Kirk Cameron, YOU FAIL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Look, this is the way I see it. I see creation and evolution as pretty unrelated. Creation deals with the philosophy of existence. Evolution deals with the essentially extrapolating blood lines.

As I mentioned before either you believe existence was caused by something, or you think its “just always been” (as I said before, this isn’t even an answer to the question).

If you accept that existence has a cause, it is no more probable that cause came in the form of a singularity that became the big bang, or if that cause came 4,000 or however many years ago. This is a huge point I think most people miss. Can anyone please explain why existence starting 4000 years ago is laughable while 14 billion years ago is not? It isn’t. If you accept a cause, that cause being yesterday or a trillion years ago is semantics.

Even if the cause is 14 billion years ago, that cause still created everything on this planet.

It’s like a baker baking a cake and one group is arguing that the baker made the cake and the other is arguing that the scientific process of heat and chemicals in the oven did. In all obviousness YES the oven “caused” the cake, but why the hell was the batter there in the first place? You are really debating the answers to different questions.

I guess I’m trying to say I accept evolution in general, and very much believe in creation. The main fight over created or not seems to be when the laws of the universe were broken to spawn existence, not if (as I’ve pointed out already, the big bang theory violates general relativity at the bare minimum, and doesn’t even explain existence anyway).

I really just don’t see the point of arguing when. It is such a pointless debate.
[/quote]

The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

Now, another question for Push…do you believe that creationism (since it is at least equally as valid as evolution) should be taught in our public schools? What about say…the Mandinka people’s take on creation?

162

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

[/quote]

And the evolutionist perspective is that the dough exists on it’s own accord?

163

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

And the evolutionist perspective is that the dough exists on it’s own accord?[/quote]

No, just that it was baked at some point. You are confusing “atheist” with “evolutionist”. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, a belief in a higher power and a belief in the validity of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

164

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

And the evolutionist perspective is that the dough exists on it’s own accord?

No, just that it was baked at some point. You are confusing “atheist” with “evolutionist”. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, a belief in a higher power and a belief in the validity of evolution are not mutually exclusive.[/quote]

I’m trying to point out that they are different questions altogether. that’s my point.

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?

165

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.
[/quote]

Which is a hypothesis.

However, when you go into the kitchen to investigate, you find that the oven is hot, there is this sticky sweet stuff in a big bowl and all over the counter, and there are some pans which appear to have baked cake stuck to them. Moreover, you find that such a hypothesis requires some input of energy which could only be supernatural. We have no other evidence for this supernatural energy transfer, and more to the point, we have observed individual steps of the cake-making process. We therefore discount the hypothesis and instead propose that the baker mixed certain ingredients to create a “batter” which was transformed via the input of ambient heat into a “cake”.

[quote]
Now, another question for Push…do you believe that creationism (since it is at least equally as valid as evolution) should be taught in our public schools? What about say…the Mandinka people’s take on creation?[/quote]

I don’t want to single out Push, but this is something that needs to be addressed in the context of teaching literal creation as science.

166

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

And the evolutionist perspective is that the dough exists on it’s own accord?

No, just that it was baked at some point. You are confusing “atheist” with “evolutionist”. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, a belief in a higher power and a belief in the validity of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I’m trying to point out that they are different questions altogether. that’s my point.

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?[/quote]

To me, it seems logical to me a deduction regarding what has happened in the relatively recent history of the universe from what we can see, but beyond that I do not know and make no claims of knowing.

Now, explain to me how the singularity poofing into existence is any different than a divine being existing forever before the universe and having never been created?

167

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

Indeed.

[quote]
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?[/quote]

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.

168

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

Which is a hypothesis.

However, when you go into the kitchen to investigate, you find that the oven is hot, there is this sticky sweet stuff in a big bowl and all over the counter, and there are some pans which appear to have baked cake stuck to them. Moreover, you find that such a hypothesis requires some input of energy which could only be supernatural. We have no other evidence for this supernatural energy transfer, and more to the point, we have observed individual steps of the cake-making process. We therefore discount the hypothesis and instead propose that the baker mixed certain ingredients to create a “batter” which was transformed via the input of ambient heat into a “cake”.

[/quote]

Which also as I would point out doesnâ??t answer the original question creation does. You are saying he mixed up ingredients to bring the batter into existence. What is the non-metaphorical equivalent of what you are talking about? Matter came from godâ??s flour bag, forces came from an egg he got out of the fridge? Neither of yall are answering the question.

169

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

And the evolutionist perspective is that the dough exists on it’s own accord?

No, just that it was baked at some point. You are confusing “atheist” with “evolutionist”. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, a belief in a higher power and a belief in the validity of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I’m trying to point out that they are different questions altogether. that’s my point.

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?

To me, it seems logical to me a deduction regarding what has happened in the relatively recent history of the universe from what we can see, but beyond that I do not know and make no claims of knowing.

Now, explain to me how the singularity poofing into existence is any different than a divine being existing forever before the universe and having never been created?[/quote]

I disagree with the prediction of more local events being any more of less reasonable. You still haven’t given me a reason for this.

The idea of a DIVINE being is something that exists outside the bounds of our world, including time. Trying to quiz someone on the time line existence of a being by acknowledgment (divine) outside of time, makes no sense.

By shear logic, everything in this universe, absolutely every event, has a cause. It makes sense to me that the universe itself would too.

170

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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.

171

he talks about how nothing can form everything and everything has a creator. well then what created God?

173

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.

174

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Did you conveniently skip over my post where I told you to do your homework? How I would not spoon feed you basic info that I have covered before?

[/quote]

You are the one making the assertions here, sir. I can say that my dog shit unrefined diamonds in my back yard this morning and tell you that there is “plenty of evidence” out there but refuse to provide and tell you to “go do your homework”. Is that a legitimate argument?

Now, answer my main question. Do you believe that creationism should be taught as a highly plausible alternative to evolution in our public schools? And if so, do you believe that non-Christian creation perspectives should also be offered as highly plausible alternatives to evolution and Judeo-Christian creationism in our public schools?

175

[quote]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. [/quote]

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.

177

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
The creationist perspective seems to be that the baker said “cake” and the cake appeared.

Which is a hypothesis.

However, when you go into the kitchen to investigate, you find that the oven is hot, there is this sticky sweet stuff in a big bowl and all over the counter, and there are some pans which appear to have baked cake stuck to them. Moreover, you find that such a hypothesis requires some input of energy which could only be supernatural. We have no other evidence for this supernatural energy transfer, and more to the point, we have observed individual steps of the cake-making process. We therefore discount the hypothesis and instead propose that the baker mixed certain ingredients to create a “batter” which was transformed via the input of ambient heat into a “cake”.

Which also as I would point out doesnâ??t answer the original question creation does. You are saying he mixed up ingredients to bring the batter into existence. What is the non-metaphorical equivalent of what you are talking about? Matter came from godâ??s flour bag, forces came from an egg he got out of the fridge? Neither of yall are answering the question.[/quote]

I was trying to point out the limits of the scientific process with regar to the supernatural.

178

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

180

[quote]pushharder wrote:
mattfelts wrote:

…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.

This is 99.8% of why discussions like this one exist. And this one is NOT in the .2%. Just tiptoe through the tulips on this thread and the others and you will see a clearcut, unbridled animosity that transcends any thoughtfulness about the subject matter. Do not fool yourself into thinking this is not about the titanic clash of two faiths.[/quote]

Hey now. I’ve been perfectly civil, and I hold absolutely no animosity towards you or any person of faith. I personally know scientists who are Jewish, Mormon, Hindu, and Christian, and they will tell you almost exactly what I have told you.

It seems to me that some Christians feel like they have been slighted by science, and some scientists feel like they are under attack by Christians. (Then, people get mad on the internet.) It’s a vicious cycle, and I’m curious to know why it started.

EDIT because it sounded like I was calling you an idiot.