Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lizard · 03-19-2002, 06:08 PM

Quote:

In our world today, there is NOT ONE RULE that has no starting point. Rules are created everywhere you look in the modern society. What your argument is saying is that, even though the primitive rules of the modern world are always created by us humans, the 'more intelligent' rules that govern the universe 'were always there' (?) The above logic suggests that rules that are obviously too complex for us to yet understand need a starting point.

My understanding is that the laws of physics came into being the same time physical reality did: with the Big Bang.

Douglas J. Bender · 03-19-2002, 07:56 PM

MrDarwin said:

Quote:

The origin of god poses pretty much the same problem as the origin of the universe. If an intelligent (and presumably extremely complex) deity can be self-originating, then why can't the universe?

God is not "self-originating", as He has no "origin" - He has always existed. And, the difference between the idea that the universe has always existed and the idea that God has always existed is that in the first case, there is no real explanation for why the universe apparently "changes form" from time to time, while in the second case the starting assumption regarding God is that He Himself is unchanging.

Quote:

But why just one god? Why not several, a team project as it were, as many of the world's religions have believed through human history?

That's a separate issue, but I think Occam's Razor (though I find it far too often used, and far too often used incorrectly) would apply. Philosophically speaking, there is no need to assume more than one eternally-existing Being as a "First Causer", anymore than there is any need to assume that there was more than one eternally-existing universe. It doesn't change or affect the nature of the argument.

In Christ,

Douglas

randman · 03-19-2002, 08:24 PM

Thiaoouba, these folks are pretty wacko. Don't expect them to answer your posts in sincerety, nor to listen to what you are saying, or anything close to it.
The fact they went on the attack immediately is really what most of these posters are all about, or as far as I can tell.
They also tend to jump around a bit informationally and patting themselves on the back.
I doubt they realize "the rules" could not have existed prior to the universe according to their own theories. Maybe a few cling to the static universe idea and thus can argue that way.
In fact, since uniformatarianism is a near religion, some probaly suspect a deviant YEC behind the Big Bang theory (lol).
Basically, what you get here are insults.
Not much point in doing anything else with these folks.

joedad · 03-19-2002, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Thiaoouba, these folks are pretty wacko. Don't expect them to answer your posts in sincerety, nor to listen to what you are saying, or anything close to it.
The fact they went on the attack immediately is really what most of these posters are all about, or as far as I can tell.
They also tend to jump around a bit informationally and patting themselves on the back.
I doubt they realize "the rules" could not have existed prior to the universe according to their own theories. Maybe a few cling to the static universe idea and thus can argue that way.
In fact, since uniformatarianism is a near religion, some probaly suspect a deviant YEC behind the Big Bang theory (lol).
Basically, what you get here are insults.
Not much point in doing anything else with these folks.

Allow me to rearrange this post.

"Basically, what you get here are insults."

(such as)

1. "Don't expect them to answer your posts in sincerety, nor to listen to what you are saying, or anything close to it."

2. "The fact they went on the attack immediately is really what most of these posters are all about, or as far as I can tell."

3. "They also tend to jump around a bit informationally and patting themselves on the back."

4. "I doubt they realize "the rules" could not have existed prior to the universe according to their own theories."

5. "In fact, since uniformatarianism is a near religion, some probaly suspect a deviant YEC behind the Big Bang theory (lol)."

6. "Maybe a few cling to the static universe idea and thus can argue that way."

7. "Not much point in doing anything else with these folks."

8. "Thiaoouba, these folks are pretty wacko."

Pot Kettle Black

joe

randman · 03-19-2002, 09:03 PM

I tried posting here without insults and such, and it was absurd the level of falseness and hostility encountered here.
I wanted to comment on the rules thing, but I also wanted it clear my opinion of the likes of the people who started bashing this poster right off the bat while completely ignoring his point.
Hey, if it gets real bad, the Mod may lock this thread and require Thiaoouba to respond to demeaning posts and obscenity, but maybe that is only reserved for those that begin to show up the evolutionist argument.
Beleive me, I am simply responding in kind.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

Daggah · 03-19-2002, 09:14 PM

randman, once you "respond in kind," you lose all right to complain about that sort of behavior. Furthermore that sort of behavior only started when you revealed just how dishonest your approach was. You earned your treatment fair and square.

randman · 03-19-2002, 09:25 PM

That's just a bald-faced lie, but I am not surprised you made it. The false attacks started immediately, and none of my arguments were specious. Rather than respond honestly, some of the evolutionists here resorted to low tactics due to the weaknesses in their argument.
Take for instance the idea of a transitional fossil. If a new dinosuar with feathers and bird-like features were found today, it would be heralded as "transitional", but the fact is it could be considered transitional even if in reality it simply died out and became extinct.
Evolutionists basically adopt the loosest definition of transitional, and really all fossils are transitional automatically for them, and then when someone dares points out that the actual transitions are not shown, they are called a liar, etc,..even when the fact is they arert speaking the truth.
There is no instance of gradual changes from species morphing into another species accomplishing major morhpological change and thus fully documenting macro-evolution.
The argument is that this is due to incompleteness in the fossil record, but it doesn't wash with me. We've been looking a long time. Darwin predicted numerous transitional fossils, and the best evolutionists can come up with is a few highly questionable transitional fossils, and only under a very loose definition of transitional. A definition which would apply to species that did not evolve at all, but simply became extinct.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

Daggah · 03-19-2002, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
That's just a bald-faced lie, but I am not surprised you made it.

No, actually, it's not. The attacks started the second you revealed yourself to be a one-trick misquoting pony.

Quote:

The false attacks started immediately,

The initial attacks were not false.

Quote:

and none of my arguments were specious.

Who's lying now?

Quote:

Rather than respond honestly, some of the evolutionists here resorted to low tactics due to the weaknesses in their argument.

I don't think a one-trick misquoting pony has any right to talk about "weaknesses" in the opposition's arguments.

Quote:

Take for instance the idea of a transitional fossil. If a new dinosuar with feathers and bird-like features were found today, it would be heralded as "transitional", but the fact is it could be considered transitional even if in reality it simply died out and became extinct.

It's dying out and becoming extinct has no relevance on whether it's a transitional or not.

Quote:

Evolutionists basically adopt the loosest definition of transitional, and really all fossils are transitional automatically for them, and then when someone dares points out that the actual transitions are not shown, they are called a liar, etc,..even when the fact is they arert speaking the truth.

But it's been shown - repeatedly - that there are, in fact, numerous examples of transitionals. It is the creationist defining (intentionally, I suspect) "transitional" to be unattainable.

Quote:

There is no instance of gradual changes from species morphing into another species accomplishing major morhpological change and thus fully documenting macro-evolution.

This is a bold-faced lie.

Quote:

The argument is that this is due to incompleteness in the fossil record, but it doesn't wash with me. We've been looking a long time.

Never mind the fact that fossils themselves are extremely rare, right?

Quote:

Darwin predicted numerous transitional fossils, and the best evolutionists can come up with is a few highly questionable transitional fossils, and only under a very loose definition of transitional.

Another lie.

Quote:

A definition which would apply to species that did not evolve at all, but simply became extinct.

Non-sequitur. Extinction does not effect the fossil's status as a transitional or non-transitional. Speciation could have occurred before extinction. And this makes the a priori assumption that animals do not evolve - an assumption proved wrong by all the other types of evidence that you have repeatedly dodged and evaded at every turn.

Daggah · 03-19-2002, 10:04 PM

randman if you think you're going to drag me into yet another debate and forcing me to deal with your dishonest and evasive tactics again, think again.

The simple fact is that all you can do is misquote Gould and make false assertions. When faced with other forms of evidence for evolution you evade and ignore it.

Jonesy · 03-19-2002, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman:
Intelligent Design is posiible, but where is the proof? All solid proof points towards natural creation.

The proof at this stage is in the INTELECT. Our current level of physical development does not allow us to prove Intelligent Design, but, on the 'mental and intelect' level (using our minds) we are actually able to deduce logically many things that we cannot yet physically prove

03-19-2002, 09:03 PM	#25
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I tried posting here without insults and such, and it was absurd the level of falseness and hostility encountered here. I wanted to comment on the rules thing, but I also wanted it clear my opinion of the likes of the people who started bashing this poster right off the bat while completely ignoring his point. Hey, if it gets real bad, the Mod may lock this thread and require Thiaoouba to respond to demeaning posts and obscenity, but maybe that is only reserved for those that begin to show up the evolutionist argument. Beleive me, I am simply responding in kind. [ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

03-19-2002, 09:25 PM	#27
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	That's just a bald-faced lie, but I am not surprised you made it. The false attacks started immediately, and none of my arguments were specious. Rather than respond honestly, some of the evolutionists here resorted to low tactics due to the weaknesses in their argument. Take for instance the idea of a transitional fossil. If a new dinosuar with feathers and bird-like features were found today, it would be heralded as "transitional", but the fact is it could be considered transitional even if in reality it simply died out and became extinct. Evolutionists basically adopt the loosest definition of transitional, and really all fossils are transitional automatically for them, and then when someone dares points out that the actual transitions are not shown, they are called a liar, etc,..even when the fact is they arert speaking the truth. There is no instance of gradual changes from species morphing into another species accomplishing major morhpological change and thus fully documenting macro-evolution. The argument is that this is due to incompleteness in the fossil record, but it doesn't wash with me. We've been looking a long time. Darwin predicted numerous transitional fossils, and the best evolutionists can come up with is a few highly questionable transitional fossils, and only under a very loose definition of transitional. A definition which would apply to species that did not evolve at all, but simply became extinct. [ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2002, 08:24 PM	#23
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Thiaoouba, these folks are pretty wacko. Don't expect them to answer your posts in sincerety, nor to listen to what you are saying, or anything close to it. The fact they went on the attack immediately is really what most of these posters are all about, or as far as I can tell. They also tend to jump around a bit informationally and patting themselves on the back. I doubt they realize "the rules" could not have existed prior to the universe according to their own theories. Maybe a few cling to the static universe idea and thus can argue that way. In fact, since uniformatarianism is a near religion, some probaly suspect a deviant YEC behind the Big Bang theory (lol). Basically, what you get here are insults. Not much point in doing anything else with these folks.

03-19-2002, 09:14 PM	#26
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	randman, once you "respond in kind," you lose all right to complain about that sort of behavior. Furthermore that sort of behavior only started when you revealed just how dishonest your approach was. You earned your treatment fair and square.

03-19-2002, 10:04 PM	#29
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	randman if you think you're going to drag me into yet another debate and forcing me to deal with your dishonest and evasive tactics again, think again. The simple fact is that all you can do is misquote Gould and make false assertions. When faced with other forms of evidence for evolution you evade and ignore it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.