27 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI am trying hard to understand you but I cant make sense of it all. What claim of mine are you referring to?
You can make that claim about a lot of things, you can say you do
not require gas to run a car that is typically run on gas too, the
point is that you don't have a clue how it all happened, at best a story
about everything that came from nothing, as if that is seen every day.
It appears you are saying:
1. There is a story about everything that came from nothing. Do you mean the Big bang theory? If so it is not a story about everything that came from nothing so you are wrong.
2. You think that what you see everyday must be applied to any phenomena in the whole universe and if it doesn't match then the phenomena doesn't exist or your theory is wrong.
Again you are wrong.
The same arguments is just as circular without God as is, you require
God or you don't. Science does not say you don't need God, people
do, people who do not want God to have to be involved in the
equation.
Kelly
But the parsimonious choice is that you don't need God. Just as the parsimonious choice is that you don't need the Flying Spaghetti monster. If there is no reason to say that you need God then there is no reason to even think about whether or not you need God you simply go with the parsimonious choice which is that you don't. Its not about whether or not people want God involved in the equation. In the post of mine that you quoted, I pointed out that the people in question are often Christian and thus probably do want God involved in the equation.
Do you think that when you fall that God is pulling you down to earth or do you also not want God involved in the equation?
27 Jun 07
2 edits
Do you mean the Big bang theory?
Big What? There was no air to carry the sound waves. So how could there have been a Bang?
How unscientific is this language - "Big Bang!"
I would expect more precise talk from more intelligent types who hoot down the language in Genesis.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJay"highschool" --> "high school"
Are you a highschool student? You made a claim, I am assuming
you realized right away you got it wrong so changed it to attempt to
fit all other possible scenarios and failed to back any. You are a
waist of time if you cannot at least get your facts strait or follow an
argument to where you know what the other person is saying. I'd
agree with you if yo ...[text shortened]... way you came
out attacking about something I do not say you became nothing
but noise.
Kelly
2nd sentence: comma splice, missing word
"waist" --> "waste"
"strait" --> "straight"
Are you a high school dropout?
27 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't need the Big Bang, you don't need whatever it is you want to
I am trying hard to understand you but I cant make sense of it all. What claim of mine are you referring to?
It appears you are saying:
1. There is a story about everything that came from nothing. Do you mean the Big bang theory? If so it is not a story about everything that came from nothing so you are wrong.
2. You think that what you see everyday at God is pulling you down to earth or do you also not want God involved in the equation?
reject if you can come up with another reason for it to have occured,
that being said does not mean that the reason you reject, no matter
if was the Big Bang or God isn't the real cause, that only means you
choose to ignore it by rejection.
Kelly
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI dont like the term "simpler life" as this suggests that evolutionary change is on a linear path to perfection, but that aside you are correct - but this requires zero faith, my belief in the fact of evolution is based on evidence.
You believe evolution brought life from the a singluar simplier life
form many years ago X years ago, whatever X is, till we get the vast
array of life we see today?
Kelly
I am genuinely curious where you think faith comes into my acceptance concerning the fact of evolution; Care to explain?
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillActually, it was coined by Fred Hoyle, the astronomer, who didn't believe in it, because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. He was attempting to pour scorn upon it. Guess that one backfired.
[b]Do you mean the Big bang theory?
Big What? There was no air to carry the sound waves. So how could there have been a Bang?
How unscientific is this language - "Big Bang!"
I would expect more precise talk from more intelligent types who hoot down the language in Genesis.[/b]
What would you rather we call it? What term would possibly sum up the creation of everything?
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by timebombtedOh I see billions or millions of years ago you know what happened
I dont like the term "simpler life" as this suggests that evolutionary change is on a linear path to perfection, but that aside you are correct - but this requires zero faith, my belief in the fact of evolution is based on evidence.
I am genuinely curious where you think faith comes into my acceptance concerning the fact of evolution; Care to explain?
as far as the process is concern, because you have some data points
today, which means what you "believe" occurred isn't a matter of
belief. You have facts, you don't believe, I suppose that you have all
he bases covered, that you are error proof in your reasoning, because
you have all the necessary information that gives you clarity of vision
into the distant past. No, no faith on your part, none in the least.
I'd say your beliefs are different when it comes to the distant past
than mine, but in the end they are still just stories, believed because
your faith suggests certain things are true so all the data points
have a certain flavor to them. The reason it is faith is because you
cannot be proven wrong, you can make claims about the distant
past, but you cannot predict into it to prove you points or beliefs
about it. You can play with the universe we have around us today,
you may predict what you think you'll see if you do this or that, but
that does not mean you are grasping what really occurred at the
beginning.
I understand some dislike my calling this faith because it carries
with it something they find repulsive and that is a religious
connotations, but it is what it is, the sources may be different
but the end result is the same when it comes to the beliefs about
the distant past.
Kelly
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI'd say your beliefs are different when it comes to the distant past
Oh I see billions or millions of years ago you know what happened
as far as the process is concern, because you have some data points
today, which means what you "believe" occurred isn't a matter of
belief. You have facts, you don't believe, I suppose that you have all
he bases covered, that you are error proof in your reasoning, because
you have all t ...[text shortened]... ity of vision
into the distant past. No, no faith on your part, none in the least.
Agreed.
than mine, but in the end they are still just stories, believed because
your faith suggests certain things are true so all the data points
have a certain flavor to them.
So when you tell me what happened to you yesterday it is just stories because your faith suggests certain things are true so all the data points
have a certain flavor to them.
The reason it is faith is because you
cannot be proven wrong, you can make claims about the distant
past, but you cannot predict into it to prove you points or beliefs
about it. You can play with the universe we have around us today,
you may predict what you think you'll see if you do this or that, but
that does not mean you are grasping what really occurred at the
beginning.
Please explain what the difference is between what happened yesterday and what happened in the 'distant past' that makes the distant past 'just stories'.
I understand some dislike my calling this faith because it carries
with it something they find repulsive and that is a religious
connotations, but it is what it is, the sources may be different
but the end result is the same when it comes to the beliefs about
the distant past.
Kelly
We dislike your continuously repeating the same nonsense in every thread whilst avoiding answering any questions that show the flaw in your stance.
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn the here and now we can have recorded events either with cameras,
[b]I'd say your beliefs are different when it comes to the distant past
than mine, but in the end they are still just stories, believed because
your faith suggests certain things are true so all the data points
have a certain flavor to them.
So when you tell me what happened to you yesterday it is just stories because your faith suggests certain t ...[text shortened]... in every thread whilst avoiding answering any questions that show the flaw in your stance.[/b]
hand written notes, video, and so on, but with the distant past as
many believe it to be in it no one was there not even God, all
speculation about what occurred there is just that, speculation, the
events that are used to describe the origin of the state of things
today are not factual events as they are stories people have come up
with, be they short story events like a big bang or an on going
process that supposedly has been working with material that was once
not living, but now is, or life simply starting from non-life in some
pool, pond, ocean, river, or whatever. The cool thing about the
modern stories is that they are ever changing so no one really has to
defend them, they can alter them when ever the need or desire arises.
You can even try to claim they are not stories, they are really
explainations to give a reason not to accept something else, but
bottom line that is just a word play.
Kelly
28 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour likes and dislikes are not my concern as mine are not yours.
[b]I'd say your beliefs are different when it comes to the distant past
than mine, but in the end they are still just stories, believed because
your faith suggests certain things are true so all the data points
have a certain flavor to them.
So when you tell me what happened to you yesterday it is just stories because your faith suggests certain t in every thread whilst avoiding answering any questions that show the flaw in your stance.[/b]
You accept the stories people came up with about the beginning,
about how everything came from nothing, that life came from
non-life, how it evolved over time, and you want to believe those are
matters of facts not belief, you can call them facts, deny you believe
things that cannot be proven wrong, and get upset with me when I
point that out to you or others. Each time I see someone make out
as if their beliefs that support their faith are based upon
explainations or stories that people came up with only suggests
to me that they have blinders on. Many claims that some things come
from science, but bottom line, it is people, it is always people that are
creating these, and we all know how flawed they are, even the best of
us.
Kelly
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
Your likes and dislikes are not my concern as mine are not yours.
You accept the stories people came up with about the beginning,
about how everything came from nothing, that life came from
non-life, how it evolved over time, and you want to believe those are
matters of facts not belief, you can call them facts, deny you believe
things that cannot be p ...[text shortened]... ople that are
creating these, and we all know how flawed they are, even the best of
us.
Kelly
I just wonder. Have you heard of the Cosmic background radiation?
Do you believe that two things that logically contradict each other can both be true?
Do you think for one second, that any piece of evidence in science is taken apart from anything else, and does not form a logically coherent idea, to such a level that it can be called a "theory"?
You're such a conspiracy theorist - all the big bad scientists and their empirical data, coming to destroy my world of make believe. Most of us lose our imaginary friends as we get older, but not you. Last of the faithful.