Creation According to Genesis

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

everything can be explained by science.

Everything that can be, in principle, observed can be explained scientifically. Just what do you think a scientific explanation is?

[Muravyets]

My comment regarding your emotion was in response to this post:

No, the only worshipper who needs to be wrong is you.

This is a personal attack, which is never used in debate. Trust me, I am well versed in detecting emotion.

A) No, it is not a personal attack. If you are so well-versed in detecting things, maybe you should try detecting some facts. If you're so concerned with what's true, maybe you should try being more truthful yourself. You made up the claim of emotionalism. And you are indirectly attacking me by suggesting that I am not telling the truth when I correct you.

B) You point to the existence of the Bible as proof of your claims about what other people thought about the Bible? I'm sorry, but you really do fail at this point.

A) When engaging in debate, one does not suggest that one's opponent is a liar.

Which is why I complained of you doing it.

Everything outlined in red does not belong in this conversation.

I have not hired you to be my editor. I put those words there for a reason, and there they shall stay.

We are debating the accuracy of Genesis, not whether my facts are wrong. If you want to prove that my facts are wrong,

Okay, Ms/Mr Manners, you carry on trying to prove accuracy without reference to facts.

you do that by introducing real evidence, which everyone in this thread has done but you.

A) Why should I duplicate their work? They beat me to the postings, and since I agree with them, I just rely on their sources.

B) I stated that the real evidence is the whole geological and fossil record of the Earth, and I asked you if you reject that. You said you accept it as fact. So why then do I have to post references to it for you, if you already accept it?

You are emotionally attached to this subject, whether you have ahd some experience with God or some Christian who hurt or offended you.

And now you are embroidering the fiction you made up about me, in some attempt to dismiss me as an opponent rather than engage with what I have been saying. That is another invalid approach.

B) Yes, I do. If people did not believe the things that are written down in the Bible, why would they have written them down?

Sorry to keep laughing like that, but you're just so funny when you say these things.

By the way, the Bible is relatively new. The books that comprise it are records compiled from other sources- letters, court records, geneologies, etc. The authors were not co-writing a book, they were writing down what they saw for the record (or in some cases, because God told them to).

Yes, I know.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Why not?

Okay, we have pretty good reasons to say that the universe wasn't around forever. Now, we can either say that it was brought into existence by a natural process or by a super-powerful, hyper-intelligent, extra-temporal being. Which makes fewer and simpler assumptions?

[Blouman Empire]

Why not?

Okay, we have pretty good reasons to say that the universe wasn't around forever. Now, we can either say that it was brought into existence by a natural process or by a super-powerful, hyper-intelligent, extra-temporal being. Which makes fewer and simpler assumptions?

The later it is simple "God existed and decided to make the universe", the former requires more assumptions and a more detailed explanation. Can't you see the explanation "God did it" is far simpler than anything else?

[Muravyets]

Nope, why do you think God makes such use of it? It's an excellent way to keep your followers mystified.

Only for people who really enjoy running in circles.

Also known as followers. I know I personally am in one hell of a circle.

I know. I've been watching you run in it.

Everyone cherrypicks. Evangelists, scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, you, me. We see what we want to see, we remember what we want to remember, we reject what is unfamiliar or inexplicable for what supports our ideas and morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

The difference here is between people who are aware of their bias and subject it to testing and questioning rather than just trust it and who will adjust their beliefs to suit the facts rather than demand the facts change to suit their beliefs, as opposed to people who do the opposite, who ignore facts, deny what can be easily observed, and try to cover themselves by declaring that everyone does the same -- another claim that can be easily disproven by simple observation.

[New Kereptica]

Why not?

Okay, we have pretty good reasons to say that the universe wasn't around forever. Now, we can either say that it was brought into existence by a natural process or by a super-powerful, hyper-intelligent, extra-temporal being. Which makes fewer and simpler assumptions?

The later it is simple "God existed and decided to make the universe", the former requires more assumptions and a more detailed explanation. Can't you see the explanation "God did it" is far simpler than anything else?

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange. Much more must be assumed when speaking of the existence of god than of observable facts.

[Almajoya]

I am very aware of this. Who developed the scientific method? Scientists. Your point is moot.

So the Christian founders of the scientific method purposely created a method to root out confirmation bias except when it comes to religion? And these CHRISTIAN founders designed it just so that the confirmation bias that it had with respect to religion was against religion and against the existence of god? Really?

I didn't say confirmation bias was limited to religion. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that the scientists were Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... fic_method . Whether they were or not, did they not have to find a balance between their religion and science? Maybe they preferred one over the other.

everything can be explained by science.

Everything that can be, in principle, observed can be explained scientifically. Just what do you think a scientific explanation is?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, everything can be explained scientifically. What it comes down to is choosing the scientific explanation, the "higher power"-based one, or straddling the fence.

(I think we're caught up on posts now?)

[Maurepas]

Why not?

Okay, we have pretty good reasons to say that the universe wasn't around forever. Now, we can either say that it was brought into existence by a natural process or by a super-powerful, hyper-intelligent, extra-temporal being. Which makes fewer and simpler assumptions?

The later it is simple "God existed and decided to make the universe", the former requires more assumptions and a more detailed explanation. Can't you see the explanation "God did it" is far simpler than anything else?

Its simple if you dont want to do it logically, thats the trick...If it has to make logical sense, and cannot be based off an unprovable concept, then it becomes impossibly more difficult...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The later it is simple "God existed and decided to make the universe", the former requires more assumptions and a more detailed explanation. Can't you see the explanation "God did it" is far simpler than anything else?

In one, we postulate the existence of certain physical mechanisms that we don't fully understand. Actually, this isn't always even true. In some versions of cosmological origins, like the Hawking version, we don't even need to postulate anything beyond currently known science.

In the other, we postulate a consciousness of infinite intelligence that has infinite power and is infinitely compassionate and that somehow exists outside of space and time.

[Blouman Empire]

Why not?

Okay, we have pretty good reasons to say that the universe wasn't around forever. Now, we can either say that it was brought into existence by a natural process or by a super-powerful, hyper-intelligent, extra-temporal being. Which makes fewer and simpler assumptions?

The later it is simple "God existed and decided to make the universe", the former requires more assumptions and a more detailed explanation. Can't you see the explanation "God did it" is far simpler than anything else?

Its simple if you dont want to do it logically, thats the trick...If it has to make logical sense, and cannot be based off an unprovable concept, then it becomes impossibly more difficult...

The origins of the universe are just as much more difficult to prove.

Where did this energy come from?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The origins of the universe are just as much more difficult to prove.

Where did this energy come from?

There doesn't need to be any energy at all. The universe has very little to no curvature at all. The net energy of the universe is basically zero.

[Maurepas]

Why not?

Okay, we have pretty good reasons to say that the universe wasn't around forever. Now, we can either say that it was brought into existence by a natural process or by a super-powerful, hyper-intelligent, extra-temporal being. Which makes fewer and simpler assumptions?

The later it is simple "God existed and decided to make the universe", the former requires more assumptions and a more detailed explanation. Can't you see the explanation "God did it" is far simpler than anything else?

Its simple if you dont want to do it logically, thats the trick...If it has to make logical sense, and cannot be based off an unprovable concept, then it becomes impossibly more difficult...

The origins of the universe are just as much more difficult to prove.

Where did this energy come from?

It isnt a thing, its a measurement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

In physics, energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law.

[Blouman Empire]

The origins of the universe are just as much more difficult to prove.

Where did this energy come from?

There doesn't need to be any energy at all. The universe has very little to no curvature at all. The net energy of the universe is basically zero.

So what happened then?

It has always been here?

[Sitspot]

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

For a scientist you really do like talking in absolutes. The peer review process sometimes catches cherry picking. There is no way to prove that it always catches cherry picking or even that it catches the majority of cherry picking.
Your statement above is as much a statement of faith as a belief in Genesis.

[Almajoya]

you do that by introducing real evidence, which everyone in this thread has done but you.

A) Why should I duplicate their work? They beat me to the postings, and since I agree with them, I just rely on their sources.

Wow, that's a good one. I call bullshit.

B) Yes, I do. If people did not believe the things that are written down in the Bible, why would they have written them down?

Sorry to keep laughing like that, but you're just so funny when you say these things.

[/quote]
If you believe I'm so wrong, why not produce some evidence? I'm interested in pursuing a healthy debate; if you would like to continue attacking my assertions without foundation, I will leave you to your devices.

Everyone cherrypicks. Evangelists, scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, you, me. We see what we want to see, we remember what we want to remember, we reject what is unfamiliar or inexplicable for what supports our ideas and morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

The difference here is between people who are aware of their bias and subject it to testing and questioning rather than just trust it and who will adjust their beliefs to suit the facts rather than demand the facts change to suit their beliefs, as opposed to people who do the opposite, who ignore facts, deny what can be easily observed, and try to cover themselves by declaring that everyone does the same -- another claim that can be easily disproven by simple observation.

To those who believe in this Higher Power, what is most easily observed is the hand of their Power reaching into their lives.

I am not sure where this claim that they believe "everyone does the same" comes from. If it is in reference to one of my earliest posts, I stated that there had been millennia of people who believe what I do- I did not say that everyone on the Earth between then and now belied the same. No one can make this claim- it is obvious that no one believes quite the same thing, just from hearing people talk, or observing their actions.

[Maurepas]

The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

For a scientist you really do like talking in absolutes. The peer review process sometimes catches cherry picking. There is no way to prove that it always catches cherry picking or even that it catches the majority of cherry picking.
Your statement above is as much a statement of faith as a belief in Genesis.

I think we know what must be done:

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It has always been here?

It's not there now. There's no net energy in the universe. When you add up the contributions from positive mass-energy and negative gravitational potential energy, you get zero.

[Almajoya]

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange.

Source?

[Maurepas]

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange.

Source?

Its an unprovable concept, therefore illogical,

Your own source for the "proof" included arguments for and against, and was unable to prove anything at all...

[Patriqvinia]

I tend to think of it as perhaps a colorized view of an intervention sometime in humanity's past.

[Barringtonia]

The origins of the universe are just as much more difficult to prove.

Where did this energy come from?

'We don't know' is a more logical conclusion than 'God did it'.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

For a scientist you really do like talking in absolutes. The peer review process sometimes catches cherry picking. There is no way to prove that it always catches cherry picking or even that it catches the majority of cherry picking.
Your statement above is as much a statement of faith as a belief in Genesis.

Actually, you could show whether or not it catches the majority of cherry picking. It would actually just require intense historical study.

It's not so much that it always works or that it even works most of the time in short term. It's a long term process of gradual improvement. Even if it isn't perfect in the short term, it actually works incredibly well in the long term.

[Almajoya]

Because every scientists ever hates religion.

Whoa, now, don't go putting words in my mouth.

You claimed that 'everyone' (meaning all scientists) were on the same page about cherrypicking. The cherrypicking regarded essentially discrediting religion. Thus, it logically follows that you are claiming that all scientists want to discredit religion. The simplest explanation for that is that they all hate religion.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

[New Kereptica]

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange.

Source?

Any site that attributes absolutes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, &c.) to your god. They are inherently contradictory (even by themselves) and thus illogical. Do you actually want me to find you some links for that?

[Blouman Empire]

It has always been here?

It's not there now. There's no net energy in the universe. When you add up the contributions from positive mass-energy and negative gravitational potential energy, you get zero.

Cool there is no energy in the universe. we should stop converting energy from one form into another because there is none.