Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

Look I never said Christians are the most brilliant people on earth, in fact many many of them are very narrow minded. I’m not meaning to get off subject, but I will just say this, God does not need me or anybody else to defend him. I do not Know in what manner he created the earth, just by faith believing that he created it. That’s right Christianity is about faith and I don’t know if the earth is 6,000 years old or 50 trillion years old. Just because the Discovery channel airs a show and claims that they found a dinosaur bone and carbon dated it 4,536,0000 years old. See I believe that the scientists may even be more narrow minded than the Christians.

Im not going to defend God, but I will just say Im a Christian for a few reasons. One I do believe he created the Universe and all of those in it. Second I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for mine and your sins. Lastly to those who use verses in the bible to disprove it or to show contradictions in it I will first tell you that you can not interpret the bible by reading the Old Testament and then reading the New Testament and then showing how it contradicts itself. The Old Testament was written to show the struggle of a group of people trying to live under a set of rules that they could never follow. God knew that they could never live up to these laws thus the need for a savior.

Jesus is the fullfillment of Old Testament law. And now the life we live is a life of Grace in Jesus Christ. Sorry, I do not want or intend to push my beliefs on anyone. It is not the job of the Christian to convert anyone, it is the Holy Spirit’s. These things may sound crazy to non Christians, but like I said Christianity is largely by faith. Again we may not have all the answers but that does not mean we are with out evidence.

203

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

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

Not going to play fetch with you. Sorry.

Google is your friend.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m just puzzled by the whole concept. Creationism isn’t falsifiable, for one thing, so it can’t possibly be a scientific theory. To quote Pauli, it’s not even wrong.

204

Oh…one more thing Kirk Cameron does not speak for me or all Christians, the same way Bill Mahr(sp.) does not speak for all atheists. Im sure Kirk is well meaning but alot of Christians run around ringing their hands as though Satan himself is running the school systems and the country (although he may be…I kid I kid.). They forget that the God they believe in is still in complete control even though at times he may appear not to be.

206

[quote]S.o.M wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
First, I do believe in creationism. To me it takes way more faith to believe that the earth just appeared than to believe that it had a divine creator. I freely admit that im not as well versed on the whole evolution theory as i probably should be other than the fact that there are in my opinion some major holes in their arguments. The first question I have is how do they say the earth was formed? The “big bang”? So what these universes (how did these universes come about?) just collided and bam the earth started to form? And then from these protozoa (single celled organisms) we began to form into frogs, then to fish, then these half fish with legs, then to monkeys, then to half monkey half man, then to the humans we are today ( im sure im leaving out a few steps, but). Really? This is what the evolutionist came up with? And we creationists are crazy, huh? From the little I know about Darwin I “think” even he questioned some of his evolutionary theories. one in particular was the way the human eye was constructed. Even he was in disbelief of how complex the human eye was and couldn’t reconcile how we came to develop such an intricate body part. Now I know that Im not going to convince someone that is “hell bent” (no pun intended) on believing in evolution, that a divine creationism. I will just ask you to ask yourself are these theories so convincing that you one hundred percent believe them or are you just so jaded against “Christianity”. Because it seems pretty in vogue to Christian bash.

well then how did God make the earth? what did he use to make water, land, fire and air? how did he make them appear? and most importantly, what created God? im not hating on chrstianity cause i believe the big bang theory is pretty implausible as well because how can a ball of matter explode thus making the universe? well then what created that ball of matter? these questions will probably never be answered.
[/quote]

What created God isn’t a vaild question. Only things that have a beginning are created. God just is one of his names in the the OT is “I AM”. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that if there is a God that he is likley beyond my comprehension and is a able to do things i am not capable of.

I think people tend to think of God as a man and that is not the case. The bible states that we are made i the “image of God” like a picture or sculpture. A picture of me is in no way what i am although it may be similar.

I find the big bang to be more difficult because either “God created everything from himself” or “nothing created everything from nothing”

207

@pushharder

Well, what I think I’ll do instead, is briefly glance at the wikipedia article, and then dismiss it on the basis that it doesn’t qualify as science.

208

[quote]mattfelts wrote:
Look I never said Christians are the most brilliant people on earth, in fact many many of them are very narrow minded. I’m not meaning to get off subject, but I will just say this, God does not need me or anybody else to defend him. I do not Know in what manner he created the earth, just by faith believing that he created it. That’s right Christianity is about faith and I don’t know if the earth is 6,000 years old or 50 trillion years old. Just because the Discovery channel airs a show and claims that they found a dinosaur bone and carbon dated it 4,536,0000 years old. See I believe that the scientists may even be more narrow minded than the Christians.

Im not going to defend God, but I will just say Im a Christian for a few reasons. One I do believe he created the Universe and all of those in it. Second I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for mine and your sins. Lastly to those who use verses in the bible to disprove it or to show contradictions in it I will first tell you that you can not interpret the bible by reading the Old Testament and then reading the New Testament and then showing how it contradicts itself. The Old Testament was written to show the struggle of a group of people trying to live under a set of rules that they could never follow. God knew that they could never live up to these laws thus the need for a savior.

Jesus is the fullfillment of Old Testament law. And now the life we live is a life of Grace in Jesus Christ. Sorry, I do not want or intend to push my beliefs on anyone. It is not the job of the Christian to convert anyone, it is the Holy Spirit’s. These things may sound crazy to non Christians, but like I said Christianity is largely by faith. Again we may not have all the answers but that does not mean we are with out evidence.[/quote]

Amen!

210

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]

It’s part of Hindu mythology, as well as many Native American creation stories, so yes, there are probably people who believe it.

Why does it matter, though? If science must account for faith, it must account for all faiths. Not all faiths believe in literal creation by the One God. I was using the giant turtle as an example.

If you’d care to insult me some more, that’s fine too, but I don’t see any problem with what I wrote.

211

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

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.

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.

A valid hypothesis about creation is, “it didn’t actually occur, everything has always been, in one form or another.”

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.[/quote]

You are right, the singularity is not required by general relativity, but it does follow from it, since the strong energy condition is an assumption applied to general relativity. That’s my admittedly elementary understanding, anyway. If I’m totally off base, please correct me either here or by PM.

…And are you going to claim that general relativity and quantum mechanics have been successfully reconciled? I’ve only had basic modern physics, and I admit that I don’t fully understand quantum mechanics, but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case…

And I meant valid in the sense that it is a proposed explanation… I guess that was the wrong word.

I’m really fucking up today, huh?

213

[quote]jakshafter wrote:
S.o.M wrote:
mattfelts wrote:
First, I do believe in creationism. To me it takes way more faith to believe that the earth just appeared than to believe that it had a divine creator. I freely admit that im not as well versed on the whole evolution theory as i probably should be other than the fact that there are in my opinion some major holes in their arguments. The first question I have is how do they say the earth was formed? The “big bang”? So what these universes (how did these universes come about?) just collided and bam the earth started to form? And then from these protozoa (single celled organisms) we began to form into frogs, then to fish, then these half fish with legs, then to monkeys, then to half monkey half man, then to the humans we are today ( im sure im leaving out a few steps, but). Really? This is what the evolutionist came up with? And we creationists are crazy, huh? From the little I know about Darwin I “think” even he questioned some of his evolutionary theories. one in particular was the way the human eye was constructed. Even he was in disbelief of how complex the human eye was and couldn’t reconcile how we came to develop such an intricate body part. Now I know that Im not going to convince someone that is “hell bent” (no pun intended) on believing in evolution, that a divine creationism. I will just ask you to ask yourself are these theories so convincing that you one hundred percent believe them or are you just so jaded against “Christianity”. Because it seems pretty in vogue to Christian bash.

well then how did God make the earth? what did he use to make water, land, fire and air? how did he make them appear? and most importantly, what created God? im not hating on chrstianity cause i believe the big bang theory is pretty implausible as well because how can a ball of matter explode thus making the universe? well then what created that ball of matter? these questions will probably never be answered.

What created God isn’t a vaild question. Only things that have a beginning are created. God just is one of his names in the the OT is “I AM”. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that if there is a God that he is likley beyond my comprehension and is a able to do things i am not capable of.

I think people tend to think of God as a man and that is not the case. The bible states that we are made i the “image of God” like a picture or sculpture. A picture of me is in no way what i am although it may be similar.

I find the big bang to be more difficult because either “God created everything from himself” or “nothing created everything from nothing”[/quote]

Swing and a miss.

Not well versed in Big Bang science, are we?

@ Pushharder:

What practical applications do you see emerging in the field of young earth creation science? (In contrast with the myriad pragmatical application of evolution science and genetics, specifically.)

-Eric

214

[quote]Chrysalis wrote:
I have not seen the Kirk Cameron video referenced, but these evolutionism vs creationism threads always get very heated.

What really blows my mind is that other “facts” from the Bible are no longer disputed as false, yet creationism and Biblical literalism are still so hotly defended.

For example, the Bible states that the Earth is flat. Scientists who posited that the earth is a sphere were excommunicated. Do Biblical literalists still believe the Earth is flat?

The Bible also unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth; the earth is the center of the Universe. Copernicus and Galileo were excommunicated for proving otherwise. Do the Biblical literalists still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the solar system revolves around the Earth rather than the sun?

How does creationism differ from the notion that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth?

JMHO.

I also do believe that evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Though, I will state for the record that I am at best an agnostic.

Linette[/quote]

In the book of Job the bible says the earth is a circle and hung upon nothing. The actual translation though favor ‘sphere’ over circle. Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth is flat. That was a stupid and common assumption of the middle ages. Just sayin…

215

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You really are missing the point? Even after I addressed it earlier?
[/quote]

Apparently so, sorry. I guess we are just going to disagree, so I’ll stop wasting your time.

216

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
Rational Gaze wrote:

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.

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.

A valid hypothesis about creation is, “it didn’t actually occur, everything has always been, in one form or another.”

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.

You are right, the singularity is not required by general relativity, but it does follow from it, since the strong energy condition is an assumption applied to general relativity. That’s my admittedly elementary understanding, anyway. If I’m totally off base, please correct me either here or by PM.

…And are you going to claim that general relativity and quantum mechanics have been successfully reconciled? I’ve only had basic modern physics, but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case…

And I meant valid in the sense that it is a proposed explanation… I guess that was the wrong word.[/quote]

general relativity does predict singularities. It therefore is a requirement. If they don’t exist the theory is wrong.

217

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.

It’s part of Hindu mythology, as well as many Native American creation stories, so yes, there are probably people who believe it.

Why does it matter, though? If science must account for faith, it must account for all faiths. Not all faiths believe in literal creation by the One God. I was using the giant turtle as an example.

If you’d care to insult me some more, that’s fine too, but I don’t see any problem with what I wrote.

You really are missing the point? Even after I addressed it earlier?[/quote]

It’s been 9 pages and these discussions go on for so long because there is no resolution. You have atheists who truly seem to believe that people only believe in a higher power because they aren’t as smart or well read as the atheist. I am in awe that people like this exist. They never seem to be as intelligent as they would like everyone to believe.

I think you are wasting your time. This is why I stay out of the political forum lately. Arguing against the wind may be fun for the first 5 min, but after that…

219

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
You really are missing the point? Even after I addressed it earlier?

Apparently so, sorry. I guess we are just going to disagree, so I’ll stop wasting your time.

One more time then. Hindus claim no creation exists so what can we discuss about the physical/scientific aspects of a creation that doesn’t exist? Buddhists claim it is irrelevant and so the physical/scientific aspects have not been addressed, therefore they cannot be discussed. Savvy? [/quote]

Because proposing that a phenomenon (which we have never directly observed) did not happen is in itself a hypothesis.

220

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.

It’s part of Hindu mythology, as well as many Native American creation stories, so yes, there are probably people who believe it.

Why does it matter, though? If science must account for faith, it must account for all faiths. Not all faiths believe in literal creation by the One God. I was using the giant turtle as an example.

If you’d care to insult me some more, that’s fine too, but I don’t see any problem with what I wrote.

You really are missing the point? Even after I addressed it earlier?

It’s been 9 pages and these discussions go on for so long because there is no resolution. You have atheists who truly seem to believe that people only believe in a higher power because they aren’t as smart or well read as the atheist. I am in awe that people like this exist. They never seem to be as intelligent as they would like everyone to believe.

I think you are wasting your time. This is why I stay out of the political forum lately. Arguing against the wind may be fun for the first 5 min, but after that…[/quote]

And this is why I stay out of these kinds of topics.

First you assume I’m an atheist, then you assume I think I’m smarter than anyone who has faith in God, then you mock a claim about my intelligence that I never made.

At least we can all agree that we’re wasting our time.

EDIT for typo