Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Non-Judeo/Christian/Islam creation perspectives are few and far between. Practically nonexistent. Most pagan creation stories weave some type of evolution into their stories (not always just a biological evolution). Judaism/Christianity and Islam pretty much stand alone in the belief that One omnipotent, transcendent, omniscient God spoke the universe into existence.
[/quote]

I would be amazed if you there is a single example of a culture without a creation story. If science must account for Christian faith in the One God, it must account for the Hindu faith that the world has no beginning, or the Buddhist faith that conjecture about the origins of life is pointless.

184

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Again, and you know this, I have not directed my observations at you.
[/quote]

I felt lumped in. Sorry.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
As to why it started see my post above where I spoke of clash of faiths.

AND

I disagree and the reason why should be readily apparent. In fact, in your own post above, you reveal why I would disagree.
[/quote]

It’s not apparent to me, though. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and I think that I see it a completely different way. It’s sort of like we’re speaking different languages.

But that’s fine, I don’t hate you because you disagree with me. At this point, I’m just trying to understand.

185

[quote]S.o.M wrote:
he talks about how nothing can form everything and everything has a creator. well then what created God? [/quote]

I already addressed this if you will read my posts.

186

How does the creationist hypothesis explain anything at all? If the universe came from God, where did God come from?

Do you people really believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?

Most of all I highly suggest you guys read a bit about mitochondrial DNA(mDNA) and the modern molecular underpinnings of the Law of Natural Selection and Evolution.

188

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m trying to point out that they are different questions altogether. that’s my point.

Indeed.

So, to you, poofing a singularity into existence to create the universe is more credible that poofing the present state of the universe into existence? How?

I don’t want to speak for Stronghold, but the only thing that we know is that such a singularity requires input of energy in some form. The theory of the Big Bang does not address this, because there is simply no way to do so. Any evidence about the origin of the singularity was lost in it’s expansion. Maybe God put it there, maybe it was the result of an event in another Universe, maybe it was the final result of a complete collapse of a previous Universe. We simply can’t say.

Actually expansion from the singularity would technically require infinite energy, it’s physically impossible.

I’m still looking for the logical difference between the creation of a singularity and the current universe.

You forgot “… according to what we currently think are the laws of nature”.

Expansion requires energy if the singularity holds itself together. If the constituents repulse each other, energy is required to create the singularity. However, the requirement for infinite energy and density is required by general relativity, which we already know doesn’t jive on quantum scales.

Your point is still valid, though, if you consider science to be the search for Truth with a capitol T, as some do.[/quote]

HAH! So either general relativity (our current understanding) is wrong. Or the laws of the universe are not unchanging.

Either science is wrong or science is wrong. =0)

My point is that creation is about Truth and evolution is about truth. If you are using the truth of science to â??debunkâ?? the Truth of religion, youâ??re an idiot. And if you are using the Truth of religion to â??debunkâ?? the truth of science, youâ??re an idiot.

189

[quote]fleeben wrote:
How does the creationist hypothesis explain anything at all? If the universe came from God, where did God come from?

Do you people really believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?

Most of all I highly suggest you guys read a bit about mitochondrial DNA(mDNA) and the modern molecular underpinnings of the Law of Natural Selection and Evolution.[/quote]

I’ve already addressed both of those questions if you’d care to read.

190

[quote]fleeben wrote:
How does the creationist hypothesis explain anything at all? If the universe came from God, where did God come from?

Do you people really believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?

Most of all I highly suggest you guys read a bit about mitochondrial DNA(mDNA) and the modern molecular underpinnings of the Law of Natural Selection and Evolution.[/quote]

I believe in God. I also probably know more than you do about mitochondrial DNA considering all of those genetics related classes I took in school so it blows my mind that some of you actually believe that people who believe in God are so stupid or uneducated that ignorance is why we believe.

That doesn’t make you look too bright. You don’t really want to know what educated Christians think. You just want to tear down the act of belief in a higher power.

Who here has written that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Anyone? I sure as HELL don’t believe it so why do you think everyone who believes in God does?

Why do you think an omnipotent entity would need a “beginning”?

191

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m trying to point out that they are different questions altogether. that’s my point.

Indeed.

So, to you, poofing a singularity into existence to create the universe is more credible that poofing the present state of the universe into existence? How?

I don’t want to speak for Stronghold, but the only thing that we know is that such a singularity requires input of energy in some form. The theory of the Big Bang does not address this, because there is simply no way to do so. Any evidence about the origin of the singularity was lost in it’s expansion. Maybe God put it there, maybe it was the result of an event in another Universe, maybe it was the final result of a complete collapse of a previous Universe. We simply can’t say.

Actually expansion from the singularity would technically require infinite energy, it’s physically impossible.

I’m still looking for the logical difference between the creation of a singularity and the current universe.

You forgot “… according to what we currently think are the laws of nature”.

Expansion requires energy if the singularity holds itself together. If the constituents repulse each other, energy is required to create the singularity. However, the requirement for infinite energy and density is required by general relativity, which we already know doesn’t jive on quantum scales.

Your point is still valid, though, if you consider science to be the search for Truth with a capitol T, as some do.

HAH! So either general relativity (our current understanding) is wrong. Or the laws of the universe are not unchanging.

Either science is wrong or science is wrong. =0)

My point is that creation is about Truth and evolution is about truth. If you are using the truth of science to â??debunkâ?? the Truth of religion, youâ??re an idiot. And if you are using the Truth of religion to â??debunkâ?? the truth of science, youâ??re an idiot.
[/quote]

Yep, either science is wrong or science is wrong. But at least we know (or strongly suspect) :slight_smile:

I would say that religion is concerned with Truth, while science is concerned with knowledge… but we are in agreement.

192

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

It’s not apparent to me, though. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and I think that I see it a completely different way. It’s sort of like we’re speaking different languages.

But that’s fine, I don’t hate you because you disagree with me. At this point, I’m just trying to understand.

You said, “…the Hindu faith that the world has no beginning, or the Buddhist faith that conjecture about the origins of life is pointless,” and it’s not readily apparent to you why I said what I said?

If the Hindu faith claims creation didn’t occur and the Buddhist faith claims it’s irrelevant then what is there to teach about these creation stories as it pertains to the physical? C’mon, bud, think about it. ;-)[/quote]

But these are just “alternative perspectives”, which is the same rationale that creationism-in-school folks use to justify teaching bible stories in high school biology classrooms.

193

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

It’s not apparent to me, though. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and I think that I see it a completely different way. It’s sort of like we’re speaking different languages.

But that’s fine, I don’t hate you because you disagree with me. At this point, I’m just trying to understand.

You said, “…the Hindu faith that the world has no beginning, or the Buddhist faith that conjecture about the origins of life is pointless,” and it’s not readily apparent to you why I said what I said?

If the Hindu faith claims creation didn’t occur and the Buddhist faith claims it’s irrelevant then what is there to teach about these creation stories as it pertains to the physical? C’mon, bud, think about it. ;-)[/quote]

A valid hypothesis about creation is, “it didn’t actually occur, everything has always been, in one form or another.” What about the belief that the Earth resides on the back of a giant turtle?

194

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

It’s not apparent to me, though. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and I think that I see it a completely different way. It’s sort of like we’re speaking different languages.

But that’s fine, I don’t hate you because you disagree with me. At this point, I’m just trying to understand.

You said, “…the Hindu faith that the world has no beginning, or the Buddhist faith that conjecture about the origins of life is pointless,” and it’s not readily apparent to you why I said what I said?

If the Hindu faith claims creation didn’t occur and the Buddhist faith claims it’s irrelevant then what is there to teach about these creation stories as it pertains to the physical? C’mon, bud, think about it. :wink:

A valid hypothesis about creation is, “it didn’t actually occur, everything has always been, in one form or another.” What about the belief that the Earth resides on the back of a giant turtle?[/quote]

Unless you are claiming people around RIGHT NOW IN 2009 believe the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle, why are arguing just to do so?

This thread has jumped the shark and none of you are coming across as “brilliant” as you think you are.

196

Science is a method (the best one humanity has found, so far) to arrive at truth about things that we can measure and observe. Religion is usually concerned with things which by definition cannot be measured or observed.

What are you talking about here? There is no requirement for any such thing in general relativity; it’s a geometrical theory of gravity. And please don’t invoke quantum mechanics when you clearly don’t know anything about it.

If you have expansion at some time, an isotropic universe, and the strong energy condition, then a big bang (singularity) follows by elementary calculus.

Unfortunately the steady-state model doesn’t agree with observation, so in that sense it’s not a valid hypothesis, since it’s been disproved.

197

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

It’s not apparent to me, though. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and I think that I see it a completely different way. It’s sort of like we’re speaking different languages.

But that’s fine, I don’t hate you because you disagree with me. At this point, I’m just trying to understand.

You said, “…the Hindu faith that the world has no beginning, or the Buddhist faith that conjecture about the origins of life is pointless,” and it’s not readily apparent to you why I said what I said?

If the Hindu faith claims creation didn’t occur and the Buddhist faith claims it’s irrelevant then what is there to teach about these creation stories as it pertains to the physical? C’mon, bud, think about it. :wink:

A valid hypothesis about creation is, “it didn’t actually occur, everything has always been, in one form or another.” What about the belief that the Earth resides on the back of a giant turtle?[/quote]

I think it’s more of an answer to say “I don’t know”. Relating existence to infinity is pretty way to answer the question “why?” with the response “because”.

199

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Creation science CAN be taught as it pertains to the physical.[/quote]

Can you explain what creation science is? I can’t really imagine what that would be.