Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[spurraider21]

i do believe you misrepresent the word faith. do i need faith to think that there is a person on the other end responding to my posts? as DMC implied, there are different levels and its based on impact. i'm not home, but i dont require faith to know that my home exists even though i have "no direct evidence" right now

[xmas1997]

i do believe you misrepresent the word faith. do i need faith to think that there is a person on the other end responding to my posts? as DMC implied, there are different levels and its based on impact. i'm not home, but i dont require faith to know that my home exists even though i have "no direct evidence" right now

I understand what you are saying, and agree that you do not need faith to know that there is a person on the other end responding to your posts, but that is direct evidence and thus validated proof, so it does not require any faith in order to believe it.

There is faith, and there is Faith.

A good example I can think of to demonstrate what I am saying is the bridge example:
I am quoting now so as to not be falsely accused of plagiarism again by blake and DMC, "In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the final test required Indy to "step out" in faith, even though he was on one side of a cavern that appeared to be thirty feet across, without any visible way to reach the other side.
Following the instructions from his father's diary, Indy stepped into the void, and to his amazement, his foot came down on solid ground.
It turned out that there was a bridge across the cavern but because the rocky texture of the bridge perfectly matched the facing wall of the cavern, the bridge was invisible from Indy's perspective."

Or another example, more common to us all is:
"If you were going to jump out of a plane, you’d check out the plane, you’d check out the pilot, the company, the statistics, the parachute, all of the gear. You’d check that out so that you’re not just jumping out of a plane blindly. You’ve looked at the evidence that you’re going to be safe, and yet, you’ve still got to open the door and jump. That takes faith, not Faith (religious) to believe you will survive."

You have everyday faith (trust, belief, confidence, whatever) that the chair you want to sit in, or a bridge you want to cross will not collapse.
"The faith you use in everyday life to not be worried about chairs or bridges collapsing isn't the same as religious Faith. Everyday life faith is more a weighing of the risks. Chairs and bridges do collapse once in awhile but they are relatively rare occurrences so you don't bother yourself much about them.
The alternative is to never leave your house and even then you can't entirely avoid some level of faith (e.g. your house won't just fall down)."

Do you see what I mean by everyday faith (not capitalized) we all use all the time, as well as in science, but take for granted, as opposed to Faith (capitalized) in the religious sense?

[xmas1997]

i didn't reply, therefore i was wrong? interesting logic. i'll look forward to debating dead people.

i interpreted it. you interpreted another way. thats all it was. once we realize the book is completely up to interpretation, you'll see why its pretty silly to take it literally

Another side issue, I think it is going to take some faith to believe that the Raiders are going to relocate to San Antonio.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't skip over that part. It's just meaningless to the debate. No one is asserting that we'll find god, and no one is even advocating looking.

Of course there is a reason to think everything has a cause. I haven't seen something that doesn't. Have you?

The universe isn't infinite. We know how big it is. That's the whole point of the Big Bang theory. The universe actually being infinite breaks that whole idea apart.



We don't know. Doesn't mean we don't have beliefs on that matter.



Not a bad view. In theory god could be shown to exist. I don't believe it, but I think that most folks no matter the side do.

If it doesn't matter then you have invalidated all of your commentary on 'formal logic.' The author whose proof you regurgitate realizes it matters; that is why you are trying to limit the sets. If you have a finite set you can exclude everything systematically. If you have an infinite set then you cannot exclude every possibility because no matter how much you have already excluded there will always be more possibilities.

None of your proofs have shown reality to be finite nor natural law to be finite. We infer the end points of the universe from a knowledge of the speed of light and the laws of gravity and the electrostatic force. We do not experience them directly. We are not sure of any 'endpoint.' The schism between quantum theory and classic mechanics screams how we don't understand all your 'proximate systems.'

This goes back to what I was saying about human perception. Yes, you think that you are were 'created' but thermodynamics and atomic theory teaches us that matter is never created or destroyed. While you think you are 'created' there is nothing to say that your 'creation' is nothing more than a reordering of existing material governed by natural laws. We know where the egg and sperm comes from and we know how a woman's body provides material for the embryo to use to grow using preexisitng matter.

But because of how human's rationalize things people think they are 'creating life' when they have sex but there is no proof that human behavior is more than just a reaction to gene expressions which in its own right is a product of natural law. Not everything is created. The only point in human experiencce where we really see something come from nothing, even QM obeys conservation principles, is from the big bang but even there we don't know that something 'caused' it or that it actually is an endpoint.

[DMC]

??

More sidetracking and false accusations as is your trollish schtick.

Do you really believe your lies, or does sociopathic behavior run in your family?

Whatever, it makes for lots and lots of laughter as you continue to humiliate yourself.

And now you have DMC humiliating himself as well, I didn't know it was contagious over the internet.

True, "no one knows", but we can "hypothesize", or some of us can, and think outside the box.

Some of the rest just want to confuse, lie, and sidetrack the issue (see blake, fuzzy, and half the time DMC), because they have no other recourse or tactic to use, which goes to show that this topic is way out of their league. This is apparent in the way DMC and blake keep getting confused by chinook's and my explanations, and can only resort to emotional responses.

From reading their debate, I have already realized that DMC is really quite confused by what chinook is trying to explain to him. He is debating in circles and getting caught up in semantics.

At first he made some good points, but digressed from there.

When he started using emotion to explain himself, I grew bored and basically humored him.

In essence I do believe DMC knows what he is talking about, but he completely missed my point on faith, as did you at first.

But you finally "got" (I think) what I was saying, that I was not referring to "religious faith" per say, which IMHO has nothing to do with logic and reason, but rather faith in the more general and commonly used or epistemological sense.

Plus you do not resort to emotional responses to lend some sort of mythical credibility to your points.

Emotion IMHO is an illogical method to go about such things and for most reasonable people it lends no rational credibility whatsoever.

As for blake, what can I say, he is insignificant, always was, and always will be IMHO.

IMHO, you and SBM got off on the wrong foot for some reason, because all three of us do not interpret the bible, or any other religious book, literally. Hope I straightened that out.


Speaking of emotional responses, as an aside to the discussion/debate: here's hoping the Raiders move here despite all the opposition and objections.

I understand what you are saying, and agree that you do not need faith to know that there is a person on the other end responding to your posts, but that is direct evidence and thus validated proof, so it does not require any faith in order to believe it.

There is faith, and there is Faith.

A good example I can think of to demonstrate what I am saying is the bridge example:
I am quoting now so as to not be falsely accused of plagiarism again by blake and DMC, "In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the final test required Indy to "step out" in faith, even though he was on one side of a cavern that appeared to be thirty feet across, without any visible way to reach the other side.
Following the instructions from his father's diary, Indy stepped into the void, and to his amazement, his foot came down on solid ground.
It turned out that there was a bridge across the cavern but because the rocky texture of the bridge perfectly matched the facing wall of the cavern, the bridge was invisible from Indy's perspective."

Or another example, more common to us all is:
"If you were going to jump out of a plane, you’d check out the plane, you’d check out the pilot, the company, the statistics, the parachute, all of the gear. You’d check that out so that you’re not just jumping out of a plane blindly. You’ve looked at the evidence that you’re going to be safe, and yet, you’ve still got to open the door and jump. That takes faith, not Faith (religious) to believe you will survive."

You have everyday faith (trust, belief, confidence, whatever) that the chair you want to sit in, or a bridge you want to cross will not collapse.
"The faith you use in everyday life to not be worried about chairs or bridges collapsing isn't the same as religious Faith. Everyday life faith is more a weighing of the risks. Chairs and bridges do collapse once in awhile but they are relatively rare occurrences so you don't bother yourself much about them.
The alternative is to never leave your house and even then you can't entirely avoid some level of faith (e.g. your house won't just fall down)."

Do you see what I mean by everyday faith (not capitalized) we all use all the time, as well as in science, but take for granted, as opposed to Faith (capitalized) in the religious sense?

You're seeing red, scrah.

[xmas1997]

??

You're seeing red, scrah.

And laughing AT you and blake the whole time, and I'm not the only one laughing AT you!

Plus your baseless accusation makes it even funnier, so please, keep it up!

[DMC]

And laughing AT you and blake the whole time, and I'm not the only one laughing AT you!

Plus your baseless accusation makes it even funnier, so please, keep it up!

Remember that one movie with Harrison Ford? I think life is a lot like that and I can prove beyond a doubt that nothing is provable in science. By the way, I dropped out of class because it was nebulous. Just saying.

So let's debate.

[Blake]

I think matter can actually be destroyed. I'd have to look it up though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And laughing AT you and blake the whole time, and I'm not the only one laughing AT you!

Plus your baseless accusation makes it even funnier, so please, keep it up!

When you have to tell them that you are trolling them to try and getback at them then you have lost, dip . I get that you will just take both positions so any 'rebuttal' of yours will be ignored. Just know that it was seen for what it was.

[johnsmith]

When you have to tell them that you are trolling them to try and getback at them then you have lost, dip . I get that you will just take both positions so any 'rebuttal' of yours will be ignored. Just know that it was seen for what it was.

[xmas1997]

Remember that one movie with Harrison Ford? I think life is a lot like that and I can prove beyond a doubt that nothing is provable in science. By the way, I dropped out of class because it was nebulous. Just saying.

So let's debate.

You are a liar! And as bad as blake is in lying.

You know that isn't what I said, troll.

I will dumb things down for you from now on too.

And I have your "debate" hanging, you want it that badly?

[xmas1997]

When you have to tell them that you are trolling them to try and getback at them then you have lost, dip . I get that you will just take both positions so any 'rebuttal' of yours will be ignored. Just know that it was seen for what it was.

Still playing your fic ious internet message board contest?

You don't win or lose on a message board.

There is no crying in baseball, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think matter can actually be destroyed. I'd have to look it up though.

It is converted into energy at the rate of e=mc^2. On the quantum scale the uncertainty principle prevents us from verifying conservation however. Uncertainty =! god. It comes out in the wash though

[DMC]

Still playing your fic ious internet message board contest?

You don't win or lose on a message board.

There is no crying in baseball, dimwit.

You managed to find a way around it.

[mouse]

some serious quoting up in here up in here

[xmas1997]

You managed to find a way around it.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.
But then you already knew that.
Next you'll spout nonsense about the Matrix.

[DMC]

Your ignorance knows no bounds.
But then you already knew that.
Next you'll spout nonsense about the Matrix.

Why wasn't Harrison Ford considered for the part of Morpheus tbh? With his ability to see past his own blindness and find the holy grail, he should have been a shoo in. I think Harrison Ford is likely a reincarnated god.

[xmas1997]

Why wasn't Harrison Ford considered for the part of Morpheus tbh? With his ability to see past his own blindness and find the holy grail, he should have been a shoo in. I think Harrison Ford is likely a reincarnated god.

Keep it up, but surely you can make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are, I have confidence in you!
How about that Harry Potter guy?

[DMC]

Keep it up, but surely you can make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are, I have confidence in you!
How about that Harry Potter guy?

A good example of faith is how Rocky Balboa was able to get the eye of the tiger working with his former nemesis. Rocky knew Clubber Lane was a beast, but he had the eye of the tiger. Still, he had to have faith that he could actually see through the tiger's eye because, let's be real, how can you see though a tiger's eye? Rocky could because he had faith.

That's the kind of faith I am talking about, the kind where you can see though the severed eye of an otherwise irrelevant to boxing animal.

[xmas1997]

A good example of faith is how Rocky Balboa was able to get the eye of the tiger working with his former nemesis. Rocky knew Clubber Lane was a beast, but he had the eye of the tiger. Still, he had to have faith that he could actually see through the tiger's eye because, let's be real, how can you see though a tiger's eye? Rocky could because he had faith.

That's the kind of faith I am talking about, the kind where you can see though the severed eye of an otherwise irrelevant to boxing animal.

Your "ignorance" is on full display and has run amok for all to see.

You can't blame it on stupidity which is usually a temporary condition.

The sad and pathetic part is, you truly believe what your rants.

[pgardn]

Reaction to Chinook post:

Ok I have a somewhat better understanding of where you lie. We basically believe the same thing about the word random.

And I have a different view of what is knowable.

I don't believe human beings, evolved 100,000 years for a life on Earth and thus equipped with a set of senses that act and influence a nervous system set up for life on Earth, will ever understand everything. The machines follow our rules, our logic. We are too specialized for a particular environment. All of our understanding is based on incomplete models and metaphors and are in constant flux. We just refine the same stuff imo. We get closer to good descriptions for what we have access to.

We pretend math takes us into a different realm. We use the math now heavily in physics to make models and then we hunt for some experiment to test the model. Science is very powerful, but limited. Individuals that work outside of science and reason (math and logic), get further off course when answering questions that science can model imo.

Thats how I see it.

[mouse]

Check. Mate.

You do know that's a checker board right?

[spurraider21]

You do know that's a checker board right?

that joke went right over your head huh... just like everything in science classes

[mouse]

that joke went right over your head huh... just like everything in science classes

I'm proud to admit even at a young age I knew bull when I read it and avoided being brainwashed to learn the unproven lies of Science.

So thank you for the compliment.

[spurraider21]

thats one way to rationalize being a lazy student