Creation According to Genesis

[Muravyets]

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.

Is that because you don't know what the word "bullshit" means? Poster A posts links to information regarding the age of the Earth, how snakes work, what humans are made of, etc, and those links ARE the very information that refers to my argument, but you expect me to put up another post containing the exact same links?

Come on, Almajoya, are you just going to fool around, or are you trying to have a serious conversation?

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.

Evidence of what? That people sometimes write down things they do not believe are literally, factually true? Okay, here's a list of novels for you. Every single one of these was written by someone. Do think they all believed them to be literally true?

http://www.listology.com/list/1001-book ... ad-you-die

Here's another list, and this one even mentions the religious context in which some of the novels were written. Does the religious belief of the author make the story 100% factually true?

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_novel.html

You claimed that the fact that people wrote the books of the Bible somehow proves that they believed them to be literally, factually true. Not metaphor. Not allegory. Fact. As proven by the fact that they wrote them.

Well, people write fictions every freakin' day. They're not lies, but they're not facts, either. Writing a book does not prove anything about the beliefs or thoughts of the author.

Furthermore, an additional point occurs to me: Exactly how does the existence of other books of the Bible prove that the authors of those books thought that Genesis was literal fact? How does it prove that even the author(s) of Genesis thought it was literal fact?

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

That is preaching, not argument. And their opinion is not proof of anything to anyone, nor is their experience proof of anything to anyone other than themselves.

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.

[/quote]
That is neither what I said nor what you said.

You said two different things:

First you said millennia of people believe what you do. I disputed that on the grounds that you cannot possibly know what millennia of people thought.

Second, you said that "everyone cherrypicks." THAT is the one where I disputed your claim that "everyone does the same" as you do.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well Woo-suk, when I say something won't survive for long, that tends to mean it will expire in the short term. We obviously use English in quite different ways.

won't survive for long = won't have long-term survival

[Blouman Empire]

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

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

Because we said so just accept it don't ask questions.

But I would like to know how the universe came to be.

[Almajoya]

Proof that because a scientist discredits religion, he hates it? Do you want me to examine every scientist in the world, past and present? I admit that I should not have used an absolute so freely, but that does not change my point: science and religion are at odds, although they do not have to be.

They do. Science rests on provable facts and observations. Religion, by definition, rests on belief in supernatural (unprovable) phenomena.

I disagree. As I've stated throughout this thread, my view is that science is man's explanation of God's methods. Do you see how they go hand in hand now, so easily?

I argued this point pages ago, love. God's methods are science; science is man's interpretation of God's methods. The facts that to you make his omnipotence "self-refuting" were created by Him, and can be broken by Him on a whim. That is the sort of omnipotence I am describing.

I wouldn't use facts to make certain definitions of omnipotence self-refuting. I would only use logic and the provided definition.

All right, then, give it your best shot.

[New Kereptica]

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

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

Because we said so just accept it don't ask questions.

But I would like to know how the universe came to be.

Do you have the expertise to predict or measure the curvature of the universe? I don't think so.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Because we said so just accept it don't ask questions.

But I would like to know how the universe came to be.

A quantum fluctuation in vacuum, the collision of two d-branes, self-contained universe using a complex number for time to smooth out topological problems in singularities, etc.

Take your pick.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

All right, then, give it your best shot.

I can't if you don't tell me what you mean by omnipotence.

[Blouman Empire]

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

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

Because we said so just accept it don't ask questions.

But I would like to know how the universe came to be.

Do you have the expertise to predict or measure the curvature of the universe? I don't think so.

Excuse me?

It is that sort of thinking "Don't ask question just accept what we tell you as fact" that stifled humanity for long time. There would be no scientific process and expansion of knowledge if everybody just accepted what they had been told.

[New Kereptica]

I argued this point pages ago, love. God's methods are science; science is man's interpretation of God's methods. The facts that to you make his omnipotence "self-refuting" were created by Him, and can be broken by Him on a whim. That is the sort of omnipotence I am describing.

I wouldn't use facts to make certain definitions of omnipotence self-refuting. I would only use logic and the provided definition.

All right, then, give it your best shot.

Omnipotence is the state of being all-powerful. That implies that an omnipotent being would have all the power, and thus would be the most powerful being in existence. An all-powerful being would have the power to make a being more powerful than himself. This is impossible, as he is all-powerful.

Voilà.

[Blouman Empire]

Because we said so just accept it don't ask questions.

But I would like to know how the universe came to be.

A quantum fluctuation in vacuum, the collision of two d-branes, self-contained universe using a complex number for time to smooth out topological problems in singularities, etc.

Take your pick.

Where did these d-branes come from?

Does string theory only allow this to happen once? (That is to say the consequence of the collision)

Is it possible that there are other universes?

[New Kereptica]

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

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

Because we said so just accept it don't ask questions.

But I would like to know how the universe came to be.

Do you have the expertise to predict or measure the curvature of the universe? I don't think so.

Excuse me?

It is that sort of thinking "Don't ask question just accept what we tell you as fact" that stifled humanity for long time. There would be no scientific process and expansion of knowledge if everybody just accepted what they had been told.

Accepting what you are told is not the same as trusting the peer-reviewed observations of people who have spent their lives studying a subject.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Where did these d-branes come from?

A higher dimensional space.

Does string theory only allow this to happen once? (That is to say the consequence of the collision)

Is it possible that there are other universes?

Not only is it possible, string theory pretty much requires that there be more than one universe.

[Sitspot]

Well Woo-suk, when I say something won't survive for long, that tends to mean it will expire in the short term. We obviously use English in quite different ways.

won't survive for long = won't have long-term survival

So when you originally said

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

What exactly did you mean by 'long' ? a week? a year? what exactly?

[Blouman Empire]

A higher dimensional space.

Not only is it possible, string theory pretty much requires that there be more than one universe.

So other assumptions then?

Does it explain where everything came from?

Does this disprove the big bang?

[Blouman Empire]

Accepting what you are told is not the same as trusting the peer-reviewed observations of people who have spent their lives studying a subject.

Umm yeah it is.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What exactly did you mean by 'long' ? a week? a year? what exactly?

The half-life of Polonium 210.

In all seriousness, usually less than the time of a human lifespan, once all the evidence has been made available to show which hypothesis really works.

[Sitspot]

What exactly did you mean by 'long' ? a week? a year? what exactly?

The half-life of Polonium 210.

In all seriousness, usually less than the time of a human lifespan, once all the evidence has been made available to show which hypothesis really works.

source please?

[New Kereptica]

Accepting what you are told is not the same as trusting the peer-reviewed observations of people who have spent their lives studying a subject.

Umm yeah it is.

No, it's not. 'Accepting what you are told' would imply that anybody could say anything and it would be accepted. I, however, require some qualifications before I'll believe someone. I obviously can't repeat every discovery myself, so I trust what qualified people tell me is true. I certainly don't trust it beyond any doubt, but I trust it enough to accept it until I come across something contradictory.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

So other assumptions then?

Does it explain where everything came from?

Does this disprove the big bang?

First of all, this isn't the only possible explanation. Second, it explains where this particular universe came from. Third, no, it's just a generalization of the big bang.

Last, Godel's theorem's basically show that it is impossible to have a system of logic that is ultimately self-contained. Eventually, no matter what explanatory path you take, you will hit a wall where no further explanation can occur. This is simply a consequence of logic. Thus, there will always be some aspects of existence that simply are because they are. This applies whether or not god exists.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

source please?

What do you want, an entire lecture on the history of science?

[Blouman Empire]

First of all, this isn't the only possible explanation. Second, it explains where this particular universe came from. Third, no, it's just a generalization of the big bang.

Last, Godel's theorem's basically show that it is impossible to have a system of logic that is ultimately self-contained. Eventually, no matter what explanatory path you take, you will hit a wall where no further explanation can occur. This is simply a consequence of logic. Thus, there will always be some aspects of existence that simply are because they are. This applies whether or not god exists.

And still with God wtf?

Of course we are going to hit a wall where we can no longer explain what has happened and we simply have to accept that this is the way it is, I'm glad we skipped all these steps (and many more posts) and we are coming to the same conculsion.

[Blouman Empire]

No, it's not. 'Accepting what you are told' would imply that anybody could say anything and it would be accepted. I, however, require some qualifications before I'll believe someone. I obviously can't repeat every discovery myself, so I trust what qualified people tell me is true. I certainly don't trust it beyond any doubt, but I trust it enough to accept it until I come across something contradictory.

I didn't say anybody though did I? When someone (even if it is with the qualifications) says "There is no need for explanation this is how it is" you can either trust him enough to accept it (which is pretty stupid) or you can ask questions about it, then if she were to turn around and say "Excuse me you haven't studied it so just accept what I have told you because I have studied it and don't ask for an explanation on what I have told". It is similar to when you ask questions about evolution and some of the gaps in it and you are shouted down and told to shut your mouth and just accept it because we say it is true.

[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.

Is that because you don't know what the word "bullshit" means? Poster A posts links to information regarding the age of the Earth, how snakes work, what humans are made of, etc, and those links ARE the very information that refers to my argument, but you expect me to put up another post containing the exact same links?

You would have to provide the same links, because Wikipedia is the only source that has such information. Am I right?

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.

Evidence of what? That people sometimes write down things they do not believe are literally, factually true? Okay, here's a list of novels for you. Every single one of these was written by someone. Do think they all believed them to be literally true?

Ah, you're making the "the Bible is a work of fiction" argument. Why not provide some sources for that as well?

Furthermore, an additional point occurs to me: Exactly how does the existence of other books of the Bible prove that the authors of those books thought that Genesis was literal fact? How does it prove that even the author(s) of Genesis thought it was literal fact?

Ah, so you're suggesting that Jesus, John the Baptist, and the lot were RPing that they were the people mentioned in the earlier books. Or that the Bible is one big, long collaboration of fiction. I thought I told you that many of the books of the Bible were not personal accounts, but court records and geneologies (sp?), and are supported by records elsewhere. Coincidence? I think not.

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

That is preaching, not argument. And their opinion is not proof of anything to anyone, nor is their experience proof of anything to anyone other than themselves.

There was a family whose house burned down one week. The pastor told their story to the congregation- how they had all made it out alive. This had the church praising God's Name- it was proof enough for them. If someone else chose to believe that there was another reason for their survival, that was up to him.

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.

That is neither what I said nor what you said. You said two different things: First you said millennia of people believe what you do. I disputed that on the grounds that you cannot possibly know what millennia of people thought. Second, you said that "everyone cherrypicks." THAT is the one where I disputed your claim that "everyone does the same" as you do.

I believe I provided a source for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
And a few more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/ ... n_bias.htm , http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflaw ... mation.htm , http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Confirmation_bias .

[Almajoya]

I argued this point pages ago, love. God's methods are science; science is man's interpretation of God's methods. The facts that to you make his omnipotence "self-refuting" were created by Him, and can be broken by Him on a whim. That is the sort of omnipotence I am describing.

I wouldn't use facts to make certain definitions of omnipotence self-refuting. I would only use logic and the provided definition.

All right, then, give it your best shot.

Omnipotence is the state of being all-powerful. That implies that an omnipotent being would have all the power, and thus would be the most powerful being in existence. An all-powerful being would have the power to make a being more powerful than himself. This is impossible, as he is all-powerful.

Voilà.

Firstly, unless you are UT's puppet, I was not addressing you.

Secondly, you don't have a point. "All-powerful" is like a limit to infinity- it's undefined, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but also doesn't mean that it does.

[Sitspot]

source please?

What do you want, an entire lecture on the history of science?

No, I want you to realize that while sometimes you talk very sound science , at other times you simply pull opinions out of your ass and present them as if they were some sort of scientific fact.
The truth is we really have no idea how well peer review works. We only know of the cases that it catches.
It was a pretty good system once and it was reasonable to have faith in it, we hope it still works well but things have changed in the last 50 years. Experiments become increasingly expensive and harder to duplicate. Research Grants have become increasingly politicized. In areas of pure theory my guess is that it still works very well. I'd even guess that Physics as a whole is still OKish. The biological and medical sciences I really fear for.
Everything in the above paragraph is purely my opinion, just as your statement that it always catches cherry picking is an opinion, not a scientific fact.
I presume that you will tell me that you have never known anyone just discard a whole set of results because they were 'sure' they were contaminated. And if you did know anyone like that of course they were always caught.