Evolution Versus Creationism

[nolan 0]

Hi. I hope this clarifies:

1. I never said I was supporting evolution. In fact, if you look at my original post in this thread, you'd see that I'm a creationist.

2. I wasn't asking you to support a position. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

3. Quoting:

You say before the egg, there was cell division. It therefore follows that the creature that lays eggs would have come first, not the egg...

Not necessarily so. The point was that we can't possibly know whether the creature that evolved into a chicken made the final evolutionary step prior to egg-laying, within the egg, or at some point thereafter. We can argue back and forth and try to impress each other with reasoning and rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't know.

I cannot support that position. You say in order for either the chicken or egg, there has to be two of each: male and female. By this the chicken would have never existed. You also state that in the beginning the only way to give birth is to lay eggs. How can an egg exist if there is no one to lay the egg? You say before the egg, there was cell division. It therefore follows that the creature that lays eggs would have come first, not the egg then the one that lays the egg. Therefore the chicken came first.
If you say there is a problem or many complications when trying to figure out how things evolved into what they are now, how can you support the theory of evolution?

[truefusion 3]

1. I never said I was supporting evolution. In fact, if you look at my original post in this thread, you'd see that I'm a creationist.

By "original post," i'ma assume you mean the first post you posted in this thread. When i look at it i see that you state:

I think it's obvious that various species evolve, but that this does not exclude the concept of creationism.

In order for me to make sense out of this, since my understanding of creationism obviously appears to differ from the one you imply, i would have to assume that what you mean by that is that life was started (presumably by some god) but left on its own to mutate into what we see today. You cannot say that is it obvious only to later say that you did not say that you support the theory of evolution.
My understanding of creationism is separate, individual creations at due times. This is why i consider intelligent design slightly separate from creationism: because intelligent design allows for the theory of evolution; creationism doesn't. It would have been another story if you have said "intelligent design" instead of "creationism."

2. I wasn't asking you to support a position. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

You may not have asked, but you did suggest that i "politely inform" others of it. If i can't support it, i will most likely not inform others of it—unless perhaps i want it scrutinized.

3. Not necessarily so. The point was that we can't possibly know whether the creature that evolved into a chicken made the final evolutionary step prior to egg-laying, within the egg, or at some point thereafter. We can argue back and forth and try to impress each other with reasoning and rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't know.

I don't argue to try and impress anyone, but you should realize you are nevertheless playing around with the word "know." It doesn't matter if we see it or not, if you don't know or if you believe that there is no way of knowing, then anything mentioned here shouldn't motivate you to post or respond. To post or respond may imply that you want to know. If you do not want to discuss, then you do not need to post or respond in this thread.

[shadowx 0]

Still no clarification of your own beliefs i see TF, you're doing well so far, but you will crack eventually...

[1] The pope is irrelevant to me. I am not a Catholic, nor do i believe that anyone on earth that was voted into power by man can ever be the representative of God. I am willing to go as far as to say that the last and final representative of God was Christ Jesus. Nevertheless, regardless of my beliefs, your statement leads to nowhere. What were you trying to prove with this? So the man is arguably the most esteemed person on earth. And? What does that show? It only shows that he is arguably the most esteemed person on earth, nothing more. Unless you have anything else to say on the matter, you can move onto any of the other choices from your previous statements. Personally, i was hoping you would have touched on perhaps "how Christianity took from other religions," or "how believers did horrible things to promote Christianity." What's next?

You missed my point. You asked what Christianity had to gain from promoting itself. I think i proved my point quits extensively...

[2] I've already mentioned the reason why you would always ask who or what made God; you place yourself in that dilemma unnecessarily. With a simple process of elimination, you will always end up with God as being eternal, not matter or the physical universe. Let us recount everything in hopes of understanding: Nothing can cause its own existence, therefore it must either have been created or it must have always existed. Hence we are left with merely two options that we, by necessity, have to apply to God and the physical realm (to which you appear to label "infinite energy"), one for each. The fact that you ask who or what created God merely means that you yourself realize the infinite regression behind that question. The infinite regression informs us that something creating God is illogical, therefore we are left with only one choice: God is eternal.

Again, you missed my point. You suggested that in the god vs big bang debate that god MUST be the creator because the big bang cant create itself.

Fair enough... But if i ask you what created god you would reply "god doesnt have a creator, he just existed forever" Ok... But then why couldnt the energy within the big bang have existed forever?

You cant say that god has always existed and then discount the same of the big bang without any theory. To accept that a sentient god could "just exist" with no moment of creation then you MUST accept that the big bang could do the same.

To clarify what i understand the big bang to be.... Science tells us the big bang before it exploded was smaller than a single atom. This doesnt resonate with me, the matter in the universe cant be smaller than an atom. What can? Energy.. It doesnt have to be godly or magickal energy, no. It can be "scientific" energy. energy without form. We know that energy can turn into matter, this happens in the universe i think with spontaneous emergency of particles in space. So in theory a great amount of energy contained in a tiny "space" (remember, space didnt exist before the universe. It cant.) could in theory transform spontaneously into matter. This matter could then force the universe into existence.

This is slightly off topic but i want to state that i dont believe any sentient being, nor sentient energy created the universe through design. And to ask you this question:
If god can "just exist" forever, why cant the energy that started the big bang follow the same rule?
And if we go by occams (sp?) razor then which would you think is correct?
I know occams(sp?) razor isnt always right but meh...

Using the same logic you could argue that energy is eternal. However, any supporter of the big bang or of science can never hold that position. Why? Anything that is eternal will never come to an end.

Science says energy *is* eternal... For example... The sun produces energy from fusing atoms together, according to my theory of the big bang these atoms were made by energy forming into matter, according to the opposite of e=mc2, thus energy is turned into matter, this matter is then fused in the sun and the excess matter (where something like 1+1(matter)=1.5(matter)+5(energy)) is turned straight back into energy. This energy lets plants grow, which then die, and get fossilized then turn into coal. We burn this coal releasing heat, which turns water into steam which has both heat and kinetic energy through movement. This movement drives a turbine which turns the movement energy into electrical energy. This travels down the power lines into your house and is turned into heat and light energy by your light bulbs. This energy is then released into space and the environment where it has an extremely marginal effect (think a drop of water in the ocean, it's still there but you cant notice it) the energy is still there, it still exists. The reason something gets cold is not due to the energy getting destroyed or fading out. It is due to dilution. Put sugar on your finger and lick it. Strong... Now, put your finger in a bath of water and stir. Taste, and it tastes of water. No sugar. Same thing applies to getting a hot pea and dropping it in a bath of water. The heat energy is still there but it is so diffuse you cannot sense it.

Out of the three, only creationism is referenced

Christs birth is definitely mentioned as is his rebirth. In fairness the rest of the bible is just padding for these two events.
[3] I know my generalisation was awful, i should have added a disclaimer. But i didnt so i deserve that bashing!

Your response merely shows that you did not understand my question, even though i took the time to make sure that you would at least understand it. You say there are things stated in the Bible that can be found in pagan religions. I asked, to put it in another way: if that one thing is true, does it matter who says it or in what context it is said in? Does that make it false or untrue? I did not say that you said that paganism bears more truth or that it is the truth over Christianity. But does it make it untrue?

Fair point, however, Christians will happily tell me that theirs in the only true religion and to believe anything else will condemn my soul. My points merely prove them completely wrong. In a religion with so much falsity how is one supposed to trust anything that is said?

I think you have yet to answer that question.

[anwiii 17]

haha i had to laugh out loud on that one. that is wishfull thinking.

anyway, crack on what? what you believe or other possibilities? i've had these conversations with tf time and time again. the fact is, is he always puts pressure on the other guy so the other guy doesn't have time to pressure him. by pressure, i mean question things as t/f does by trying to discredit others. that's all he does. he doesn't take a stand directly in anything because he knows what will happen if he does and it just proves my point in how discrediting others get people nowhere in these types of threads and discussions.

t/f knows EXACTLY what he is doing. he's not stupid. he has his own set of beliefs but he doesn't want them debated so he distracts people from them on putting all eyes on other peoples posts. notcie that everything he quotes is more than he can ever say in his own beliefs. he wont change and he wont crack. haha

Still no clarification of your own beliefs i see TF, you're doing well so far, but you will crack eventually...

[nolan 0]

Saying something is obvious does not mean you support it. For example, during winter in the Midwest, it's obvious that there's going to be snow. Do I support snow? Far from it. My beliefs about evolutions are merely that it's a function of creationism. I do not believe that an intelligent designer would leaves its creations in a stagnant state in an ever-changing environment. It doesn't make sense to -me-.Also, with regards to the comment about my being motivated to post to this thread: it's a debate, and one that I find interest in. I feel I need no greater reason to participate. I never toyed around with the word "know", due to the fact that we -don't- know. In fact, if we -knew-, there wouldn't be anything to debate, there'd simply be the facts. I strongly believe in creationism, but a divine being has never confirmed it for me. Similarly, evolutionists can strongly believe in their theories, but they're theories for a reason, and theories with a lot of open variables left to solve for.

[truefusion 3]

[1]Still no clarification of your own beliefs i see TF, you're doing well so far, but you will crack eventually...

 

[2]You missed my point. You asked what Christianity had to gain from promoting itself. I think i proved my point quits extensively...

 

[3]You cant say that god has always existed and then discount the same of the big bang without any theory. To accept that a sentient god could "just exist" with no moment of creation then you MUST accept that the big bang could do the same.

 

To clarify what i understand the big bang to be.... Science tells us the big bang before it exploded was smaller than a single atom. This doesnt resonate with me, the matter in the universe cant be smaller than an atom. What can? Energy.. It doesnt have to be godly or magickal energy, no. It can be "scientific" energy. energy without form. We know that energy can turn into matter, this happens in the universe i think with spontaneous emergency of particles in space. So in theory a great amount of energy contained in a tiny "space" (remember, space didnt exist before the universe. It cant.) could in theory transform spontaneously into matter. This matter could then force the universe into existence.

 

If god can "just exist" forever, why cant the energy that started the big bang follow the same rule?

And if we go by occams (sp?) razor then which would you think is correct?

I know occams(sp?) razor isnt always right but meh...

 

[4]Science says energy *is* eternal... For example... The sun produces energy from fusing atoms together, according to my theory of the big bang these atoms were made by energy forming into matter, according to the opposite of e=mc2, thus energy is turned into matter, this matter is then fused in the sun and the excess matter (where something like 1+1(matter)=1.5(matter)+5(energy)) is turned straight back into energy. This energy lets plants grow, which then die, and get fossilized then turn into coal. We burn this coal releasing heat, which turns water into steam which has both heat and kinetic energy through movement. This movement drives a turbine which turns the movement energy into electrical energy. This travels down the power lines into your house and is turned into heat and light energy by your light bulbs. This energy is then released into space and the environment where it has an extremely marginal effect (think a drop of water in the ocean, it's still there but you cant notice it) the energy is still there, it still exists. The reason something gets cold is not due to the energy getting destroyed or fading out. It is due to dilution. Put sugar on your finger and lick it. Strong... Now, put your finger in a bath of water and stir. Taste, and it tastes of water. No sugar. Same thing applies to getting a hot pea and dropping it in a bath of water. The heat energy is still there but it is so diffuse you cannot sense it.

 

 

[5]Christs birth is definitely mentioned as is his rebirth. In fairness the rest of the bible is just padding for these two events.

 

[6]Fair point, however, Christians will happily tell me that theirs in the only true religion and to believe anything else will condemn my soul. My points merely prove them completely wrong. In a religion with so much falsity how is one supposed to trust anything that is said?

[1] I went back to make sure if you had asked me any questions concerning what i believe in, similar to what anwiii does (though they are off topic). Unless you are referring to what anwiii has been actively trying to do (which can be argued consists of ad hominem), the only questions you have asked me were rhetorical ones and those concerning God and the big bang theory. If, however, the rhetorical ones were really for me to answer, i would suggest from now on to inform me that you want a question that appears to be rhetorical to be answered. Anwiii may argue that i am arguing merely to discredit other people's beliefs, but that is to merely avoid the fact that the very statements i often attempt to "discredit" are themselves trying to discredit other people's beliefs (not that others doing so necessarily bothers me), to which even he himself has engaged in trying to discredit Christianity—which i might add, those who do so almost always tend to do so in a non-objective fashion; therefore i request for this objectiveness that is supposed to be there. It is only to my wonder as to why he decides to pick on me (and me only) within these debates. If you want to bash or attempt to discredit Christianity, go right ahead, but i would suspect you to do so formally so that we may get past the bias and emotion and into some facts.

 

[2] I saw your points, yes, but as i mentioned, your points bear no weight since you have not provided any objective source that shows your points to be the case—therefore there is nothing from which these things follow from. I do not believe i am asking for much when i request for such material, especially since you have stated that you believe those things to be the case, multiple times. It would be a different case if they could be argued using pure logic and reason alone; however, your statements imply that it is obvious from history. Likewise, your statements about the pope do not prove that he is corrupt or evil; rather, you are merely following from some preconceived bias which you have yet to show to be the case. Remember, you are attributing evil to Christianity and claiming therefore that Christianity is evil—which is not an uncommon thing from unbelievers, but is arguably begging the question.

 

[3] I did say that you could argue using the same logic that energy is eternal. However, i have also said that energy is not conscious, therefore incapable of moving on its own. Likewise, if it is said that it is illogical to ask if anything came before the big bang: if nothing came before the big bang (note you touch on space), then it follows that energy could not have always existed. Again, following from the absolute fact i mentioned means that the big bang could have never happened on its own. All physical things are restricted to the physical universe, to which some might call space-time; they bear physical limitations. Remove the physical universe, and energy goes with it. You could argue that the "laws of physics" break down during the big bang, but i fail to see how something unconscious can guide itself into a process that implies the very thing that is said to have been broken down (i.e. the "laws of physics")—let alone remain stable enough to do anything—and spit out a universe. Likewise, if nothing came before the big bang, there will be no universe.

 

But since something does exist, we know that there must have been something before the physical universe. However, this entity that pre-exists the big bang cannot be physical, because the physical universe has yet to exist. Therefore this entity must be metaphysical in its nature. As stated before, an unconscious thing cannot act on its own, so, therefore, this entity, by necessity (i.e. in order for what we know to be to exist), must have a conscious. Likewise, bearing a conscious and being metaphysical does not entail that this entity can manipulate reality with its mind—that would require omnipotence. So, again, by necessity, this metaphysical conscious entity must be omnipotent. Since only one entity can be implied, i consider it, therefore, special pleading to suggest multiple similar entities (i.e. multiple gods). So, in short, we have one conscious, metaphysical, omnipotent God.

 

[4] Just to make things clear, my understanding of "eternal" means no beginning and no end—anything that can come to an end must have had a beginning. My understanding of conservation of energy concerning particle decay means, even though the particle itself may decrease in mass during each use (or conversion), in the isolated system the total amount of mass will be the same because the decaying particles have not escaped the system. Nevertheless, from my understanding, it is mentioned that energy is considered eternal not because it really is eternal, but because it takes "forever" (literally billions and billions of years) just to die.[*] Otherwise, if energy really is eternal, how could anyone provide the lifespan of a proton, quark, et cetera? Billions upon billions of years may seem like forever, but that doesn't mean that they indeed last forever.

 

E=mc² and energy can neither be created nor destroyed means that in order for anything to make use of energy, energy must already exist. It does not entail that energy does exist, since it relies on the existence of energy. Regardless, as mentioned, it cannot be said that something which can come to an end is eternal. Unless you're going to tell me that science is yet again playing around with its wording that is impractical to any average person, then you would have to accept that energy cannot always exist.

 

[5] Yes, but that is not what is considered Christmas, at least today. In fact, in your other post, you provided a definition of Christmas when you mentioned of the pagan rituals about the log with fruit and so forth. There is nothing of that sort mentioned in the Bible. What is mentioned is the wine and bread for the last supper, which we do in remembrance of what Jesus has done for us. This consists of no tree or presents.

 

[6] Your question i did not answer for two reasons: 1. It is rhetorical and therefore thought it wasn't something to be answered. 2. It is a trick question: i have to assume that Christianity contains all the falsehood you assert it bears in order to answer it. But you have not given me any objective reason to safely assume the very thing your question wants (or needs) me to assume. Therefore i need not answer it, at least until you can provide me with some proper reason to assume such things.

 

[1]Saying something is obvious does not mean you support it. For example, during winter in the Midwest, it's obvious that there's going to be snow. Do I support snow? Far from it. My beliefs about evolutions are merely that it's a function of creationism. I do not believe that an intelligent designer would leaves its creations in a stagnant state in an ever-changing environment. It doesn't make sense to -me-.

 

[2]Also, with regards to the comment about my being motivated to post to this thread: it's a debate, and one that I find interest in. I feel I need no greater reason to participate. I never toyed around with the word "know", due to the fact that we -don't- know. In fact, if we -knew-, there wouldn't be anything to debate, there'd simply be the facts. I strongly believe in creationism, but a divine being has never confirmed it for me. Similarly, evolutionists can strongly believe in their theories, but they're theories for a reason, and theories with a lot of open variables left to solve for.

[1] That's mutually exclusive to me. You say it is the case with you, but i cannot see how you can believe in something and not support it. To me that ruins the point of believing in something.

 

[2] Your use of the term "know" is ambiguous. Contrary to what you said, we do know about certain things, which have their own implications, which is the reason for the discussion. If we didn't know about these things that bear their own implications, then there would be no discussion. However, we do know about many things, which is what the discussion follows from. I'd say that you are only talking about the conclusion of a matter, were it not for you mentioning that if we did know anything for certain, there would be no discussion. The fact of a matter can be determine through simple deduction given the proper conditions. I would rather not get into a discussion that asks, "Do we really know anything?"

[anwiii 17]

don't be an *bottom*. he is making perfect sense. we believe in murderers because they are out there. but it doesn't mean we have to like it or even support it.

 

as far as knowing things, we all don't know *BLEEP* compared to the bigger picture. the bigger picture is our own ignorance either because we aren't paying attention or it just isn't shown to us.

 

for me, i think my ignorance is from not paying attention. we may know a lot, truefusion, but we don't know the half of it. some know more than others. some way know less. those who know less....does that make them less of a person?

 

let's say you...truefusion(sorry, i don't know your real name) knows it all and has this need to discredit everything that has to do with ignorance and not knowing what YOU know. does that mean you can't respect a belief other than your own? because knowing all means you know the truth in all things and there is no other answer besides what you know. what are you going to do with your knowledge....discredit people continuously, or present and share what you know?

 

choice is yours. you don't know it all, but at least you can share what you know. oh....you have a website. i forgot....but your website is related to the subject at hand. for someone who is asking proof from others, i can see why your choice is to not state your full beliefs in these threads. i mean...what's good for the goos is good for the gander, right? or is that just the pot calling the kettle black? you ask for things from others that you don't provide your own self.

 

when you continuously find fault in what a person states or believes, it is guiding them away from what they believe and state. so what is your purpose. is it to guide them away or just make them think. what about you....is anyone able to make you think? or do you just know it all to discredit every single thing anyone ever has to say?

 

you know...i don't really know if there that god that people preach about who created us all....but that doesn't mean he isn't with me. some things can't be put in to words correctly. i learned this a long time about with what i personally feel inside in my own belief. i don't preach it because it's only for me as nobody can be compared to me. you....you believe in something.....and does believing in that something mean you have to disredit others? or does it mean you keep silent because it's only meant for you? or do you preach what you believe and have acceptance AND have people throwing stones at you at the same time?

 

you offer nothing when you discredit.....NOTHING! you offer no alternative to your arguements. that to me shows someone who is weak in what they believe. are you? are you weak in what you believe? you not only owe it to those that you argue against, you owe it to yourself to be firm and STATE what you believe in these types of threads.....IF and only IF you choose to take part in these threads. this accounts for not only being true to yourself.....but to others

 

now if you're not too busy trying to discredit me, maybe you'll find some truth in the words if you're capable.

 

i like nolan. he makes a lot of sense even though he DID misquote me. he also offer a lot of thought in this thread. i feel it. and what does he get in return? something to disredit his thoughts. from WHO??? TRUFUSION!

 

now...not only do i accept your beliefs....yes....i have been to your website. i also respect them. why do i respect them? because i understand them. maybe not fully.....but enough. but you also have a lot to learn......and a lot to pay attention to....other than the words that are supposed to describe thoughts... when maybe words aren't enough.

 

you are hypocritical in everything you discredit out loud for people to hear. you are more than that....i feel it....you just haven't faced your own fears and non understanding to be true yet.......for people to hear. what's the alternative for you? to discredit others. personally, i am tired of the b.s. from you when you have MUCH more to offer.....

 

[1] That's mutually exclusive to me. You say it is the case with you, but i cannot see how you can believe in something and not support it. To me that ruins the point of believing in something.

 

[2] Your use of the term "know" is ambiguous. Contrary to what you said, we do know about certain things, which have their own implications, which is the reason for the discussion. If we didn't know about these things that bear their own implications, then there would be no discussion. However, we do know about many things, which is what the discussion follows from. I'd say that you are only talking about the conclusion of a matter, were it not for you mentioning that if we did know anything for certain, there would be no discussion. The fact of a matter can be determine through simple deduction given the proper conditions. I would rather not get into a discussion that asks, "Do we really know anything?"

[rvalkass 5]

Let's throw some physics in here...

 

My understanding of conservation of energy concerning particle decay means, even though the particle itself may decrease in mass during each use (or conversion), in the isolated system the total amount of mass will be the same because the decaying particles have not escaped the system.

The mass is not the same. Take beta-minus decay for example: n -> p + e^- + anti-v_e

 

The mass of the neutron is 1.67492729x10^-27 kg. The mass of the proton, electron and antineutrino adds up to 1.67353258x10^-27 kg. So there has been a change in mass of 1.39471x10^-30 kg. Where has this mass gone? Well, it hasn't gone anywhere, it has just become energy. The two are one and the same, and without that fact, you'd never be able to have beta radiation - the particles would have no source of energy to leave their parent atom so would just sit there. This energy is equal to approximately 0.785MeV, which is a sizeable amount on the atomic and nuclear scale.

 

Gamma radiation is another good example. An electron and positron collide. They annihilate. You are left with two packages of energy and no mass. What happened to that mass? It became the energy of the gamma rays. That energy wasn't created - it was already there in the masses of the positron and electron.

 

Nevertheless, from my understanding, it is mentioned that energy is considered eternal not because it really is eternal, but because it takes "forever" (literally billions and billions of years) just to die.[*] Otherwise, if energy really is eternal, how could anyone provide the lifespan of a proton, quark, et cetera? Billions upon billions of years may seem like forever, but that doesn't mean that they indeed last forever.

You are confusing a couple of concepts. The half-lives for particles such as protons and neutrons are very long because they are very stable particles (thankfully, otherwise you would have disappeared long ago...). However, in these processes energy is neither created nor destroyed - mass is energy and energy is mass. So while you are right that these particles don't last forever, energy does.

[nolan 0]

First of all, I'd like to point out that in this thread (or any others), I am not attacking anyone, nor trying to discredit their views. I think sometimes these threads begin to sway off-topic or out of range of their true purpose simply due to how heated they get. We can all say things that others disagree with without attacking them or nitpicking rhetorical elements of what they're saying. (I don't care if it's done to me, but in general it's not helpful.)

 

(That part of my post was not in relation to you, truefusion, but to the thread in general.)

 

With regards to your response to what I said:

 

For [1], I can easily believe in something and not support it. Moreover -- and particularly relevant in this case -- I can believe in something and not have an agenda to support it at a particular point in time. It's not my agenda to "support" evolution here. I am, above all else (for the purposes of this thread), a creationist. I've talked about evolution, but I could care less if anyone draws anything from those ramblings or changes their views, which is what I would consider the aim of someone supporting evolution in a debate.

 

For [2], my use of the term "know" is no more ambiguous than the word "know" itself is. We do "know" about -certain- things; that's correct. I've never argued that we don't. We don't, however, know the things that actually mark a definitive end to the question of creationism vs. evolution. If we did, as I've said, we would not be having a debate. We can -believe- things in that regard -- and we all do -- but we do not definitively "know" them.

 

As an example, if you "know" that there's a God, it stands to reason (to me, anyway) that you should be able to make a concrete statement about him/her/it. No one can truly say they know what God "looks" like, if he "looks" like anything, what materials he's made up of, if he's made up of materials in the sense that we think of them, why he created us, what he did before us, what he's thinking right now, or even if he thinks at all. There's not a single concrete statement that you can possibly make that would stand the burden of proof. So yes, therefore we can't claim to "know".

 

Similarly, for -strict- evolution and related theories, there are an equal number of concrete statements that can't be formed. What came before the big bang? Did something come before the big bang? If nothing came before the big bang, what are its properties and how were they derived? How did life form? For any of these you can make statements, but they won't be concrete. If they -were- concrete, you wouldn't have five different theories that each say something slightly different, such as the various contenders for the title of unified field theory. The people who are the very founders of these ideas don't claim to know certain aspects concretely. (Fact: Darwin himself was what we would refer to these days as a "scientific creationist", just as Newton, whom he was heavily influenced by. You'd see that if you take the time to read even a mediocre biography about his life.)

 

I'll end with this:

 

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.

 

- Albert Einstein

[1] That's mutually exclusive to me. You say it is the case with you, but i cannot see how you can believe in something and not support it. To me that ruins the point of believing in something.

 

[2] Your use of the term "know" is ambiguous. Contrary to what you said, we do know about certain things, which have their own implications, which is the reason for the discussion. If we didn't know about these things that bear their own implications, then there would be no discussion. However, we do know about many things, which is what the discussion follows from. I'd say that you are only talking about the conclusion of a matter, were it not for you mentioning that if we did know anything for certain, there would be no discussion. The fact of a matter can be determine through simple deduction given the proper conditions. I would rather not get into a discussion that asks, "Do we really know anything?"

[shadowx 0]

*sigh* Im not going to lie TF your arguments sound mighty similar to those on all four pages of this debate..

 

Here goes...

 

Firstly let me quote rvalkass:

However, in these processes energy is neither created nor destroyed - mass is energy and energy is mass. So while you are right that these particles don't last forever, energy does.

THANK YOU!!!

 

A particle can decay, but like rvalkass said it cant stop existing, it merely changes form into a "packet" of energy. Now the energy can also transform into matter (im sure rvalkass can confirm or deny this). In my mind i cannot imagine something that does not have a beginning, now is this a limit of the human mind or this a limit of the laws of physics in that EVERYTHING must begin at some point? We will never know. However one can practically assume that everything has a beginning... Now, if god suddenly popped into existence he has no-where to exist... The universe isnt there yet. imagine time before the universe. See it in your mind. What do you see? Infinite blackness? well that''s incorrect, there can be no black, there can be no "infinite" NOTHING exists. No area, no space, no universe no vacuum no darkness NOTHING. Based on this where does god exist? Or are you going to suggest that at the instant god popped into existence the universe too popped into existence so that he could exist inside something?

 

Of course, this is all irrelevant because you (tf) will tell me that god doesnt need a beginning and that instead my incapability to comprehend this fact is a limit of the human mind. Which of course is entirely feasible. But think about it.

 

Right, TF:

 

You say that i can provide no proof of my argument that christianity was spread for the purpose of control power and wealth... Allow me to demonstrate the opposite:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Now, personally i cant afford to have that sort of palace built in my back garden, in fact, i dont even have a back garden (aka yard) and even if i did have the money i highly doubt i could convince the UK government of my need to build an extremely large principality on their land... However, with 2 billion brain washed servants at my hand and probably BILLIONS of dollars (how much does the average western christian give to the church i wonder? In a year? hundreds of dollars?) that would probably allow me to build that sort of thing.

 

So there is your proof. Proof that chrstianity has funded one of the most impressive buildings standing today, it funded the existence of an entire country of its own... Jeez... Is that not enough for you?! (i expect not) Now, i cant prove that this is the sole reason for christians wanting to spread their ideas... However, you cant prove the opposite. I guess it's a stalemate here but i know which side im on

[5] Yes, but that is not what is considered Christmas, at least today. In fact, in your other post, you provided a definition of Christmas when you mentioned of the pagan rituals about the log with fruit and so forth. There is nothing of that sort mentioned in the Bible. What is mentioned is the wine and bread for the last supper, which we do in remembrance of what Jesus has done for us. This consists of no tree or presents.

Perhaps im not being clear enough in my points... the birth of jesus was said to have taken place on the 25th of december, according to the bible and entire christian belief system. Modern science has discredited this date somewhat through the description of various animals and conditions at the time of jesus' birth. I cant provide sources. Wikipedia perhaps can.

 

Now, given the fact that pagans had already celebrated the 21st long, long, long before the story of the bible was ever thought of i find it highly convenient that jesus was born so close to this date. Coincidences do happen but when you consider that the 21st is held by many pagan paths as the (re)birth of their male god(s) and in some traditions i believe from a virgin goddess (some traditions hold that the god and goddess are both lovers and mother/son, however not in an incest type way, but in that they swap "positions" through the year. Remember these entities are largely held as being metaphorical) it's a spooky coincidence....

 

Easter is the same. A damn big coincidence.... Or something more sinister. For example the celtic cross which is widely used as a christian symbol is in fact a combination of pagan and christian.

 

In Ireland, it is a popular legend that the Celtic Christian cross was introduced by Saint Patrick or possibly Saint Declan during his time converting the pagan Irish. It is believed that Saint Patrick combined the symbol of Christianity with the sun cross, to give pagan followers an idea of the importance of the cross by linking it with the idea of the life-giving properties of the sun.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_cross

 

This is slightly off topic however it does have a point... Again, in a religion which has often plagiarised the ideas of others, lied repeatedly and is probably the richest organisation in the world. How can i trust their amazing story? And yes, i want an answer to this one. Preferably an answer where you dont simply state that my information is inaccurate. While my sources are lost to the ravages of the inefficiency of human memory i can tell you that they are largely from various programmes on the discovery TV network which, while not perfectly accurate is fairly reliable. So if you please?

 

I am starting to think you avoid questions because you do not like the answers that you first find within yourself.

[truefusion 3]

[1]don't be an *bottom*. he is making perfect sense. we believe in murderers because they are out there. but it doesn't mean we have to like it or even support it.

 

[2]as far as knowing things, we all don't know *BLEEP* compared to the bigger picture. the bigger picture is our own ignorance either because we aren't paying attention or it just isn't shown to us.

 

[3]for me, i think my ignorance is from not paying attention. we may know a lot, truefusion, but we don't know the half of it. some know more than others. some way know less. those who know less....does that make them less of a person?

 

[4]let's say you...truefusion(sorry, i don't know your real name) knows it all and has this need to discredit everything that has to do with ignorance and not knowing what YOU know. does that mean you can't respect a belief other than your own? because knowing all means you know the truth in all things and there is no other answer besides what you know. what are you going to do with your knowledge....discredit people continuously, or present and share what you know?

 

[5]choice is yours. you don't know it all, but at least you can share what you know. oh....you have a website. i forgot....but your website is related to the subject at hand. for someone who is asking proof from others, i can see why your choice is to not state your full beliefs in these threads. i mean...what's good for the goos is good for the gander, right? or is that just the pot calling the kettle black? you ask for things from others that you don't provide your own self.

 

[6]when you continuously find fault in what a person states or believes, it is guiding them away from what they believe and state. so what is your purpose. is it to guide them away or just make them think. what about you....is anyone able to make you think? or do you just know it all to discredit every single thing anyone ever has to say?

 

[7]you know...i don't really know if there that god that people preach about who created us all....but that doesn't mean he isn't with me. some things can't be put in to words correctly. i learned this a long time about with what i personally feel inside in my own belief. i don't preach it because it's only for me as nobody can be compared to me. you....you believe in something.....and does believing in that something mean you have to disredit others? or does it mean you keep silent because it's only meant for you? or do you preach what you believe and have acceptance AND have people throwing stones at you at the same time?

 

[8]you offer nothing when you discredit.....NOTHING! you offer no alternative to your arguements. that to me shows someone who is weak in what they believe. are you? are you weak in what you believe? you not only owe it to those that you argue against, you owe it to yourself to be firm and STATE what you believe in these types of threads.....IF and only IF you choose to take part in these threads. this accounts for not only being true to yourself.....but to others

[1] Do not confuse believing in the existence of murderers with believing that their actions are wrongâthese are two different things. I would expect you to argue against anyone who says that they don't exist, at least for the sake of justice.

 

[2] Multiple small pieces will eventually yield to a big picture. The things that i said what we do know are those small pieces. If we did not have the small pieces, then certainly there would be nothing to discuss about. But we do have these small pieces, to which we are attempting to determine either-or (evolution or creationism).

 

[3] To say that we don't know implies that we do know at least that we don't know. No one can inform anyone how much we don't know, because no one knows how much there is to learn. I'm not sure where you are going with the question, if it is something i said, or something you think about me, but, no, it does not make them any less of a person.

 

[4] Believe it or not, even if i did know everything and shared everything i know, there is no way to avoid discrediting others. No matter your efforts, you will eventually state something that contradicts something said by someone else.

 

[5] I do my own research on my own things at my own time. I have no obligation to share that research, especially if i am still researching things. As mentioned before, you do not know of the things i research. But i also have no obligation to inform you of my research, even if you ask for it. Likewise, people state their beliefs not because it was asked of them or because it was required by the topic at hand, but because they wanted to. I am under no obligation to follow in their footsteps especially if the topic doesn't demand for it. I wouldn't be surprised if you consider me a coward for not stating my beliefs in these kinds of threads, but you don't seem to realize that the only thing demanding for them is you and not the topic at hand. The topic is about "evolution versus creationism," not "truefusion's personal beliefs." Nevertheless, even if you were to go out after reading this and create a topic called "truefusion's personal beliefs," i would still be under no obligation to state my beliefs in such a topic (though such a topic title also implies that you would be stating what i believe in). If people don't want their beliefs scrutinized, then they should avoid stating them publicly. They know full well of the consequences of stating their beliefs out in public. You cannot blame people for questioning or scrutinizing their publicly-available beliefs. They chose to say them publicly, i didn't request that they do.

 

[6] I scrutinize my own beliefs and what i think. If i ever seek help in that, i will post things publicly. If i didn't scrutinize my own beliefs, i would not be as rooted in them as i am now, and i would not be able to make even one statement for them. But it is because i do that i am even able to join these discussions. Many people i know would consider this dangerous. And to top it all off, if that's not enough, i go out of my way to see what is the latest argument unbelievers have to offerâwhich, believe it or not, i find unfortunate that they are practically the same things being repeated. I've seen Zeitgeist, to which anyone who has not done the research i've done, would most likelyâespecially if they aren't really sure of a reality beyond the physical realmâbe convinced that religion was created for merely control and money (which you are seeing being argued in this topic).

 

[7] If it is for me and for me only, then i would be under no obligation to share. And if i don't share, then obviously i would be avoiding any scenarios where they would conflict with what others say or believe. But i wouldn't consider it safe to assume that everything i believe or state is for me and for me only. Indeed, don't i state things because i want the other person to know too?

 

[8] What alternative would anyone offer to their own arguments (which does not in turn make it part of their own argument)? Does that then make everyone weak in what they believe or say? Not offering alternatives does not imply being weak in one's beliefs; rather, in fact, if anything, it implies that they are rooted into what they believe, for they offer nothing more. And no matter how many times you try to get me to state my beliefs because others have stated theirs, i am under no obligation to do so. Remember, they did it because they wanted to. I am not required to state mine because they stated theirs. Once you understand this fact, you should therefore stop requesting that i follow in their footsteps.

 

[1]The mass is not the same. Take beta-minus decay for example: n -> p + e^- + anti-v_e

 

The mass of the neutron is 1.67492729x10^-27 kg. The mass of the proton, electron and antineutrino adds up to 1.67353258x10^-27 kg. [2]So there has been a change in mass of 1.39471x10^-30 kg. Where has this mass gone? Well, it hasn't gone anywhere, it has just become energy. The two are one and the same, and without that fact, you'd never be able to have beta radiation - the particles would have no source of energy to leave their parent atom so would just sit there. This energy is equal to approximately 0.785MeV, which is a sizeable amount on the atomic and nuclear scale.

 

Gamma radiation is another good example. An electron and positron collide. They annihilate. You are left with two packages of energy and no mass. What happened to that mass? It became the energy of the gamma rays. That energy wasn't created - it was already there in the masses of the positron and electron.

 

You are confusing a couple of concepts. The half-lives for particles such as protons and neutrons are very long because they are very stable particles (thankfully, otherwise you would have disappeared long ago...). However, in these processes energy is neither created nor destroyed - mass is energy and energy is mass. So while you are right that these particles don't last forever, energy does.

[1] You seem to be talking about the particles themselves and not the system as a whole. To put it in another way from what i have said: Let's say an atom is made up of three particles and that atom decays to where one of the particles detaches itself from the group. Neither of the particles have escaped the system, nor have they individually decreased in mass. Therefore the mass remains the same for the system, but not the atom itself. Or is my understanding on this still wrong?

 

[2] Okay, i don't see how you can make sense of everything else mentioned given the way you described everything. Energy and mass are the sameâokay, got that. But you go on to say something wholly contradictingâat least by definitionâby stating that, even though it can be seen by the numbers that mass was lost, it wasn't, it was just converted into energy. You have just finished stating that mass and energy are the same thing. How can you lose mass but still have the same amount of energy when both are one in the same? If there is nothing that bears mass, then it is safe to conclude that there is no energy given the fact that mass and energy are one and the same.

 

[1] I can easily believe in something and not support it. Moreover -- and particularly relevant in this case -- I can believe in something and not have an agenda to support it at a particular point in time. It's not my agenda to "support" evolution here. I am, above all else (for the purposes of this thread), a creationist. I've talked about evolution, but I could care less if anyone draws anything from those ramblings or changes their views, which is what I would consider the aim of someone supporting evolution in a debate.

 

[2] my use of the term "know" is no more ambiguous than the word "know" itself is. We do "know" about -certain- things; that's correct. I've never argued that we don't. We don't, however, know the things that actually mark a definitive end to the question of creationism vs. evolution. If we did, as I've said, we would not be having a debate. We can -believe- things in that regard -- and we all do -- but we do not definitively "know" them.

 

[3]As an example, if you "know" that there's a God, it stands to reason (to me, anyway) that you should be able to make a concrete statement about him/her/it. No one can truly say they know what God "looks" like, if he "looks" like anything, what materials he's made up of, if he's made up of materials in the sense that we think of them, why he created us, what he did before us, what he's thinking right now, or even if he thinks at all. There's not a single concrete statement that you can possibly make that would stand the burden of proof. So yes, therefore we can't claim to "know".

 

[2]Similarly, for -strict- evolution and related theories, there are an equal number of concrete statements that can't be formed. What came before the big bang? Did something come before the big bang? If nothing came before the big bang, what are its properties and how were they derived? How did life form? For any of these you can make statements, but they won't be concrete. If they -were- concrete, you wouldn't have five different theories that each say something slightly different, such as the various contenders for the title of unified field theory. The people who are the very founders of these ideas don't claim to know certain aspects concretely. (Fact: Darwin himself was what we would refer to these days as a "scientific creationist", just as Newton, whom he was heavily influenced by. You'd see that if you take the time to read even a mediocre biography about his life.)

[1] Right, but you can't avoid the fact that, while you may not support it in other areas, you at least support its existence. I would not expect you to argue against the very thing you believe in, for then i would question whether or not you believe in it.

 

[2] Not necessarily, for even if we take on a purely idealistic view of the world, we can know, not "know," many things; for example, we would know that we ourselves exist. While it may be the case that we do not know certain conclusions or definitive facts, it is the things that we do know that i am talking about, which can eventually lead to these bigger forms of knowledge which you talk about. These theories or suggestions that come from these facts is merely a step toward those bigger conclusions.

 

[3] Nevertheless, a concrete statement can be about anything, not necessarily limited to the examples you provide. To say that we can never make a concrete statement that satisfies the burden of proof is itself a statement that declares knowing. Therefore it is not the case that we can't declare that we know (with or without the question marks).

 

[1]*sigh* Im not going to lie TF your arguments sound mighty similar to those on all four pages of this debate..

 

[2]A particle can decay, but like rvalkass said it cant stop existing, it merely changes form into a "packet" of energy. Now the energy can also transform into matter (im sure rvalkass can confirm or deny this). In my mind i cannot imagine something that does not have a beginning, now is this a limit of the human mind or this a limit of the laws of physics in that EVERYTHING must begin at some point? We will never know. However one can practically assume that everything has a beginning... Now, if god suddenly popped into existence he has no-where to exist... The universe isnt there yet. imagine time before the universe. See it in your mind. What do you see? Infinite blackness? well that''s incorrect, there can be no black, there can be no "infinite" NOTHING exists. No area, no space, no universe no vacuum no darkness NOTHING. Based on this where does god exist? Or are you going to suggest that at the instant god popped into existence the universe too popped into existence so that he could exist inside something?

 

Of course, this is all irrelevant because you (tf) will tell me that god doesnt need a beginning and that instead my incapability to comprehend this fact is a limit of the human mind. Which of course is entirely feasible. But think about it......

.....

...

[6]I am starting to think you avoid questions because you do not like the answers that you first find within yourself.

[1] Well, when you continually state that Christianity is evil for such and such without providing any evidence for them in the very same posts and ask me multiple times who or what created God, i would suspect to say the same thing, even if it is in different wording.

 

[2] Until rvalkass clears up the confusion, i will not respond to this statement of yours concerning the lifespan of a particle. As for everything else: I can easily imagine something not having a beginning, because i realize that it is us, the ways we have made it out to be, that causes us to be incapable of imagining something without a beginning. Space and time are infinite things. Why? Because they are metaphysical in their nature. So why do we have trouble with these things? Because we deliberately try to place limitations on infinite things. Do you see now why you have trouble? Trying to place limitations on infinite things will only lead to paradoxes, because you are trying to make a paradox a fact of life. This will not work. Therefore it is our fault, not this universe's fault. Once you understand this, while it may contradict much of what you have learned or read in science and much of how the world works socially, you should therefore be able to picture something without a beginning. But it still remains that something with a beginning cannot be eternal.

 

You say that if i imagine time before this universe, that nothing can exist. This, i assume, follows from your understanding of the big bangâthat it is illogical to ask what came before the big bang. However, you don't provide any argument as to why it can't be. Picture "space" without space, what do you get? You get space. Why? Because you can't take away any amount to something infinite and expect to get anything less. Can you tell me that this universe has a limit as to how much space it has? That is, is there a wall at the "end" of the universe? There is no end to something infinite, that is why the word "end" makes no sense within this context. If you say that, no, there is no space when you picture "space" without space, that can only mean that you have a different definition for "space" than what the one i'm using has. "Space," as far as i'm concerned, is a void that you can place something "in" (space is infinite, so it may be absurd to say that something can be in it). Is this what you mean for the word "space"?

 

You say God cannot exist because this universe doesn't yet exist. Indeed, how, then, can God be Creator or live in another realm? I could understand if God were physical for you to state that He could not exist if there was no universe. However, if He was physical, that would form a paradox. This goes right back to nothing can cause its own existence. Physical implies, at least according to the big bang, having a beginning. We would then, as mentioned before, end up requiring to have something without a beginning in order to avoid the paradox of "who or what created what."

 

[3] The pictures you provide merely shows that they are capable of obtaining wealth, but it doesn't show anything more than that. It doesn't show any evil intentions, nor does it show that they gained wealth for control and power. Whether or not they built these things to spread Christianity or just to have a nice place of worship is beyond me, but i don't see anything wrong with what they've done. And i wouldn't be surprised if these places are now historical landmarks.

 

[4] If the Bible did state December 25th was Jesus birth day, then i would agree with you. However, the Bible mentions no such thingâyou can even do a search for it in the NTL (New Living Translation) Bible (this translation uses today's calendar for areas that mention some point in time) and you won't find it. In fact, i don't think it can even be said that a calendar with such dates even existed or were in use at the time of Jesus. Anyone who claims that the Bible says December 25th was Jesus's birth day, or that Jesus's birth day is December 25th, can only lose integrity with me. If i remember correctly, Zeitgeist did it, and that merely showed that they didn't know what they were talking about.

 

You say Wikipedia has something to say about Jesus's birth day. In fact, it does, and it goes along with i have just mentioned. [click] Indeed, no one who knows what is written in the Bible will ever declare that it says that Jesus's birth day is December 25. You don't need the tools of science to figure these things out. While we may not be able to guess which day or month exactly Jesus was born in, we can, however, figure out or narrow down what era or range of years he was born in. This is due to the fact that the Bible generally mentions the ruler of that time in order to provide a time frame for the events written. In this case, if i'm not mistaken, it was during Herod's rule.

 

[5] Unfortunately for you, i cannot provide you with an answer you are looking for if i seek to remain truthful in the response. So how can you trust these things? Simply by getting the facts straight and by realizing similar, later traditions does not imply falsity in Scripturesâas they are not written in Scripture. Word of advice: don't use secular TV channels for objective theology. While that advice may sound counter-intuitive to you, secular TV, from what i've seen, has never provided an accurate description about Christianityâbe it National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, et cetera. These channels may be fairly reliable for other things, but concerning theology it doesn't seem to be.

 

[6] Hopefully, i can show that to not be the case.

[nolan 0]

I do support its existence, but I don't have to argue for or against something to believe in it. It's as simple as that.

 

[1] Right, but you can't avoid the fact that, while you may not support it in other areas, you at least support its existence. I would not expect you to argue against the very thing you believe in, for then i would question whether or not you believe in it.

What you said has no impact on my statement. No concrete facts can be stated regarding either of the examples I gave. Knowing we exist is not the same as knowing the reasons we exist, which was the whole point.

 

[2] Not necessarily, for even if we take on a purely idealistic view of the world, we can know, not "know," many things; for example, we would know that we ourselves exist. While it may be the case that we do not know certain conclusions or definitive facts, it is the things that we do know that i am talking about, which can eventually lead to these bigger forms of knowledge which you talk about. These theories or suggestions that come from these facts is merely a step toward those bigger conclusions.

We're talking about evolution vs. creationism, so yes, I think that keeping the concrete statements related to those is important. And yes, I do know that we can't make the concrete statements that I gave examples for. If anyone thinks they can, they can feel free to try.

 

[3] Nevertheless, a concrete statement can be about anything, not necessarily limited to the examples you provide. To say that we can never make a concrete statement that satisfies the burden of proof is itself a statement that declares knowing. Therefore it is not the case that we can't declare that we know (with or without the question marks).

Finally, with regards to Christianity being evil (this one wasn't addressed to me, but still), the roots of Christianity involved more organized violence than any other religions combined. If you research the history of Christian crusades, you'd quickly discover this to be the case. This doesn't make Christianity itself evil, nor Christians, but it's the very reason the ideas spread as far as they did.

 

Notice from truefusion:

All copied material must go within quote tags

[rvalkass 5]

[1] You seem to be talking about the particles themselves and not the system as a whole. To put it in another way from what i have said: Let's say an atom is made up of three particles and that atom decays to where one of the particles detaches itself from the group. Neither of the particles have escaped the system, nor have they individually decreased in mass. Therefore the mass remains the same for the system, but not the atom itself. Or is my understanding on this still wrong?

A nucleus made of three particles (we shall ignore the electrons of the initial atom for the time being, as they play no part in this beta decay example) can't really split in the way you describe - that process simply doesn't occur, because you have to input huge amounts of energy to separate two nucleons like that. In radioactive decay the particles change, which changes the total mass and total energy of the system, but the mass-energy remains equal. In particle physics, mass is often measures in units of MeV/c² to make the link between energy (MeV) and mass much clearer, and easier to compare.

 

[2] Okay, i don't see how you can make sense of everything else mentioned given the way you described everything. Energy and mass are the same?okay, got that. But you go on to say something wholly contradicting?at least by definition?by stating that, even though it can be seen by the numbers that mass was lost, it wasn't, it was just converted into energy. You have just finished stating that mass and energy are the same thing. How can you lose mass but still have the same amount of energy when both are one in the same? If there is nothing that bears mass, then it is safe to conclude that there is no energy given the fact that mass and energy are one and the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent, but it helps to describe them separately in examples such as this. You stated that mass was not lost in the system, which was not true, but somewhat hard to show without splitting the total mass-energy of the system into separate mass and energy components.

[shadowx 0]

I could be wrong in what i know here, the quantum world is fascinating but my only insight into it comes from websites such as wikipedia and newscientist. But with relevance to mass/energy i will say this:

Mass and energy are the same thing in different forms. The atom bomb turns mass, solid particles, into pure energy. Hence a massive boom from an orb of uranium around the size of a tennis ball or possibly smaller. Think ice to water almost. It's the same stuff but in a different form. Im sure rvalkass knows far more than many of us on this subject but if you can grasp the fact that matter = energy and energy = matter then you can see how a pocket of energy (which of course has no size, no mass, nothing physical to measure except the forces within) could develop into particles and spread out.

Now....

The reason i stated my beliefs here is to a) give myself credibility (believe it or not!) and b ) to show which side of the fence i sit on.

I cant work you out TF, i find it very hard to argue against you without knowing the nature of your arguments. It sounds like you are a christian who supports the general ideas of a single male omni-potent god who created the universe. I cant reason however that you, a man of clear intelligence, could believe in the story of creationism? Unless you believe it in the metaphorical sense of god creating the universe (or god causing the big bang as many christian-scientists suggest) and the 7 days story is simply that, a story told to make the concept easier to understand and simplify it for inclusion in the bible or a simpler way to teach the story of creation to children without including unimaginable timescales. This is why i repeatedly question your beliefs.

Finally, with regards to Christianity being evil (this one wasn't addressed to me, but still), the roots of Christianity involved more organized violence than any other religions combined. If you research the history of Christian crusades, you'd quickly discover this to be the case. This doesn't make Christianity itself evil, nor Christians, but it's the very reason the ideas spread as far as they did.

The first part of this argument supports me nicely the second part not so, but you are correct in what you say. It doesnt make the christian god evil, far from it. It doesnt make all christians evil. However the group will be held accountable for the actions of just a few and christianity has much to be sorry for. It is nothing but a ball and chain on the freedom of men and women all over the world. Its intentions may have been good at the root, to control those who would otherwise make life difficult for the majority. The thieves, rapists, adulterers etc....however, there is a limit. Killing a bad person does not make you a good person by default. It may not make you a bad person either, however killing everyone who things that the death penalty is a bad idea DOES make you a bad person. This is what Christianity begun before it was defeated by common sense and a weakness in its dilution thanks to the Roman's over ambitious invasion plans. Free thinkers, women who spoke out, women who wouldnt obey their husband would be beaten, tortured or killed. If you werent a man you would suffer, even as a child. My proof? *shrugs* you seem adept enough and finding this yourself however, the mere fact that their god is a man (when of course a metaphysical god not of this physical world would not need a gender. But perhaps he takes one on to make himself more approachable).

I am a believer in the many world theory of multiple universes. Simply stated imagine each universe as a bubble, each is joined by wormholes or black holes in one universe which are whiteholes in another (sucking in on one side and blowing out on the other) This is a fundamentally wrong vision of the theory as the universes stack up on each other almost like multiple sheets of paper on top of each other (although of course, this too is wrong because it implies each universe is contained within a space, your house or office in the paper example, when of course each universe IS the space, there is nothing outside the multiverses, they do not exist within a space like bubbles or paper do. They simply exist. It is not possible to put this into a picture in your head but we got close) I cant tell you what started the first universe off, however according to this theory the big bang would actually be a black hole forming in another multiverse which causes a whitehole on the other side which produces a new multiverse and spews material into it. After all, although we think there is a HUGE amount of energy and matter in the universe we cannot know the scale of it as we have nothing to compare it to. measurement is comparison. So in theory our billions of galaxies could be only 1% of the matter contained within all the multivereses in the omniverse (a term i will use to describe the combined space, matter and energy of all multiverses) but without seeing the rest of the stuff in the omniverse we cannot be sure.

Now, according to this theory god himself could indeed by lurking within another universe. Also according to this theory an afterlife can exist. The vibration of matter and i imagine energy is limited to a range of movement. We have yet to reach absolute zero, perhaps because we cant make anything cold enough, or perhaps because matter simply cant get to a complete stop. It may not be possible at all, no matter how cold. So according to this and many psychics (who im sure TF can discredit ) when we die our soul or spirit is at a higher vibration range than our physical bodies and so we enter a new plane of existence. The afterlife. This could in theory simply be another universe where matter and energy vibrate much faster. If you remember the fact that the multiverse stack upon each other so right now i am in my office, but i am also in the same space in another universe. My office probably isnt there, and i am not, but i am in the same space. So in theory if i were to die now i would not "move" but the universe around me would phase into another one as i transitioned between this and the next. This has all sort of got abit off topic but my basic point is this: Wait i forgot what it was...Ah yes: I am not saying god does not exist. But i am pleading to your intelligent side(s) that no god, irrespective of origin could create the universe in 7 days. Unless of course you are going to say that the universe already existed and he simply cooled the earth. Now of course the christian god is omnipotent. He can do anything, however logic dictates that 7 days is wrong thanks to carbon dating and various other methods of time scale measurement, unless of course he fooled with the carbon isotope content to make us think it took billions of years when in fact it didnt.

In a book full of hypocrisy and lies i cannot believe this story. That is my basic argument. Anything i say can be defeated with "But god is all powerful. He could end the universe with a fart if he wanted to so he could of actually done that. Next?" or "There is no proof so it cannot be so".

But the basic argument lies in timescale.

[anwiii 17]

so let me ask directly then. where is your own proof god exists. you quote the bible as the bible is your own evidence, but surely, anyone can write a book and claim it to be evidence....but still in the end, there is no proof.so i ask directly where is your evidence because you are so quick to discredit others in what they believe. how did you come about not discrediting your own without proof or evidence to provide and support your beliefs?oh...this was to truefusion....i didn't quote anything...sorry