nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 114:
Line 114: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Who created God? (view source)
Revision as of 13:27, October 5, 2008
, 13:27, October 5, 2008Replies to three people
:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
== Break to assist editing ==
To '''Bolly''':
How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!
The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.
Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.
As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.
I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?
To '''Jirby''':
Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.
To '''ChillinBM''':
As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.
A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).
Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).
God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.
Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}
Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.
Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)