M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Who is the creator? A better question is not who, which is loaded and biased and presupposes an answer, but... what is the creator? I think it might be Physics! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 The Creationist's creed. Tried to be nice to Besty but she has lost all credibilty - to use the term yada yada yada - is utterly dense and typical - kind of reminds me of one of those light weights that makes quotation marks in the air with their fingers. I was hoping that someone serious and intelligent would be championing the creationist cause. Creation if approached with less dogmatic and relgious rhetoric can make for an intelligent converstion and debate. BUT to be fully dependant on funamentalism without any oringal thought regarding creation is a dis-service to the concept...Not all creationists are parrots...some have actually thought the thing through. Betsy seems to have read the thing through with out thinking it through. Creationism is just as relevant as evolution or biological adaptation...It's a question of how humans measure time - creation and evolution both took place in an instant and within eons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Physics! Physics doesn't do anything, least of which being create. Physics is simply a tool used for explaining things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 A better question is not who, which is loaded and biased and presupposes an answer, but... what is the creator? I think it might be Physics! Physics? I thought man invented....I should say discovered, Physics. We must be getting back to the dog chasing its tail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) A better question is not who, which is loaded and biased and presupposes an answer, but... what is the creator? I think it might be Physics! Stop squirming around. Now we know that you think you know but actually you didn't know that all this time.....you believe in Creation. There is no other answer. And now we all know that your petname for your creator is....Physics. Edited August 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Physics? I thought man invented....I should say discovered, Physics. We must be getting back to the dog chasing its tail. Interesting...are you one of those who believes that if a tree falls in a forest.... ....that the physical world does not exist independently of your consciousness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Interesting...are you one of those who believes that if a tree falls in a forest.... ....that the physical world does not exist independently of your consciousness? If you believe that physics is the creator, then you obviously believe that physics existed before it existed! You're in good company. Didn't Daniel Dennett say that the universe created itself? Noisy tree or mute tree...it makes no difference! Stop trying to squirm out. You're only getting yourself knotted up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 If you believe that physics is the creator, then you obviously believe that physics existed before it existed! Yes, I am quite platonic in that sense. The concept exists independant of observation. Creation (and destruction) have had no beginning, no end...an infinite cycle of birth and death of universes.. Science has proven Vishnu and Shiva! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Yes, I am quite platonic in that sense. The concept exists independant of observation. Say again? What concept isn't independent of observation....at least in its concept. Creation (and destruction) have had no beginning, no end...an infinite cycle of birth and death of universes.. What destruction? Is that an anticipation of the end of the universe? If it has an end, how can it be infinite? If your universes are infinite, and we obviously are in one of them, and they're destructing and birthing, how come we haven't destructed if we have had infinite time to do it? If it's a cycle of death and birth, that's an itiration. But why would it necessarily be infinite any more than a linear process. Anyway, it's all rubbish that you're speaking. I guess you're on the compact version of the dog chasing its tail. The rat's wheel. Ohhhh....so you're going back a hundred years to the "universe had no beginning" idea. I thought we left that behind us. Big Bang? Science has proven Vishnu and Shiva! Okay. If you say so. Which one is your creator, "Physics"? Vishnu or Shiva? Edited August 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Say again? What concept isn't independent of observation....at least in its concept. You are making progress, Grasshopper What destruction? Is that an anticipation of the end of the universe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch If it has an end, how can it be infinite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model If your universes are infinite, and we obviously are in one of them, and they're destructing and birthing, how come we haven't destructed if we have had infinite time to do it? I am sure we are heading towards that...remember, infinite means no beginning and no end....not no beginning, no end and no middle... If it's a cycle of death and birth, that's an itiration. No. Iteration has a goal at the end.....there is no goal in this cycle, it simply exists But why would it necessarily be infinite any more than a linear process. Because the physics allows it to be infinite, and quantum mechanics demands it. Anyway, it's all rubbish that you're speaking. Of course it is....string theory wasn't mentioned in the bible, therefore, along with Pluto, it doesn't exist. I guess you're on the compact version of the dog chasing its tail. The rat's wheel. Ohhhh....so you're going back a hundred years to the "universe had no beginning" idea. I thought we left that behind us. Big Bang? No worries...you are about 3000 years behind Okay. If you say so. Which one is your creator, "Physics"? Vishnu or Shiva? Aren't they, like your god, one in the same? Edited August 3, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Anyway, it's all rubbish that you're speaking. What makes you so sure? (And try to resist the urge to use smileys in your answer, should you have one.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 Using the devine law of phyisics - please describe in scientific terms how God created all that exists...Surely someone has considered this approach? Creationists are simplistic..zap and it was there _ I am sure that God must have known what he was doing from a scientific point of view...It's so interesting that something that was nothing became a something - this is the NEW and evolved physics -but at the same time there is the concept in scripture that "God always was" In other words the quantum mechanics of it all must be facinating - God is a totally facinating and fantastic entity...what a marvelous scientist he must be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) You are making progress, Grasshopper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model I am sure we are heading towards that...remember, infinite means no beginning and no end....not no beginning, no end and no middle... No. Iteration has a goal at the end.....there is no goal in this cycle, it simply exists Because the physics allows it to be infinite, and quantum mechanics demands it. Of course it is....string theory wasn't mentioned in the bible, therefore, along with Pluto, it doesn't exist. No worries...you are about 3000 years behind You're confusing infinity with eternity! Aren't they, like your god, one in the same? Are they Hindu gods? I googled and here's what I found.... Hindus recognise three principal gods: Brahma, who creates the universe Vishnu, who preserves the universe Shiva, who destroys the universe. Brahma is the Creator. However, Brahma is not worshipped in the same way as other gods because it is believed that his work - that of creation - has been done. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtmlDon't know about them really, but since they're your gods, obviously you do! I told you. All this time you believe in creation! And no wonder you're into all that "cycle"... 1.9 billion years: Hindu scriptures suggest a cyclical universe in which a "big bang" is eventually followed by a "big crunch" some 4.32 billion years later. In this system, we are 1.97 billion years from our universe's big bang and have some 2.35 billion years to go before our Kalpa (eternal day) ends in a big crunch. 2 http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htmBtw, what's holding this whole show together - this cyclic treadmill? Four elephants? One on each corner of the universe? So, which one do you lovingly refer to as "Physics?" Vishnu or Shiva? Edited August 4, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) What makes you so sure? (And try to resist the urge to use smileys in your answer, should you have one.) Oh boy, a kindred spirit comes to the rescue... Didn't you say you accept creation too? Edited August 4, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 Btw, what's holding this whole show together - this cyclic treadmill? Four elephants? One on each corner of the universe? Obviously that is a question for Creation Science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 Oh boy, a kindred spirit comes to the rescue...Didn't you say you accept creation too? So, you made an assertion that you can't back up. I knew you'd fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 g_bambino: And morphed as they evolved, yes. It’s like saying Chihuahua morphed into a fox that morphed into a coyote, that morphed into St. Bernard, that morphed (we need another species now) into a horse………… and the skeletons clearly shows that, right? Indian elephants, African elephants, mastodons, mammoths look alike but didn’t morphed into one another. Just different species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 bloodyminded: Even if evolution were totally bogus (and it isn't), it remains a solid and core component of the scientific curriculum. Just as solid as BELIEF that coelacanth is extinct 60 million years - until it was found on fish market in some little Indian ocean islands. Do you still believe mammoth was hunted to extinction by NATIVES? (careful there, you'll be on a very thin ice with that one) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 It’s like saying Chihuahua morphed into a fox that morphed into a coyote, that morphed into St. Bernard, that morphed (we need another species now) into a horse………… and the skeletons clearly shows that, right Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Too many specifics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 g_bambino: Evolution has a thousand-fold more evidence to support it than does Biblical Creationism. Skip the word 'Biblical' and start again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ruh Roh Reorge.... How will this be explained off Betsy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ruh Roh Reorge.... How will this be explained off Betsy? Pretty easily I assume. If you believe man was created god in his present image (which is that of god), and then he fassioned a women out of a few of that mans ribs, and then made them devious and sinful by making a talking snake trick the women into eating poisenous fruit from a forbidden tree, then there REALLY NOTHING that you cant manuever around. God obviously just made some DNA space rocks too! See? No problem. Just remove thought, objectivity, evidence, and reason from the equation and you can believe whatever the fuck you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Nope. Can't add anything to expand on that? Of course, no! Something tells me Bambino is already sold on creation... That would be to deviate from the topic of discussion with betsy. We all accept creation. But, she's specifically a Biblical creationist. ....but he's so hang-up on the word, Biblical. Evolution has a thousand-fold more evidence to support it than does Biblical Creationism. Toss the term "biblical" creation aside and lets look at plain old creation with out mans biblical interpretation of it. Evolution has a thousand-fold more evidence to support it than does Biblical Creationism. Skip the word 'Biblical' and start again. For some reason....he just can't simply get beyond that word, Biblical! Edited August 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Ruh Roh Reorge.... How will this be explained off Betsy? Here is your quoted article; DNA discovered in meteorites NASA researchers have found the building blocks of DNA, the genetic molecule that is essential to all life forms, in meteorites, pieces of space rock that have fallen to Earth. The discovery suggests that similar meteorites and comets may have impacted Earth and assisted in life formation here. And? What does that prove? Don't tell me you're rattling in the same pea pod as Bambino, Dre and the doo-wap choir? They're so bogged down in religion - because to them, it's actually religion of no-god vs religion of god! They can't see reason. That's how radical fundamentalists are! I'm not even going to try to respond to each and every one of them. You respond to one and that response fits all! So Shakey, better take a deep breath, read my posts again and get a grip on what I'm saying. Never mind about my religious leanings. It's what I'm actually saying here is what you need to respond to....otherwise, you're barking at the wrong tree. Here for your convenience, the gist of it.... PAGE 37 Creation A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Camp Answers Theobald Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique By Ashby L. Camp http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study. http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/ Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument I'm saying, you should abandon the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of ID. That is, if you want to be scientific about it, and not faith-based. Casey Luskin:Before going any further, I must make it clear that intelligent design (ID) is certainly not incompatible with common ancestry. ID refers to the mechanism of change, and does not claim that species are necessarily unrelated. Did you read that explanation from an Intelligent Designer? ID is actually up your alley. There's only one kicker..... Casey Luskin:So ID grants that it's possible that all living species shared a common ancestor, but ID doesn't require it ID is saying it will go where the evidence leads them. It's not strictly bound to common ancestry. Casey Luskin:In contrast, neo-Darwinism is inextricably wedded to common ancestry and requires a common ancestor (or common gene pool) for all living organisms. That's why neo-Darwinists must defend UCA at all costs. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html Neo-Darwinists got themselves in a dead-end situation, all boxed in....and yet close-mindedly refusing to shift. Science is all about empirical evidence! That's the strict rule, isn't it? Whereas ID is willing to let the evidence lead to the conclusion. In contrast neo-darwinists came up with a conclusion and are trying desperately to get the evidence to fit to their conclusion!http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=555 Therefore, unless you're a religious fanatic like me....ID should be your preferred choice! Edited August 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.