VanBlane Wrote:Creation science always arrives at the same answer.

Creation science "arrives" at nothing. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove, and then it shoehorns any facts to fit that conclusion.

Which is exactly why it's not science.

I am bothered by the term "supernatural" if it happened then it happened in nature. It's a nonsense word (a bit like god!)

(August 1, 2012 at 4:42 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

VanBlane Wrote:Creation science always arrives at the same answer.

Creation science "arrives" at nothing. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove, and then it shoehorns any facts to fit that conclusion.

Which is exactly why it's not science.

I think the only thing "creation science" proves is creationists complete and utter inability to understand what science actually is, and what it stands for.

It annoys me when I engage in a long debate with a creationist on topics related with science, only for them to say, "Well it's only a theory, so it's not been proven."

It is pure ignorance, proven time and again.

(August 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm)cato123 Wrote: Pahu,

You could have at least given us the decency of reading through this forum before preaching the absurdities we've already heard.

Does William Lane Craig approve of you rummaging through his underwear drawer and then using the most stained specimen?

Oh, do fuck off.

You win one internet and a rep point to boot.

His entire post smells like a cut-and-paste job. These retards can't even have an original thought.

Every time I hear a cosmological argument, I think of this:


(http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/10/05/must/)

(August 1, 2012 at 3:51 pm)KnockEmOuttt Wrote: “Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed.” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

You're fucking looking at it.

(August 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Let's do this one at a time.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Quote:

(August 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm)Pahu Wrote: 1. The universe exists.

Agreed.

Quote:2. The universe had a beginning.

Well, it depends what you mean by "universe". If you mean the dimensions of space and time that we experience, then yes, those had a beginning. However, science points towards a singularity (a point containing no space or time) being the starting point of the universe as we know it. The singularity existed "before" the universe (and I put the word before in quotation marks because the singularity by definition is timeless; any use of time to describe the singularity is relative to the time experienced in our current universe).

Pahu: Universe means everything that exists. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. Time is nothing more than a measure of change that we arbitrarily use. If there was a Big Bang, as some imagine, that still would not answer the question; where did all that matter come from? It would still have to have had a beginning before which it didn’t exist.

Quote:

Quote:3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there wasn't anything. Like I've said, science suggests that "before" the universe there was a singularity, which didn't have a beginning since it is timeless.

Pahu: Since everything that existed (the universe) didn’t exist, wouldn’t there be nothing? To say it didn’t have a beginning is saying it was eternal, which violates known laws of physics.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Quote:

Quote:4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

See above.

Quote:5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

See above...again.

Quote:6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

Add the words "that we know of" to the end of that sentence and it would be accurate. If you want to talk about science, don't use such absolutes. Since the above cannot be demonstrated as absolute truth, it is an assumption, nothing more.

Pahu: But it is an absolute scientific truth that from nothing, nothing comes.

Quote:

Quote:7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

So your first conclusion is based entirely on one assumption being valid, and your assertion that the universe "came from nothing" (which science doesn't suggest). Both of which you need to prove before you can use them to support this argument.

Pahu: The former six facts prove it.

Quote:

Quote:8. Life exists.

Agreed.

Quote:9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

Again, the assumptions start.

Pahu: It is a valid statement based on known laws of biology.

Quote:

Quote:10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

Again, append the words "that we know of" to the end. Otherwise, this is just assumption number 2.

Pahu: Again, it has never been demonstrated in the lab or observed in nature that life comes from nonliving matter.

Quote:

Quote:11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Conclusion again supported only by assumptions which may be false. Prove your assumptions to be true and you'll have an argument.

Pahu: The assumption is proved by the foregoing facts.

---

(August 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You don't even assert that God created life, opting instead for the vague 'supernatural'.

Therefore, I would change this thread title to "Science proves theists still worship the God of the Gaps", because that is all I see proof for.

God of the gaps is an argument often made by evolutionists meant to portray that God is merely an argument from ignorance and that science will eventually solve these gaps. Through this, they wish to make a contrast between religious explanations and natural explanations. According to evolutionists, this being would halt the process of science because anything can be explained by God and thus is of little explanatory power. In actuality, creationists such as Isaac Newton have long thought that such scientific discoveries helped them understand the Creator's thoughts and actions when the universe was created.

The argument goes like this:

“Creationism is not valid, because it merely sticks "God" into the gaps in science.”

It is meant to say that because science cannot know something yet, the creationist just ignorantly injects God as the explanation. However it is just as equal to say that there is a philosophical naturalism of the gaps where evolutionists just assume some natural mechanism is responsible even though no direct observation has occurred. In other words, evolutionists employ such an argument as a way to imply that God does not exist. If God did exist and created even a small thing then this intervention would mean that there is something that cannot be possibly explained by naturalistic processes.

Flaws in the argument include:

Double standard: While evolutionists accuse creationists of making a "god of the gaps" argument, evolutionists are making an "evolution of the gaps" argument. Just as the creationist says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know God did it and it didn't evolve," The evolutionist says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know it evolved and God didn't do it." The only important fact is that there are gaps.

Excluding action by God from the definition of science: The argument assumes that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. But certainly if God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe. See Supernaturalism for a more complete discussion.

Expanding gaps: The god of the gaps argument assumes that it is inappropriate to credit God with acts because those beliefs are just "gaps in science." The unstated assumption, however, is that science will one day fill those gaps, and more specifically, fill those gaps with evolution. If the gaps were shrinking, perhaps this argument would carry some weight. But in fact, with scientific discovery, the gaps in our knowledge are expanding, and thus the "god of the gaps" is getting bigger. The more we study life, the more complex, intricate, and beautiful we realize it is, the more we discover exactly how impossible the theory of evolution is, and the more we learn about the power and intelligence of the Creator.

Expected gaps: The last issue is one of predictions and consistency. Creationism makes a limited number of claims about what God did. It claims that he created life (and life cannot arise spontaneously), that the forms of life were created fully formed and separate (and thus all life is not related), and that the dominant trend in genetics is one of genetic entropy rather than increases in information and complexity. The longer evolutionists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in evolution are permanent, because evolution did not occur.

http://creationwiki.org/God_of_the_gaps

Unfortunately the components necessary for life can come from non-living things (because they are entirely composed of non-living things at the basest level to begin with), and this has been observed in the lab. So there's problem one.

Another thing that should be troubling for you is that no one is attempting to insert evolution into any gap. People may theorize as to an evolutionary pathway for this or that but that has very little to do with the reality of evolution, which is and has been observed, and the theory of how that could have happened, which has been consistently verified by multiple angles of inquiry, and forms the basis of modern biology. Meanwhile, creationism remains now, as it always was, a belief in a particular storybook.

It is unscientific to credit god with acting in the universe if this credit cannot be demonstrated, which it has never been. This has nothing to do with anyone's assumptions. This has everything to do with the pro-god camps failure to produce anything at all on this front -and they have had a very long time to work with. You, you personally could change this if you wanted to. Go do science.

Your god of the gaps will remain a god of the gaps even if we never fill those gaps. As long as you insist on shoehorning god into a gap whether or not we know what's there (or if there is even a gap) won't change that. It's self imposed exile.

Yes, creationism (and creationists) does/do make claims. Unfortunately those claims couldn't be fleshed out by observation or demonstration, two things which are important to science, and just so happen to have overwhelmingly pointed towards our current theory of evolution. Thankfully they had another tool to fall back on, sophistry.

How soon can we dump this creotard? He has plastered this same shit all over the internet, albeit most of it was a year ago. Notice the first two links are the same site with the same exact thread started a year apart. The non-christian sites dutifully pick apart his crap.

http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/2...s-god.html
http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/4...s-god.html
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1467741
http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics...proves-god
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?...Proves-God
http://www.worthychristianforums.com/top...roves-god/

There are more.

He isn't here to discuss, he's here to preach.