timmah said:
|
I don't consider DNA proof of ID because it as a process continues on a day to day basis without any sort of intelligent intervention. Unless you would contend that bacteria qualify as intelligent life.
Now as for your primordial proposition, I would ask if you are claiming that the asbence of evidence is the evidence of absence? If that is the position you truly wish to take then you of course would be forced to concede the point that god doesn't exist. But we both know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and therefore mankind's inability to accomplish a task is in no way proof or disproof of anything. I don't remember anyone claiming that creating life from nothing was a common occurence or easy so your point is truly moot.
timmah said: Why the insults of my comprehension? And when you don't even truly get what I'm saying. You said that the biggest weakness is that the big bang can't be explained. That's exactly what I said in so many words. Where's the disagreement?? I understand what the big bang theory states, and I also understand that they cannot explain why it happened. The fact is that physics states that it shouldn't have happened without a huge amount of unexplained energy coming from an unknown source. You are willing to accept that you can't explain that, I simply believe that unexplained force was God. I don't deny the big bang at all, on the contrary, I believe it happened. I just believe God caused it. |
First of all what I said was not an insult, an insult requires intent to hurt. My statement had intent, but not intent to hurt. I intended to point out that you lack comprehension, which you most certainly do.
Now, I highlighted something for you and I want to make a point of this because it is common with creationists. So look at the part in red, then look over my post line by line and tell me where I said it CAN'T be explained. Actually I said quite clearly there are actually 2 theories that are currently being tested that do explain it. But you either read what you wanted to or perhaps purposefully twisted what I said...I don't know for sure but it makes me wonder.
You are free to believe in whatever causal event you want, but I ask you this question: When/If scientist do eventually prove what caused the big bang will you decide to believe God did it anyways? And if so what is the point of debating this topic in the first place if your belief is determined before the proof is examined?
timmah said: Um... I understand that it relates to thermodynamics generally, and I have a good grasp of it. Also, I never said that the outside force 'had' to be alive, I just said "Such as life" as an EXAMPLE. It was clearly an example that was not exclusive to nonliving things. I was simply stating that the universe tends to go from varying energy (hot stars, cold outer space) and order (solar systems), to evenly distributed energy and lack of order (stars burnt out and solar systems destroyed). It is accepted that the universe will eventually 'burn out' as energy is equalized. This will be MANY billions of years in the future, but it is accepted that it will happen. My contention is simply that an outside force would be required to force a ball of mass in an equalized state to explode. You say this is unexplained, I believe that God did it. I have never said this is 'proof' of god, just evidence. It's also subjective as evidence always is. |
I actually don't believe this is unexplained, I currently have a favorite among the two theories I mentioned above. I however don't aspouse that position as being the correct because I don't have proof of it.
But I would ask you a question. You have said to all of these things you claim I believe are unexplained that you believe god did it. Well how did he do it? Does he have a book where he wrote down the formulas and explained how he did it? The answer is of course no, he does not. So what you're really saying is that you choose a non-explaination. Which is your choice, but personally I want to understand how these things happen..not who did them.
timmah said: I have read up on these things. I don't disagree with the outside energy theory, in fact that is my point. I simply believe that God was the source for outside energy, the scientists don't have an answer as to what that energy was. |
Wow, in the same responce that you claim to have read up on these topics you make a gross mistake in claiming that science has no explaination for this outside energy. Truly you are amazing. You are barely educated beyond the common person in these matters and wish to make proclaimations about these theories as if you were an expert. Please stop making a fool of yourself, you are uneducated on this topic.
If you've studied GR/SR which are required topics for anyone wishing to learn about BB Theory then you will recognize these:
What do these equations relate to and what are they used for?
timmah said: And please, there's no need to insult my comprehension of these subjects. I'm not trying to use them to say a 'big bang' never happened, just that it could not have happened on it's own and required an ouside force. This is accepted by scientists. I'm merely suggesting that an unexplainable outside force with near infinite or infinite power sounds a whole lot like God. |
Again I'm not insulting your comprehension, I am questioning it. If you don't comprehend the topics you truly can't make an argument against them. You've made numerous faulty assumptions about basic principles and have used those faults you introduce to attack those theories as if they contained a weakness where there is none.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
