examine the evidence of design and propose experiments to test the design hypothesis?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
The science teachers at the high school that I went to were creationist.
db10001110101 1 year ago
"you're going to have to present GOOD evidence"
I don't HAVE to do anything. It's not my job to spoon feed tutorials on the nature of the Universe to mentally challenged atheists.
I point out things that one might profitably think about; what anyone then does is up to them.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau When you make ANY positive claim of existence, the burden of proof lies with you to provide evidence supporting your position. Your assertion that scientists should be looking for evidence that the universe was designed runs on the assumptions that a) the universe is likely to have been designed and b) that you could tell the difference between a designed universe and a naturally-occurring universe. Scientists have made no observations about the universe which are (continued)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@kmsoileau inconsistent with the laws of nature as we know them, so why exactly should ANYONE posit the idea that the universe is designed by aliens or by gods or look for evidence supporting it? If I were to say that an alien civilization existed on the surface of the sun, I would be expected to support my claim with SOME observational evidence before anyone wasted the crazy amount of resources, time, and money necessary to scour the entire sun's surface looking for my alien civilization.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "inconsistent with the laws of nature as we know them" You obviously don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Order doesn't appear out of disorder. The existence of the Universe is itself an apparent violation of the "law" of entropy. This fact alone is reason to look for what designed the Universe in the first place.
And why would ANYONE oppose research to detect evidence that the Universe was intelligently designed? Unless perhaps they were terrified of the implications...
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Every time I've ever heard someone invoke the laws of thermodynamics to refute a scientific theory they've invariably not understood the laws themselves. I am not an expert on the laws of thermodynamics, but if few to no accredited, established scientists think the laws of thermodynamics prohibit the existence of the universe, I doubt there's a problem. Also - you've made an undemonstrated assumption. Why should a singularity be classified as disordered? Why should the entropy (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@kmsoileau of a singularity (assuming there is any) be greater than the collective entropy present in the entire universe 13.75±.17 billion years later? The laws of thermodynamics, as I understand them, do not have anything to offer on the possibility of the universe occurring naturally. Thus, this "fact" (aka assumption) that you've made alone is NOT good reason to look for a designer.
Nobody's opposing researching to detect a designer - the people who matter obviously just don't (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "NOT good reason to look for a designer." Says you. Others are curious about the possibility and want to look. Why do you care?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau If scientists had to test every testable hypothesis that was EVER posited, nobody would get anything useful done.That's why scientists don't test things just because they're testable. Scientists don't stop searching for an answer because they're afraid of what it means - the shape of the universe is an example. Why is a flat universe so bad? Because it dooms the entire universe to an irreversible and ever-increasing expansion which eventually leads to a total breakdown of (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nuzzlemeister "If scientists had to test every testable hypothesis that was EVER posited, nobody would get anything useful done." LOL, an absurd straw man. No one is suggested that scientists should test every testable hypothesis. I'm talking about your irrational opposition to anyone looking for evidence of design.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau matter as we know it. I, also, do not pretend to be an astrophysicist or a theoretical physicist. I have however examined the evidence and physics applied to the question and agree, as does the scientific community, that it is sound. A closed universe is better for self-perpetuation. You claim that I am ignorant of my own body - an ignorance you must necessarily share - so I don't have the authority to make qualitative judgments about the universe, and yet you feel justified in (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@kmsoileau sitting there and making poorly-supported or unsupported qualitative judgments about the universe yourself. YOU don't think the laws of nature allow for a naturally-occurring universe, so YOU think it must have been designed. Don't be a hypocrite, please.
I care about our scientists researching things for which they have valid reasons to be curious because scientists serve an invaluable role in expanding our technology, medicine, and understanding of the universe. if they're (cont)
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "so YOU think it must have been designed." You really should read what I write. I never said it must have been designed. I said it is worthwhile to look for evidence of design and to do experiments to obtain more such evidence, if it exists.
I think your reasons for resisting design research are purely personal and emotional, and account for your unscientific opposition to it.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "valid reasons" According to whom? You?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Valid according to scientific consensus. And yes, you totally caught me, I am absolutely terrified of the idea that maybe I or my universe was invented by a really smart extrauniversal alien civilization (/end sarcasm). Scientists don't not study astrology (and I don't dismiss it) because the possibility of astrology being true is scary. It's disregarded because there is NO EVIDENCE to support it. You still have yet to offer any good reason to look for a designer of the universe.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "You still have yet to offer any good reason to look for a designer of the universe." That's because I'm not accountable to you or anyone else for what I do with my intellect. On the other hand, the burden is on you to explain why you have a problem with others using their minds to look for evidence of design, especially when such research costs you nothing.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "Valid according to scientific consensus." Scientific consensus once agreed that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. You sound like one of the crowd who castigated Galileo for his "invalid" research topics.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau doing expensive (and yes, price is a problem - science is limited by the budgets assigned to it) research for which there is little or no supporting evidence, they're wasting time and effort which harms progress in another area of scientific inquiry. I might be curious to see whether it's possible to, like Willy Wonka, transmit chocolate bars via television, but if I have no evidence that it can be done and the available evidence says it can't be done, it's wasteful to pursue it.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister Again, if private research institutions want to do design research, why do you care?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau think it's necessary to do so because there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the universe is remotely close to having been designed. For one thing, it would be a pretty poor design - the shape of the universe is probably the worst possible shape it could be. If people didn't look for my sun-aliens, it's not because they're afraid to find them. It's because there's no evidence for - or lots of evidence against - their existence. Period. Science isn't hindered by fear.
Nuzzlemeister 1 year ago
@Nuzzlemeister "it would be a pretty poor design" Who do you think you are? Are you REALLY qualified to state that the Universe is poorly designed? You don't even fully understand the workings of your own body, much less the design of a Universe. Too funny.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
"Aliens creating the universe is still a wild speculation based on absolutely zero evidence."
Of course. That's not my point. Are you inebriated or just slow-witted? I'm advocating efforts to do experiments to shed light on the question and possibly obtain evidence one way or the other.
Your lack of curiosity is your problem, not mine.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Well before you try to convince people that aliens or some immaterial being created the universe you're going to have to present GOOD evidence, I think this is what the fella was talking about. Most creationists I've come across rely too heavily on fallacies, misinformation/poor evidence which is why we tend to dismiss them so much. If I were a god believer (I used to be), I'd be a heck of a lot more honest than this, I did have a similar opinion to you about "openmindedness".
TurboDally 1 year ago
Creation science does not equal religion. Even if you were to completely debunk religion, the follwoing question remains: Suppose our Universe was created by unfathomably intelligent and powerful aliens, as an experiment of sorts? In this case, creation science would actually be the correct view, because evolution fits neatly into this scenario: a Universe designed to evolve.
All completely religion free. So if you are honest, you will discuss this possibility as well as creation-by-deity.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau If only Creation science didn't specifically propose the biblical account of Creation, then you'd be correct. Even so, this supposition would be as completely unsupported by facts as creation by deity, and would also bear the question "from where did these aliens come?"
bicokun 1 year ago
@bicokun Take your eyes off of your nemesis, religion, for a moment and understand my point. Those that truly seek after truth should be designing experiments to detect subtle clues as to whether ANY intelligent designer created the Universe, be it Deity or alien. William Dembski has already taken steps in this direction. Evolutionists should be as eager as he is to find answers here.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I don't care about religion. Aliens creating the universe is still a wild speculation based on absolutely zero evidence. If we can explain the universe via natural events without a crazy powerful alien theory, I think said theory is pretty much pointless.
bicokun 1 year ago
This reminds me of a christian show. no wonder christians and even atheists think evolution is a religion. Dumb faggots. Quit makin' it look like it.
InterRage 1 year ago
Creationism and Intelligent Design = crap and Idiotic Drivel
XtraordinaryMT 1 year ago
Mr88playmaker I've found you again! and your still rambling on about your DNA is information therefore it must of been designed! Quite simply, we can observe positive mutations to genetic information that give beneficial biological functions to the organism. This, as observed, is due to mis-replication. Therefore an observable example of the genetic information being changed to give a function without any design! Observable evidence trumps your word games any day.
ddgdan 2 years ago 6
.near-deathdotcom/
majorl31 2 years ago
Hahahaha! And I'd like to see them build a computer that runs on "clouds"!
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
"build a computer that runs on "clouds"!"
windows 95 opening screen :-)
SOAS007 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason Evolutionists/Naturalists attack Creationists is because it's too late to cry
Facts with NO religious spin:
(1) DNA code is language.
(2) Language originates in a mind.
(3) Information exists independent of its medium.
(4) Information and language are not matter or energy.
(5) Biological life forms are the creative and purposeful product of information and language.
There are only two known languages to man:
(1) of human mind origin (2) DNA code
Those are the scientific facts.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker "Facts with NO religious spin:
(1) DNA code is language.
"
it is a natural pattern, just like the clouds,starts, or mountain range.
SOAS007 2 years ago
RETARD asserts that DNA code is "a pattern".
A "pattern" of WHAT?
Matter? Energy? or INFORMATION?
Hey, dummy, here's some news for ya. DNA code is so much a langauge that they have already created a man made COMPUTER that RUNS on it.
Next time, don't open your mouth unless you know what you're talking about. Look at you. You've got egg on your face.
Haha!
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
Bollocks. Would you say the same of the book that describes the clouds, mountains or stars? DNA coding describes the make up of the cell in the same way. It then takes a transcription into the machine language of the cell (RNA sequence) which in turn uses this to sequence the correct amino acids into a protein in the correct shape for use. A bit more specifically organised than your computer let alone relatively random jumbles of molecules such as clouds, mountains or stars.
anguspure 1 year ago
lol, jutandchris is retarded
RollJob88 2 years ago
The History Channel's fare now is basically "Did UFOs Help Nostradamus Write the Bible?" Well, that and Modern Marvels, which is basically an hour-long, totally uncritical look at a different industry each week.
I kind of miss when they had The Black Sheep Squadron, and buffered the commercial breaks with interviews with actual members of the Black Sheep.That was cool.
oraclecrank 2 years ago 20
Nostradamus didn't write the bible.
lol
86adamleon 2 years ago 2
Not all of it. The UFOs helped!
oraclecrank 2 years ago 10
Lol, I agree with everything said. xD
xMKIVxVR6x 2 years ago
@oraclecrank Fact and Film is actually one of the best programs on TV...
spiderpig85 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some Geologist PLEASE explain this to me:
Nitrogen has a half life of 2 millions years. Correct? Nitrogen is less dense that most or all of our types of rocks. Correct?
SO . . . there should be no presance of Nitorgen in ANY of of rocks, IF the world is any older the 2 million years. Right?
SO . . . if this is correct, the world can't be any older than 2 million years old.
If I am off base, would someone please correct me?
jutandchris 2 years ago
Why not just search it on Google, rather than waiting for someone to answer it online.
And I'm no geologist, so I can't give you a definitive answer, although I recall reading something regarding this in Dawkin's new book...
Bringerofdeath9753 2 years ago 2
Do some research on "Nitrogen Cycle." It's pretty easy to understand.
Saxyman14 2 years ago 2
jutandchris
Read your own words again and take special notice of the word 'half'.
Then rethink a rate of degradation based on HALF ...
draagon66 2 years ago
It depends why you asked Chris. Is it because you want to say "HA! Gotchya" or do you wish to know?
Nitrogen in rock originates as organically bound nitrogen associated with sediment. Also half-life does not mean you have 1 gram and then 0.5 gram etc
You can find the information with a simple Google. Just stay away from answers in genesis or any rubbish like that.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago 2
Nitrogen is everywhere on Earth. It's like 80% of the air we breathe. It's all over the place. :-D
oraclecrank 2 years ago
John 12:46
I (Jesus Christ) am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity, you do know every single writing about Jesus was written after his death, so you quote an unsubstantiated source. Moreover you failed to refute my statement about the requirement of religious intervention in the prison system. Most importantly you stated that humans without Christ's influence naturally chose evil, how about the gravely immoral Christians of the bible belt and how bout the exemplary morality of many Buddhists, I call you an idiot because you are one.
sinicleSam 2 years ago
So what that the gospels were written after Christ's death....even the Apostle Paul who wrote even later than the 4 gospels wrote about the some 500 eye witnesses to the resurrected Christ and spoke of the fact that still many years later many individuals were still alive who had seen the resurrected Christ. Are you just looking for excuses to NOT have to believe in this Jesus Christ to whom you will someday given an account? I think so! I'm glad to be an "idiot" with the truth.
markpianoman 2 years ago
I'm finding it hard to argue with you because you fail to see the fallacy in your own arguments. Paul wrote that there were 500 eye witnesses doesn't detract from the fact that its still a secondary source, a clever con artist would definitely state others support his claim (not to say that Paul is a con artist). More over you once again failed to address my argument on immorality because, I assume, you have no viable counter argument.
sinicleSam 2 years ago
I'm not looking for an excuse not to believe It just annoys me that you downplay humanity in its entirety to an immoral population whom would have been lost if it weren't for some theoretical being. What you are saying about this savior is reductive to every human's ability to be good and contribute constructively to society, by your logic the government should adopt the Christian equivalent of Islamic Sharia law. Please attempt to debate me without quote mining from an unreliable source.
sinicleSam 2 years ago
Yes, it's obvious that you think the Bible is an unreliable source, whereas I believe it is a highly reliable source...in fact, more reliable than any other book.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Your inability to grapple simple logic frustrates me, I have no idea why you would deem the bible a supremely reliable source considering all the evidence with stands against such a statement. The only way I can make sense of what you say is if you are either a small child who has not been able to break away from their parent's religious influence, or you have experienced great emotional anguish and cling to faith as a form of security from any potential uncertainty and you ignored my argument.
sinicleSam 2 years ago
Neither of your suppositions are true -- I neither am a small child (not young either), nor have I experienced great emotional anguish.
I have no intention of debating immorality.
All the best to you.
markpianoman 2 years ago
As much as I'd like to say you argue well, I may as well have tried to explain binomial theorum to an infant. Bye
sinicleSam 2 years ago
MarkPioanoMan Picked John, see how easy it is to find nonsense in the next verse.!.
Typical contridiction.!
john 9:39
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world,
john 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world
SOAS007 2 years ago
MarkPianoMan is probably one of those who live in an enviroment where spouting that kind of nonsense is not riduculed, but accepted as normal . He has a chance to see the truth if he opens his mind ;-)
SOAS007 2 years ago
It's not my theory...it's from the Word of God -- the Bible. God maintains that He had no beginning because He was not created. The universe and everything in it was created by the Almighty Always-Having-Existed God...the only one capable of creating the universe. Totally logical!
markpianoman 2 years ago
"it's from the Word of God -- the Bible"
I was told the book of momon is the word of god, no the koran? they too say they are correct. Many senior clerics don't even call the bible the 'word of god' nowdays.
SOAS007 2 years ago
god raped michael jackson when he was a little boy when MJ bought ice cream from his truck
JakeBartlam 2 years ago
hey habbadasher, as soon as someone references that peice of crap joke of a film by ben stein dont even bother responding to them.
tthe mention of the global flood as well, my god, the fool probably also believes in hovinds idea of the atmosphere being covered in a layer of water preflood and the fossil distribution is due to the heavier animals (dinosaurs) sinking to the bottom after the flood. I mean you cant use logic with a person who believes such things
chobochotch 2 years ago
"that peice of crap joke of a film by ben stein dont even bother responding to them"
it amazing how stein and hovind take people in. Such fraudsters. Kail is best place for em ! :-)
SOAS007 2 years ago
Intelligent Design is the ONLY logical conclusion for the existence of that which was created: universe, earth, man, animals. There is evidence for variation within species, but no evidence of macro-evolution. That is nothing but wishful thinking from depraved God-rejecting men who do not want to have to give an account of themselves and their morals to the Creator God - the Lord Jesus Christ.
markpianoman 2 years ago
No the church is not trying to re-write history...go to the Bible for the truth in ancient history!!!!!!!
Archeology CONFIRMS the events / leaders / kings of the Bible!
markpianoman 2 years ago
"Archeology CONFIRMS the events "
so when and where was Jesus born,( under herod, or 10 years later. and what about this census in Luke 2. Made up to fit prophecy..?
SOAS007 2 years ago
OK, so what's your evidence for what you are trying to say? What evidence do you have that Luke 2 was "made up to fit prophecy?"
Or are you just a Jew who doesn't like the fact that Jesus Christ was / is the Messiah?
markpianoman 2 years ago
Unlike Jesus and Luke I am not a jew :-))
There is no record of this census ,there would be and it is a crazy idea if you examine it. Return to your ancestors city of 20 -40 odd generations ago ( depending again on which biblical geneoloy you want to believe.
You think he fullfiled the messiahic prophecy .. The jews do not., despite the Luke claims, who probably misunderstood it , didn't write that anyow.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
And you are going to say that the census never transpired because there is no still existing record of it?
"Justin Martyr and Tertullian say that this census can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist, the fact that these contemporaries appealed to them suggests that they did exist at the time. In the l00's AD these men and others had access to this information and their writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so."
markpianoman 2 years ago
""can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist"" Doh.!! thats not verified then.. and a rediculous concept too.
SOAS007 2 years ago
"writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so."
easily..?
or wanted to, don't forget xtianity was busy burning other books then, and checking facts and editing the bible is not what the bible is about. Do you think they would have left that gospel out then. naaaa
SOAS007 2 years ago
If you read the quote I quoted in my earlier entry here, you could correctly deduct that Justin Martyr and Tertulian must have been historians from the 1st century AD who said that the census can be verified in Rome. That fact seems to have slid right by you.
Are you interested in truth, or interested in looking for excuses to dismiss the truth as a lie?
markpianoman 2 years ago
"Are you interested in truth" yes and you just declaring to know it without evidence doesn't make it true..
The historians you mentioned were 2nd century.!!! to start with and all that is know of Justin is what he wrote of himself., but he became a christian apologist.. To find truth you need corroberated independent information.
would you be able to go back to a town of 20-40 generations ago, to fill in a census. Its such a rediculous idea,
SOAS007 2 years ago
That this historians were 2nd century makes it even more trustworthy. The Europeans are great record keepers...I lived there for 26 years. My ancestors are from Holland and it was possible by going through the archives to search out my family tree back 500 years!
And besides that, there are tons of other evidence for the truth of the Bible for those unwilling to stick their heads in the sand like ostriches.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"The Europeans are great record keepers"
except they have none of the census.!!
Its all hearsay like all religious claims, USing the word truth doesn't make it true.!
Most people cannot go back more than 10 genrations, so a cencus requiring you to go back more than 20 is rediculous.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
With or without records of the census from the time of Christ doesn't change all the other evidences. Also just take a look at how archeology has confirmed 100s of thousands of Biblical facts. Therefore, one very reliable source for the fact of the census at the time of Christ's birth is the Biblical record!
markpianoman 2 years ago
"confirmed 100s of thousands of Biblical facts. "
not any miracles., or anyting supernatural.
" Therefore, one very reliable source for the fact of the census at the time of Christ's birth is the Biblical record"
but there is NONE>!!! just wish thinking..
no contemporary outside the bible wrote of Jesus. and what Paul wrote was hearsay. Its all evidence from tradition. i.e. not evidence.
SOAS007 2 years ago
"Europeans are great record keepers" there is a program here "who do you think you are" tracing back famous live people. It can never go that far back.. Where were your ancestors at the battle of Hastings.! A cencusr requires you to go back there.!!butr its in da bible so it must be true.!!! What about other holy books.! are they not true too.!?
SOAS007 2 years ago
no the other "holy" books are not true....and do not have the extensive evidence for their truth that the Bible has....the archeological evidence in itself is overwhelmingly conclusive to the truth of the Bible. I don't care where my ancestors were at the battle of Hastings....we have records that trace back our family tree in Holland to the early 1500s.
markpianoman 2 years ago
israeli archealogist still havn't been able to fine any of the evidence of their biblical wanderings, despite being well funded and wanting to prove it. So archeology actually disproves many of the biblical claims..
SOAS007 2 years ago
Archaeology has also disproved several Biblical stories not to mention that several stories are impossible (though I don't know if you think those stories are literally true or not). So whilst the book does contain accurate information it contains just as much inaccurate information and thus can't be considered to be a usefull historical record. Concerning the historicity of Jesus what needs evidence isn't so much the fact that he existed as the divine and miraculous claims made about him.
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
What Biblical stories has archaeology disproved? Please give specific examples with details.
I believe that every "story" in the Bible is true. When God is involved then all bets are off for what is possible. Don't forget, this book is all about God and his interaction with men through the ages. This book isn't about the tooth fairy.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"What Biblical stories has archaeology disproved?"
there is as much evidence for the jews wandering around the desert as there is for the Morman claims about Jesus being in the US. NONE, despite israilis using a lot of money and expertise to prove them true. Remember the claims about Jesus cannot be verified by independent contemporary witnesses outside of the bible.
SOAS007 2 years ago
When I say that certain things in the Bible are impossible I'm referring to those things that contradict the very history of the Universe and this planet. For example the creation account and the global flood. The creation story flat out contradicts most of what we have discovered about the history of the universe and of mankind. Similarly a global flood would leave a truly astounding amount of evidence, yet we can find none. Thus we can be certain that neither of those events took place.
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
Now then some examples concerning the Bible contradicting archaeological evidence. First of the book contains several anachronisms, that is details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E.
There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all.
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records (and the egyptians were very good at keeping records). There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people.
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
Lack of archeological evidence is no indication that an event described in the Bible did not take place. My point was that there are no archeological finds which contradict the Bible. And tons of evidences for the truth of the Bible. And there are top middle-eastern archeologist who have attested to this fact.
markpianoman 2 years ago
The site that is generally thought to be the city of Ai was in fact not occupied or destroyed at the time the Bible claimed it was but rather it prospered for another 1000 years before being destroyed.
Evidence suggests that the Jewish tribes first settled in what you would refer to as the holy land long before the Bible says they did. And they were in fact living there at the time when they were supposedly being held as slaves in Egypt. Historians generally consider the exodus mythological...
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
You can always find some archeologist / scientist / or any other "ist" who has drawn "conclusive" evidence that the Bible is wrong on some historical point. However, I will remind you that the Jews were absolutely meticulous about their record keeping, so any modern-day conclusions (highly subject to change) about the "error" of the Biblical record should be taken with a grain of salt.
markpianoman 2 years ago
All due respect there is a difference between some archaeologist or scientist and the consensus of the archaeological or scientific community. And it is the consensus of the archaeological community that there was no Jewish mass exodus from Egypt.
Also when evidence contradicts an ancient record the correct the correct thing to do is not to dismiss the evidence but rather to reevaluate how accurate you consider that record to be with the evidence taken into account.
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
I've attempted to post links to "evidence for a world-wide flood" now twice. Either links are prohibited or the authors of this video clip are deleting my comments. You can search and find excellent sources under "evidence for a world-wide flood."
markpianoman 2 years ago
I had the same problem with links a while ago, it seems they're prohibited though as mentioned I've heard what is supposed to be the evidence of a global flood a couple of times now and I've already described my basic problems with it down below.
TheHabbadasher 2 years ago
However whilst some Biblical stories don't seem to be true a number of places and people mentioned did to our knowledge actually exist so in those cases I suppose the Bible might be usefull. However I would very much like to know what top middle-eastern archaeologists you're referring to.
Aside from that I would like to poi