Evolution Versus Creationism

[truefusion 3]

[1]No, not necessarily. You can run the beta minus decay in reverse (sort of) and have particles absorbed along with energy to create a heavier particle with less energy.

 

The mass of an object is a property of its constituent parts (the atoms, and the quarks that make those, etc.) and determines how the object is affected by gravitational effects, how its acceleration varies with forces, etc.

 

Energy can be any one of many things, but in this context we car discussing the energy content of an object, which describes the energy 'locked-up' 'inside' an object - energy holding the quarks together, holding the protons and neutrons together, etc.

 

Mass-energy is the two added together, ie. if you converted all the mass to energy and added it to the existing energy, or vice versa, what would the total be? This remains invariant in a closed system.

 

[2]Volume of an object defines the space taken up by the object, not the space it encloses. For example, a box has a fairly low volume (6 thin sheets of cardboard to make the sides) but it encloses a large volume (each of the sides can be fairly long). The volume it encloses is not part of the object.

[1] M'ks, the only way i can make sense of this is to assume that energy bears many definitions that can only be determined by context and therefore is not safe to always assume that mass and energy are one in the same but that it is subject to the conditions presented in the discussion. For that reason, since energy is not something that is necessarily physical, i can see why one can declare that energy is eternal, for it appears to relate to at least the concept of energy and not necessarily to any physical entity.

 

Okay, so energy is "eternal" in that sense. Now i feel it is safe to go back to one of the points i was trying to initially make, that the particles themselves do not last forever—though this time i am not assuming that the particles themselves are energy. From what is mentioned, then, i should be able to safely mention that without something existing that can "make an effort," that is, make use of the "energy that is locked up within," that therefore there would be no such thing as energy, since energy appears to be relative to something already in existence.

 

[2] So volume need not be an attribute of an object? I always thought the definition of volume was how much space an object takes up. Either way, in my previous post i did mention that the space within the object is not taken up, so i don't understand why you introduced enclosure. It is obvious, though, that an object with more particles in it will take up more space, which implies an increase in volume, at least by definition, but the formula for the volume of the object may show no increase.

 

[1]When i referred to zero point energy i actually meant vacuum energy. As much as i know wiki isnt 100% accurate the pure fact that it is "open source" makes it, on average, more accurate, unless you happen to visit after some moron has made an untrue edit knowingly.

 

[2]Does that mean that if i supply energy to a mass of metal the metal *must* expand, even a tiny bit, to hold that energy?

 

If so does that mean that if i got a one tonne block of steel. *exactly* one tonne and of a fixed size that is accurately measured, and i then use an extremely strong magnet to magnetise this chunk of steel by passing it back and forth that my one tonne block of steel will increase in size and/or mass?

 

[3]Magnetic energy is after all energy and you say energy takes up space so by that definition the steel has to expand to "absorb" the energy like a sponge. If you dont like the magnet idea than what about if i apply 1 million volts to the steel? will it expand? I would suggest heat however heat does cause matter to "expand" in the sense that the bonds between the atoms become further apart to allow for the increased movement.

 

[4]I still insist that any god must be made of something...be that energy or matter it *must* be made of something. Everything is made of something (except subatomic particles which, as far as we know, are the smallest you can get and the building blocks of everything). This doesnt mean that god must be physical, indeed it depends how you describe physical.. Does it mean you can see him through a telescope? Touch him? etc...It doesnt need to.

 

If the multiverse theory is true then he can be in another verse but still be physical. If it is not true then he could be made of some energy or matter that we dont know of yet, or may never know of. I am a scientific person with spiritual beliefs and as such i believe in energies and the afterlife but i also understand that even spiritual and metaphysical "stuff" must be made of the same stuff that exists in this, or another, universe as the universe (or the omniverse if we are talking about multiple universes) contains EVERYTHING. Gods, spirits, entities, energies *everything* regardless of whether we can detect it or not.

 

[5]hence IMHO the big bang would need to occur before any god could exist. This doesnt rule out a god, it simply means he was created by the universe, as everything is. The ultimate power here isnt a god, it is the universe. Perhaps that is what/who you refer to when you say god, even though you do not know it. Just an idea...

 

[6]However.... with relevance to the rest of that paragraph i would counter that the "eyes" on the disc were not truly eyes, but merely described as eyes. Remember that the bible would have been written long after such events happened, and "it had marks like eyes" can easily turn into "it had eyes" in a short amount of time.

 

[7]The problem with paradoxes is they are like circles... you can enter or exit them at any point, so in the god vs big bang paradox of what came first i can either say that god must have come first because something needed to create the universe, however, i can also counter that the universe appeared thanks to vacuum energy and slowly overtime expanded and created god from energy which we have yet to discover.

 

[8]Remember that thoughts are purely electrical and chemical so in theory a strange mass out in the universe could have the ability to think. This does not make it a conscious being though.

 

[9]Now, the quote above is true... The LHC is currently looking for the higgs boson, among other things. If i am not wrong, this is the particle that gives all others mass. Sort of like gluing a metal ball bearing to a tennis ball which makes it attracted to magnets. Without the higgs particle the "tennis ball" has no mass. It is not affected by ANYTHING. It almost doesnt exist. Such particles stream from the sun constantly, they pass through you, through your clothes and straight through the earth and just blast out the other side like nothing was even there. So this a little bit like energy (and incidentally spirits or ghosts.. If they have no mass they cannot be detected. We only know these particles exist because about 0.0000001% react with heavy water deep underground in monitoring stations.

[1] I read that article before replying with my previous post—not to say that i have overcome the battle of the definitions.

 

[2] I am not sure where you got that from my statement, but i don't necessarily agree with potential and kinetic energy. But, unless i'm mistaken, science does allow for the transfer of energy and that your statement touches upon E=mc².

 

[3] Well, i'm no longer assuming that energy and particles are the same thing, but i would still say that light or heat takes up space. And it appears that i don't have to answer your questions in order to confuse you.

 

[4] I'm not sure how i would define metaphysical and physical to where they contradict each other, so i am currently mostly relying on the reader to be able to at least acknowledge that they deal with and mean two different things.

 

[5] While some people may declare creation to be a god, i find that to be illogical. Therefore i would not be willing to believe in a god that can be created or put to death. Likewise, i cannot believe in something that causes its own existence—which would be the big bang in this case—unless it was caused by some other source, for then it would not have caused its own existence.

 

[6] While it may be possible for those eyes to be merely something that looked like eyes but weren't, if it was exactly how Ezekiel described it, then there would be a couple of ways that determine without a doubt that these things were eyes as like the eyes of an animal. For one, real eyes blink, and two, real eyes move around. But i'm pretty sure he could distinguish a pair of eyes (though it was more than two) when he sees one. And it is not proper to say that the Bible was written some time after, since the Bible is only a collection of books, letters, poems, et cetera, that were sought to be preserved. Plus, the author of the Book of Ezekiel speaks in first person, and, if i remember correctly, he writes about being told to write down certain things, at least the measurements of a certain place.

 

[7] I can't say that the vacuum energy theory you suggest avoids the paradox. In the case of God, God is conscious, therefore allowing for the ability to act on His own. But a vacuum or energy or vacuum energy? Neither have a conscious. You would have to explain how such a thing can do anything when there are no conditions that allow for a response from these things.

 

[8] But that implies that there is a physical force behind every physical force. For what causes these electrical and chemical reactions? You are suggesting matter over mind, rather than mind over matter, which implies lack of free will. You should see the infinite regression when you try to answer what is the cause of those electrical and chemical reactions.

 

[9] So what you are saying is that this Higgs boson particle is so small that it passes through the gaps of every other form of matter?

[shadowx 0]

Neither have a conscious. You would have to explain how such a thing can do anything when there are no conditions that allow for a response from these things.

Does something need a conscious to be able to create? Pure energy that turns into matter and expands to form planets etc... does not need a conscious mind or be guided by one. It simply is the way the universe works. There are some things that cannot be divided further into explanations. For example the fact that quantum entanglement occurs (two particles when passed close under certain conditions become entwined. If you do something to one, eg change its spin, the other immediately and instantaneously over any distance through any obstacles, will spin the opposite direction.) we cannot explain that and i dont think there is an explanation so we must just accept that it happens and that's how the world is. The same goes for the creation of energy and matter. IMHO we can just accept that it happens and that's how the quantum world works. There is no reason for these actions, it just happens. According to the human mind this is impossible. Everything has a root cause or reason. However this does not mean that the universe works this way, only that our understanding is flawed and limited. This is, i believe, the reason for a god which is said to have started the big bang and/or made the universe from nothing. He replaces the "it just happens, that's how it works" with a more understandable and comfortable explanation.

[9] So what you are saying is that this Higgs boson particle is so small that it passes through the gaps of every other form of matter?

Not necessarily the higgs particle, i meant others known sometimes as Weak Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) of which neutrinos are a member. These are formed in the sun and every star. Billions upon billions a second and stream in all directions. In abandoned mine shafts that go perhaps kilometres deep, scientists have constructed sensors which consist of a large sphere filled with heavy water from nuclear reactors, and has inner walls studded with very, very sensitive light detectors. Perhaps once a day one of these neutrinos will interact with the heavy water and blast an electron off of one of the atoms due to collision (i think...) this electron gets excited and must return to its "ground state" so if an electron has an energy of 1 then this interaction gives it the energy of 5 but the electron is unstable at this high energy and so must release 4 "energy" units to return to a comfortable, stable state. And it does this by releasing light energy. This is the same way the LEDs work. This light is then detected and they have then detected a neutrino. Now, given the huge amount of neutrinos that hit the earth every second, you could calculate the number that pass through the sensor per day, and i can assure you it is must, much higher than one per day. Hence the rest are travelling straight through the sensor, which is perhaps 1km under solid rock, and then presumably through the earth and out the other side. Almost like an x-ray goes through flesh. I cant be sure how this works, it could simply be that they somehow slip through the space of the atoms but more likely is that they have no mass. This is a hard concept to imagine but basically they almost dont exist. If it was a tennis ball and someone through it at you it would go straight through your hand and you wouldnt feel a thing. It *is* there but yet it isnt.... Almost like a ghost in the traditional sense where it passes through any object. Why some of them do react i cannot answer, perhaps some fluctuation affects their properties. It is interesting though.

The quantum world is literally magical. Particles can pass through any object in their way, they can almost communicate through any object, over any distance with no time lag at all, no medium through which the information passes and yet it *does* pass from one to the other. Particles can just appear and disappear. Electrons do not orbit their nucleus they flash around it, popping into and out of existence rapidly, sometimes not being anywhere other times an atom with one electron could appear to have 10 as this one electron is in *10* places at one moment in time. What the hell is happening there?

There is too much stuff we dont understand and stuff which we have theories about that can easily explain all sorts of things. It can provide a slightly scientific theory for the existence of any god or goddess, of ghosts, magick, prayer... all can be explained by the quantum world. How this world interacts with the macro system i dont know. These properties at the quantum scale do not work in the larger universe. The only seem to work at the tiniest of levels.

[rvalkass 5]

[1] M'ks, the only way i can make sense of this is to assume that energy bears many definitions that can only be determined by context and therefore is not safe to always assume that mass and energy are one in the same but that it is subject to the conditions presented in the discussion. For that reason, since energy is not something that is necessarily physical, i can see why one can declare that energy is eternal, for it appears to relate to at least the concept of energy and not necessarily to any physical entity.

Energy has one definition, rooted in physical meaning: energy describes the amount of work that a force can perform. We often talk of many 'types' of energy for convenience (in the same way we use mass and energy to refer to the same thing) such as chemical potential energy, kinetic energy, etc. but they are all the same thing. I'm not exactly sure how you want to tie energy to a "physical entity", but it is eternal due to the laws of conservation of energy - it is impossible to create or destroy energy.

 

Okay, so energy is "eternal" in that sense. Now i feel it is safe to go back to one of the points i was trying to initially make, that the particles themselves do not last forever?though this time i am not assuming that the particles themselves are energy. From what is mentioned, then, i should be able to safely mention that without something existing that can "make an effort," that is, make use of the "energy that is locked up within," that therefore there would be no such thing as energy, since energy appears to be relative to something already in existence.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you have particles such as protons that decay after a very long period of time, that particular particle is not eternal. However, its mass-energy obviously is, and will remain constant no matter how the particle decays and what it turns in to.

 

[2] So volume need not be an attribute of an object? I always thought the definition of volume was how much space an object takes up. Either way, in my previous post i did mention that the space within the object is not taken up, so i don't understand why you introduced enclosure. It is obvious, though, that an object with more particles in it will take up more space, which implies an increase in volume, at least by definition, but the formula for the volume of the object may show no increase.

In your diagrams you claimed the object shown contained many hollows and empty spaces, which you said should be included in the volume of the object. The reason I introduced the box was to show that a box has a very low volume (just the volume of the pieces of card that make up its sides) while most of the 'volume' people often talk about is actually a volume of air inside the box. This is analogous to the empty spaces in your diagrams, unless I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

How this world interacts with the macro system i dont know. These properties at the quantum scale do not work in the larger universe. The only seem to work at the tiniest of levels.

Quantum effects are present in the macroscopic world, they're just incredibly tiny you don't notice. For example, the smallest possible charge (1.6x10^-19 C) is always present, but is so small compared to the electric requirements of a toaster that you don't tend to notice it The same goes for effects such as the deBroglie wavelength - it applies to you walking through a doorway, but you'd have to walk so incredibly slow that you'd never get there in the whole history of the universe to date.

[nolan 0]

[1] Yes, and in the context of me "arguing" for something's existence, the support is implied to be public. When I'm not "arguing" for something's existence (as I wasn't and have repeatedly stated that I wasn't), that's not the case.

[2] I never said that anything was limited to my examples (hence the use of examples, rather than a definitive list). I believe I said that concrete statements in -general- couldn't be made to definitively support either notion as being the truth, which, no matter how much you might wish to believe otherwise, that's still the case. Saying "well, we're here, aren't we?" isn't a concrete statement for or against creationism/evolution.

[3] Without the crusades, Christianity wouldn't have spread nearly as far as it has, nor would it have spread remotely as fast. They are not the roots, but they did spur its mainstream adoption.

On a separate note, unrelated to anything above or below, I don't give very high regard to statements quoted from the bible. It's been picked through and revised multiple times, and is therefore (to me) useless as a definitive reference. Entire gospels have been burned simply because they had statements that didn't bode well with political parties at the time. It's pretty bad that it's impossible to even find a complete list of individuals who were involved in the Council of Nicaea and who each had their chance at picking through the holy scripture, much less a definitive record of what transpired. One thing's for sure, though: the emperor (Constantine, a pagan) had the last word whenever there were quarrels.

[1] Right, but i never intended for support to be restricted to only public support.
[2] However, it is not limited to your examples. But the point of this topic is not about knowing the whys (i.e. reasonsand i realize that "reasons" can include "how," but a lot of what we know already declares how); it is more of whether or not what we do know leads to either the theory of evolution or creationism.

[3] I don't see how the Crusades are the roots of Christianity.

[truefusion 3]

[1]Does something need a conscious to be able to create? Pure energy that turns into matter and expands to form planets etc... does not need a conscious mind or be guided by one. It simply is the way the universe works. There are some things that cannot be divided further into explanations. For example the fact that quantum entanglement occurs (two particles when passed close under certain conditions become entwined. If you do something to one, eg change its spin, the other immediately and instantaneously over any distance through any obstacles, will spin the opposite direction.) we cannot explain that and i dont think there is an explanation so we must just accept that it happens and that's how the world is. The same goes for the creation of energy and matter. IMHO we can just accept that it happens and that's how the quantum world works. There is no reason for these actions, it just happens. According to the human mind this is impossible. Everything has a root cause or reason. However this does not mean that the universe works this way, only that our understanding is flawed and limited. This is, i believe, the reason for a god which is said to have started the big bang and/or made the universe from nothing. He replaces the "it just happens, that's how it works" with a more understandable and comfortable explanation.

 

[2]The quantum world is literally magical. Particles can pass through any object in their way, they can almost communicate through any object, over any distance with no time lag at all, no medium through which the information passes and yet it *does* pass from one to the other. Particles can just appear and disappear. Electrons do not orbit their nucleus they flash around it, popping into and out of existence rapidly, sometimes not being anywhere other times an atom with one electron could appear to have 10 as this one electron is in *10* places at one moment in time. What the hell is happening there?

[1] Yes, it requires a conscious if it is not guided. You say energy into matter is how the universe works; however, that is to say that it is guided, since i doubt you'd argue that the "laws of physics" are broken and are never in use. The fact that things happen is because they were set in motion, even if they weren't "pushed" per se; if they were never in motion and if they had no conscious, they would never do anything.

 

[2] Though i should probably ask rvalkass, would you happen to know what is the fastest motion a particle can move at before our technology appears to become inaccurate? I know i did not ask that properly, but i have no idea how to ask the question i want to ask, but it runs along the lines of whether or not this disappearing and reappearing act could be due to technological limitations.

 

[1]Energy has one definition, rooted in physical meaning: energy describes the amount of work that a force can perform. We often talk of many 'types' of energy for convenience (in the same way we use mass and energy to refer to the same thing) such as chemical potential energy, kinetic energy, etc. but they are all the same thing. I'm not exactly sure how you want to tie energy to a "physical entity", but it is eternal due to the laws of conservation of energy - it is impossible to create or destroy energy.

 

[2]I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you have particles such as protons that decay after a very long period of time, that particular particle is not eternal. However, its mass-energy obviously is, and will remain constant no matter how the particle decays and what it turns in to.

 

[3]In your diagrams you claimed the object shown contained many hollows and empty spaces, which you said should be included in the volume of the object. The reason I introduced the box was to show that a box has a very low volume (just the volume of the pieces of card that make up its sides) while most of the 'volume' people often talk about is actually a volume of air inside the box. This is analogous to the empty spaces in your diagrams, unless I got the wrong end of the stick?

[1] It is because of that definition, and that definition alone, energy being the amount of work that can be performed, that i can understand it being "eternal," at least in the sense that it implies energy being metaphysical; but as the quotation marks suggest, it is not truly eternal, because that definition allows for the possibility of energy not existing—this by the word "can." The definition energy not being able to be created or destroyed, i cannot see it allowing for the possibility of energy not existing, since it already assumes that energy exists.

 

I should mention that the term "work" in the definition of energy may bear a definition that is counter-intuitive. That is, when i think about work, i think about an object making an effort. For example, if i were to drop a ball to the ground from shoulder height, i wouldn't say that the ball did any work; i would say that i and "gravity" are doing the work. But science may state that the ball falling is "kinetic energy."

 

[2] The definition you provided for mass, in order for mass to remain constant the particles themselves would have to be eternal and never changing. For example, a neutron decaying into a proton, the proton would have less mass. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, it follows that the particles cannot be created—it has to come from things already in existence. I think the problem in understanding, then, may come from ambiguity of the word "system."

 

[3] I think the misunderstanding comes from when i mentioned the purple outline. The purple outline of the spiky object i realize implies that the empty space within the object should be included within the volume. But that is why i showed the third image, inside the object, to counter that implication. It was not my intention to declare that the empty space within the object should be considered as part of the volume of the object.

 

[1] Yes, and in the context of me "arguing" for something's existence, the support is implied to be public. When I'm not "arguing" for something's existence (as I wasn't and have repeatedly stated that I wasn't), that's not the case.

 

[2] I never said that anything was limited to my examples (hence the use of examples, rather than a definitive list). I believe I said that concrete statements in -general- couldn't be made to definitively support either notion as being the truth, which, no matter how much you might wish to believe otherwise, that's still the case. Saying "well, we're here, aren't we?" isn't a concrete statement for or against creationism/evolution.

 

[3] Without the crusades, Christianity wouldn't have spread nearly as far as it has, nor would it have spread remotely as fast. They are not the roots, but they did spur its mainstream adoption.

 

[4]On a separate note, unrelated to anything above or below, I don't give very high regard to statements quoted from the bible. It's been picked through and revised multiple times, and is therefore (to me) useless as a definitive reference. [5]Entire gospels have been burned simply because they had statements that didn't bode well with political parties at the time. [6]It's pretty bad that it's impossible to even find a complete list of individuals who were involved in the Council of Nicaea and who each had their chance at picking through the holy scripture, much less a definitive record of what transpired. One thing's for sure, though: the emperor (Constantine, a pagan) had the last word whenever there were quarrels.

[1] But a belief is a personal conviction, therefore not requiring public promotion.

 

[2] Repetition of and dependence on those examples is, however, part of your argument. Discussions need not be halted or not started because we can't do a certain something. Nevertheless, from the examples you gave, many of them can be addressed.

 

[3] Winning such a battle for land would give it more opportunities to promote Christianity, but acceptance of Christianity is on a personal level. It just so happens to be the case that Christianity is the most accepted position today.

 

[4] List (in quotes) all the times it has been revised and "picked through."

 

[5] If they were burned, you would not know of their existence today without some recorded evidence. However, many of the gospels not found in the New Testament which can be read today (of whatever traces of them we have) are in complete contradiction or is in connection with these contradicting gospels. For example, the Gospel of Thomas links with the Gospel of Mary. The Gospel of Mary contradicts monotheism; the Gospel of Judas also contradicts monotheism; both of which are Gnostic in their nature. I have read multiple gospels not found in the New Testament, and i can safely say that leaving these gospels out was a good decision.

 

[6] The Councils of Nicaea (first, second, and any others) were not a council done to formulate what is to be included in the Bible. Rather, the Bible was already formed.

[nolan 0]

Hi.

 

[1] That was my point from the beginning.

 

[2] I never said discussion should be halted or that it should never have been started. I merely said it was foolish to pretend to know things one does not (beyond belief or self affirmation of any kind). And the examples I gave cannot be definitively addressed, whilst meeting the requirements I mentioned.

 

[3] Yes, it is on a personal level. E.g. when crusaders are telling you to accept something as being true and never to get caught preaching other religions or teaching them to your children or you'll be killed. That helps something spread. Although land and government help, too. Such as, again, a government that won't possibly allow the construction of new places of worship for any religion other than Christianity, or that mandates participation at those worship services. Appearance and availability -alone- have tremendous influence (think advertising), beyond fear itself. I never said Christianity is evil, but the history of nearly any religion stretches through long periods of violence for the sake of conversion.

 

[4] I'm not writing an essay, nor do I feel the need to validate anything that can be just as easily confirmed by the reader. If one wants to learn more about any doctrine or faith, the resources are available for them to do so. If I do research for someone else, I'm getting paid for it.

 

(That being said, using the top two Google results from a quick search: BBC News "The Rival to the Bible" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm] and a random Yahoo Answers question [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227061633AAybnTS].)

 

[5] You could say the same thing about the collections at the library of Alexandria, but it still wouldn't be true. You can quite easily know of something being destroyed but not know what was destroyed or have explicit documentation of the act. The entire point is in wondering what -was- destroyed, as well as the motives behind destroying it.

 

Not only that, but something doesn't have to be destroyed to have its scholarly value removed. Errors in translation, recall, or mere copying defects can accomplish the same end. All of that is regardless to me, however (and I did mention this was all my own view). If the settling of any scriptural matter is facilitated by one who doesn't even follow that religion, the process is naturally suspect in my mind.

 

[6] I never said formulate. I did say pick through, however.

 

[1] But a belief is a personal conviction, therefore not requiring public promotion.

 

[2] Repetition of and dependence on those examples is, however, part of your argument. Discussions need not be halted or not started because we can't do a certain something. Nevertheless, from the examples you gave, many of them can be addressed.

 

[3] Winning such a battle for land would give it more opportunities to promote Christianity, but acceptance of Christianity is on a personal level. It just so happens to be the case that Christianity is the most accepted position today.

 

[4] List (in quotes) all the times it has been revised and "picked through."

 

[5] If they were burned, you would not know of their existence today without some recorded evidence. However, many of the gospels not found in the New Testament which can be read today (of whatever traces of them we have) are in complete contradiction or is in connection with these contradicting gospels. For example, the Gospel of Thomas links with the Gospel of Mary. The Gospel of Mary contradicts monotheism; the Gospel of Judas also contradicts monotheism; both of which are Gnostic in their nature. I have read multiple gospels not found in the New Testament, and i can safely say that leaving these gospels out was a good decision.

 

[6] The Councils of Nicaea (first, second, and any others) were not a council done to formulate what is to be included in the Bible. Rather, the Bible was already formed.

Edited December 20, 2009 by nolan (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

[1] That was my point from the beginning.

 

[2]And the examples I gave cannot be definitively addressed, whilst meeting the requirements I mentioned.

 

[3] Yes, it is on a personal level. E.g. when crusaders are telling you to accept something as being true and never to get caught preaching other religions or teaching them to your children or you'll be killed. I never said Christianity is evil, but the history of nearly any religion stretches through long periods of violence for the sake of conversion.

 

[4] I'm not writing an essay, nor do I feel the need to validate anything that can be just as easily confirmed by the reader. If one wants to learn more about any doctrine or faith, the resources are available for them to do so. If I do research for someone else, I'm getting paid for it.

 

(That being said, using the top two Google results from a quick search: BBC News "The Rival to the Bible" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm] and a random Yahoo Answers question [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227061633AAybnTS].)

 

[5] Not only that, but something doesn't have to be destroyed to have its scholarly value removed. Errors in translation, recall, or mere copying defects can accomplish the same end.

 

[6] I never said formulate. I did say pick through, however.

[1] Belief does not necessarily imply lack of evidence, or else i cannot say that you (plural) believe in it, for some outside influence had to have convinced you (plural) of the truth of a matter—whether or not this outside influence is or bears concrete evidence.

 

[2] It can be concluded that God is conscious, capable of thought, acting, and is powerful, just like i have been so doing within this topic. I can't remember the other examples you talked about (though i could take the time to go back).

 

[3] Yes, it is easy to claim that Christianity (or any religion) is founded upon or spread due to the rhetoric "believe or be killed," but i cannot say it is easy to claim such a thing because of any evidence that has been provided. Certainly such a position would help spread Christianity if people gave into fear, and, certainly, war will always contain violence, but what research i have done on the Crusades has not suggested anything concerning "believe or be killed." One of the reasons why i ask for evidence is due to the fact that telling others to go do the research themselves does not necessarily yield the same evidence or conclusions as was mentioned by the one with the claim. Therefore pointing out an objective source is preferred or required.

 

[4] By "in quotes" i did not mean quotation marks—i realized only some time after posting the ambiguity of that phrase, as it is usually common knowledge here at the forums on what is meant by "in quotes." I asked you to list them, but since the rules do not allow generic, extensive lists to be listed outside of the quote bbcode (you did imply that your evidence was enough to be convincing), i advised in advance for you to put them within quotes (i.e. quote bbcode), since a previous time you quoted me you didn't use quote bbcode, implying that you did not fully read the rules. But it turns out your list isn't significant enough for the rules to apply.

 

While you may believe it to not be the case, the burden of proof is on you to show deliberate textual alterations or modifications. If you do not seek to back up your claims or assertions, then i cannot say that any actual fact was stated by you. My intention in requesting for the evidence that has apparently convinced you was to verify whether or not you are taking something small and making it something big. The burden of proof need not be placed, nor the work of digging out the evidence, on the reader; it is not work required of the reader.

 

As for the two pages you provide (which from your post sounds like not the actual list that has convinced you personally): The Yahoo! Answers one, out of all of the responses given, the only one that gave something i can trace back to is the one chosen by the asker; others basically say something similar to what you have been saying, which is really not evidence for anything. Number 1 is irrelevant for deliberate alteration, as it concerns translations and not the manuscripts that these translations are based on. Number 2 i can't really conclude deliberate alteration due to Revelation 7:4. Number 3, concerning 1 John 5:7, that can only be said concerning some manuscripts that were written after the 13th century (not for anything before the 14th century); for the ending of Mark 16, the Gospel of Matthew and Luke mention the same thing, and it cannot be said that Matthew and Luke took from Mark here due to the dates, so it cannot be said that it should lose credibility. For number 4 no verse is provided but it appears to be Luke 2:7, but the Greek in question is "kataluma" (Strongs 2646) and this word can be rendered as "inn," "guest room," et cetera—so it does exist; and if i misunderstood the person, well, i have no way of knowing. Number 5 is irrelevant for the same reason as number 1.

 

Concerning the BBC news article, i am not surprised that they would mention Bart Ehrman, since i have noticed (from past instances) that the BBC isn't a good source for objective theology. But i have not read the Shepard of Hermas to see if it was proper to exclude it, and i have only read the first chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas (note, not the Gospel of Barnabas, which i have read, which cannot be attributed to Barnabas in any way, in case anyone thinks both writings are the same). However, many of the translations today of the Biblical texts do not rely on one source or manuscript. Yes, the Codex Sinaiticus is helpful, but other sources deal with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, references found in the writings of the early church fathers, fragments of manuscripts (normally referenced by a combination of a letter and a number, for example, P52), et cetera. And what little textual variation can be found normally deals with one or a few of words, which one may have to consider the style of writing to get an accurate reading or if such textual variations illustrate false information if placed in or left out, not pages worth of textual variation that could indeed be considered significant. If it were pages worth, i cannot say that it would have gotten as far as it has today. Therefore Biblical credibility can in no way be wholly lost, for that would be hasty generalization. But i find it odd to say that the Codex Sinaiticus challenges today's Bible, as either collection of writings would have relied on similar—if not the very same—sources.

 

[5] I would argue that the only parts that would lose credibility would be the parts that are shown to be inaccurate, not the entire work itself.

 

[6] Both lead to the same matter—merely paraphrased.

[nolan 0]

[1] I think you might have gotten off track with regards to what this point was referring to. Looking at the original posts, this response doesn't make sense to me. My original point was in saying that I do not have to argue the position of evolution to believe in it, which I stick to. [2] It can't be definitively concluded that God exists, much less the other things you've mentioned. They make sense if that is what you choose to believe, just as it could make sense to someone else that this universe is some demigod's science project (and if it doesn't make sense, firm followers will always find a way to give it sense). As I said, if God's existence alone could be definitively proven, there wouldn't be much of a debate. As it stands, however, it's open to interpretation. [3] Anyone can choose not to believe anything they want. There are those who say the Holocaust and moon landings never happened. It's a right that they have. Unfortunately, it is highly disrespectful to those who lost their lives during tragic events such as crusades or the Holocaust. If it were I who wished to research these events, I would probably start with a Google search along the lines of "christian crusade violence" and then thumb through the natural garbage that would appear. Even the Wikipedia page references a couple of the larger episodes of violence witnessed during these periods (http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/). [4] Again, I'm not going to list anything that can be just as easily researched by the reader. If a reader does not feel they should perform their own research, so be it. I do not have to validate through references, nor anything other, a personal view that I hold, nor will I. I believe it is wise for individuals to look outside of their firmly held beliefs in order to obtain new knowledge, but I understand this is not always their desire, and I would never steer them to that end. [5] It's a subjective topic, but correct, inaccuracies are not credible. Other things can make a resource lose its credibility, as well, however. Lack of attribution, undocumented alterations, copying defects that can alter the meaning of a work (in both the large and narrow senses), etc. It is for these reasons, as an example, that most universities do not accept the use of Wikipedia as a scholarly resource, regardless of whether or not it can claim 99% accuracy, etc. On an unrelated note, I hope that everyone following this thread, regardless of faith, has a happy Christmas holiday.

[1] Belief does not necessarily imply lack of evidence, or else i cannot say that you (plural) believe in it, for some outside influence had to have convinced you (plural) of the truth of a matter�whether or not this outside influence is or bears concrete evidence. [2] It can be concluded that God is conscious, capable of thought, acting, and is powerful, just like i have been so doing within this topic. I can't remember the other examples you talked about (though i could take the time to go back). [3] Yes, it is easy to claim that Christianity (or any religion) is founded upon or spread due to the rhetoric "believe or be killed," but i cannot say it is easy to claim such a thing because of any evidence that has been provided. Certainly such a position would help spread Christianity if people gave into fear, and, certainly, war will always contain violence, but what research i have done on the Crusades has not suggested anything concerning "believe or be killed." One of the reasons why i ask for evidence is due to the fact that telling others to go do the research themselves does not necessarily yield the same evidence or conclusions as was mentioned by the one with the claim. Therefore pointing out an objective source is preferred or required. [4] By "in quotes" i did not mean quotation marks�i realized only some time after posting the ambiguity of that phrase, as it is usually common knowledge here at the forums on what is meant by "in quotes." I asked you to list them, but since the rules do not allow generic, extensive lists to be listed outside of the quote bbcode (you did imply that your evidence was enough to be convincing), i advised in advance for you to put them within quotes (i.e. quote bbcode), since a previous time you quoted me you didn't use quote bbcode, implying that you did not fully read the rules. But it turns out your list isn't significant enough for the rules to apply. While you may believe it to not be the case, the burden of proof is on you to show deliberate textual alterations or modifications. If you do not seek to back up your claims or assertions, then i cannot say that any actual fact was stated by you. My intention in requesting for the evidence that has apparently convinced you was to verify whether or not you are taking something small and making it something big. The burden of proof need not be placed, nor the work of digging out the evidence, on the reader; it is not work required of the reader. As for the two pages you provide (which from your post sounds like not the actual list that has convinced you personally): The Yahoo! Answers one, out of all of the responses given, the only one that gave something i can trace back to is the one chosen by the asker; others basically say something similar to what you have been saying, which is really not evidence for anything. Number 1 is irrelevant for deliberate alteration, as it concerns translations and not the manuscripts that these translations are based on. Number 2 i can't really conclude deliberate alteration due to Revelation 7:4. Number 3, concerning 1 John 5:7, that can only be said concerning some manuscripts that were written after the 13th century (not for anything before the 14th century); for the ending of Mark 16, the Gospel of Matthew and Luke mention the same thing, and it cannot be said that Matthew and Luke took from Mark here due to the dates, so it cannot be said that it should lose credibility. For number 4 no verse is provided but it appears to be Luke 2:7, but the Greek in question is "kataluma" (Strongs 2646) and this word can be rendered as "inn," "guest room," et cetera�so it does exist; and if i misunderstood the person, well, i have no way of knowing. Number 5 is irrelevant for the same reason as number 1. Concerning the BBC news article, i am not surprised that they would mention Bart Ehrman, since i have noticed (from past instances) that the BBC isn't a good source for objective theology. But i have not read the Shepard of Hermas to see if it was proper to exclude it, and i have only read the first chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas (note, not the Gospel of Barnabas, which i have read, which cannot be attributed to Barnabas in any way, in case anyone thinks both writings are the same). However, many of the translations today of the Biblical texts do not rely on one source or manuscript. Yes, the Codex Sinaiticus is helpful, but other sources deal with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, references found in the writings of the early church fathers, fragments of manuscripts (normally referenced by a combination of a letter and a number, for example, P52), et cetera. And what little textual variation can be found normally deals with one or a few of words, which one may have to consider the style of writing to get an accurate reading or if such textual variations illustrate false information if placed in or left out, not pages worth of textual variation that could indeed be considered significant. If it were pages worth, i cannot say that it would have gotten as far as it has today. Therefore Biblical credibility can in no way be wholly lost, for that would be hasty generalization. But i find it odd to say that the Codex Sinaiticus challenges today's Bible, as either collection of writings would have relied on similar�if not the very same�sources. [5] I would argue that the only parts that would lose credibility would be the parts that are shown to be inaccurate, not the entire work itself. [6] Both lead to the same matter�merely paraphrased.

[Baniboy 3]

Wow, from biology to nuclear physics and quantum mechanics! Bravo! Now I'm getting back to the topic itself.The theory of evolution suggests that species evolve over generations and the outcome is guided by natural selection.Here you can see how I prove evolution to be true under one minute:DNA mutates over generations, do you agree?If the output isn't an efficient one to survive in the environment, the individual is more likely to die than other individuals representing the same population. DO YOU AGREE?Then you agree that evolution is true./endAs for evolution versus creationism... the debate is hopeless. One is stating that everything came from nothing and the other one explains the diversity of ecosystems. They don't shut each others out, but really, it seems to me a little unrealistic to choose creationism, which has 0 evidence behind it. That is why I challenge anyone to introduce me to even one piece of evidence that proves the concept of "everything came from nothing". As for metaphysical things, I challenge you to prove that such things exist.As for the energy discussion and all, I guess I came a little too late into the conversation, but I've had something to say about it too. too long, didn't read

[truefusion 3]

[1] I think you might have gotten off track with regards to what this point was referring to. Looking at the original posts, this response doesn't make sense to me. My original point was in saying that I do not have to argue the position of evolution to believe in it, which I stick to.

 

[2] It can't be definitively concluded that God exists, much less the other things you've mentioned. They make sense if that is what you choose to believe, just as it could make sense to someone else that this universe is some demigod's science project (and if it doesn't make sense, firm followers will always find a way to give it sense). As I said, if God's existence alone could be definitively proven, there wouldn't be much of a debate. As it stands, however, it's open to interpretation.

 

[3] Anyone can choose not to believe anything they want. There are those who say the Holocaust and moon landings never happened. It's a right that they have. Unfortunately, it is highly disrespectful to those who lost their lives during tragic events such as crusades or the Holocaust. If it were I who wished to research these events, I would probably start with a Google search along the lines of "christian crusade violence" and then thumb through the natural garbage that would appear. Even the Wikipedia page references a couple of the larger episodes of violence witnessed during these periods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades).

[1] My point was that personal conviction (i.e. belief) is an argument with the self, especially if it involves skepticism, even if it isn't explicit.

 

[2] Debates will happen even if anything could be definitely proven. And while i realize the assumption within my argument concerning God's existence, the only thing missing to make it definite is proving that matter isn't eternal.

 

[3] The following statement can be found in Wikipedia:

Thomas Asbridge argues that the Crusade was Pope Urban II's attempt to expand the power of the church, and to reunite the churches of Rome and Constantinople, which had been in schism since 1054. Asbridge, however, provides no evidence from Urban's own writings to bolster this claim, and Urban's four extant letters on crusading certainly do not express such a motive.

[1]DNA mutates over generations, do you agree?

If the output isn't an efficient one to survive in the environment, the individual is more likely to die than other individuals representing the same population. DO YOU AGREE?

 

Then you agree that evolution is true.

/end

 

[2]As for evolution versus creationism... the debate is hopeless. One is stating that everything came from nothing and the other one explains the diversity of ecosystems. They don't shut each others out, but really, it seems to me a little unrealistic to choose creationism, which has 0 evidence behind it. That is why I challenge anyone to introduce me to even one piece of evidence that proves the concept of "everything came from nothing". [3]As for metaphysical things, I challenge you to prove that such things exist.

[1] This argument is too general to conclude the theory of evolution, for even if we did agree, it doesn't follow that everything the theory of evolution suggests happened. Obviously DNA will change, otherwise we would all look the same—would that be creepy to you? "Evolution" is a general term as well; when referencing the theory of evolution, it is best to use the term "theory of evolution."

 

[2] The only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is one claims common ancestry and the other claims individual creation. I have provided a couple of examples in this topic to show similarities—whether or not you read over these examples, however, is beyond me.

 

[3] I'll use your line of reasoning to show this: Deny the existence of space. You can't? Then you agree that metaphysical things exists.

 

For a mature form of reasoning, i normally use the argument that shows mind is over matter (which is normally within the context of whether or not free will exists).

[nolan 0]

If there's "zero" evidence behind creationism, then there's an equal level of evidence for any other philosophy. With any theory that attempts to explain the creation of matter, you always start with something already having existed that can't be explained with certainty. Whether it's God or a big bang, trying to define the origins of either is (a) impossible or ( only suited to lead to further uncertainty. If you choose not to stand behind creationism, then you stand behind a theory that, while it may seem peachy scientifically, fails to address the most important questions, such as "how did thing x begin?"

Some of the most popular scientists who have contributed to modern scientific thought and methods were creationists. Scientific creationists, but creationists, nonetheless. This includes Albert Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and countless others. Surely none of them had proof for creationism either, but they also understood that there were far too many things that humans could never understand. The universe is certainly too complex to be arbitrary. One single living creature is too complex to be arbitrary, and schematics don't derive from nothing. In this sense, the proof is not in some scientific equation, but rather the fact that science has failed to reach beyond a certain threshold.

...really, it seems to me a little unrealistic to choose creationism, which has 0 evidence behind it. That is why I challenge anyone to introduce me to even one piece of evidence that proves the concept of "everything came from nothing".

[1] The context of the alleged support was public, so self-argument is irrelevant.

[2] I mentioned that there wouldn't be "much" of a debate. People will always argue over whatever they want to. (This was part of my point when mentioning the fact that people still argue about whether or not the moon landings or Holocaust ever occurred.) An argument that can be decided definitively with scientific proof, however, would be foolish to be debated, unless there were some concern over the methods of that proof, which would derail from the original argument and create one anew.

[3] I hold action and consequence above any motive. The same article also mentions (among many like statements):

On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east

[1] My point was that personal conviction (i.e. belief) is an argument with the self, especially if it involves skepticism, even if it isn't explicit.
[2] Debates will happen even if anything could be definitely proven. And while i realize the assumption within my argument concerning God's existence, the only thing missing to make it definite is proving that matter isn't eternal.

[3] The following statement can be found in Wikipedia:

[Baniboy 3]

[1] This argument is too general to conclude the theory of evolution, for even if we did agree, it doesn't follow that everything the theory of evolution suggests happened. Obviously DNA will change, otherwise we would all look the samewould that be creepy to you? "Evolution" is a general term as well; when referencing the theory of evolution, it is best to use the term "theory of evolution."

It is? Because the last time I checked the definition of evolution in biology it was the genetic change in a population of organisms over generations. You just didn't like it because you agreed with it and then you wanted to prove to yourself that I can't use that to prove the "theory of evolution". And FYI, when I'm busy I usually assume that people realize I'm talking about the theory of evolution when I'm talking about evolution and biology(+you don't have to pick on my mistakes, I usually correct the ones I see when I look at the submitted post, I didn't have the time to do it this time). Anyway, as I was saying...

[2] The only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is one claims common ancestry and the other claims individual creation. I have provided a couple of examples in this topic to show similaritieswhether or not you read over these examples, however, is beyond me.

Let me repeat, the debate is hopeless. I'm not trying to disprove creationism because it's impossible due to the amazing imagination of the human mind. You can't disprove it by evidence, because the creator is "metaphysical" and "works in mysterious ways". Besides, proving creationism true still doesn't mean that evolution is false, because evolution(aw crap! I forgot it again! ) can be proven in REALITY and with EVIDENCE.

[3] I'll use your line of reasoning to show this: Deny the existence of space. You can't? Then you agree that metaphysical things exists.

You asked for it, now you're gonna get it. Owning the existence of space under one minute:
Space is defined as the boundless distance between particles which has no kinetic energy. By the laws of thermodynamics, possessing no kinetic energy means that it doesn't exist. Besides, space wouldn't exist without energy. "Space" is part of the four-dimensional continuum we call space-time.
Happy now? By your logic, everything that doesn't exist is metaphysical. I have this retarded monkey in my room that makes me damn good cappuccino every morning, it's metaphysical and it exists, you can't disprove its existence by anything because we can't detect metaphysical things.

For a mature form of reasoning, i normally use the argument that shows mind is over matter (which is normally within the context of whether or not free will exists).

Yes, I've bumped into it a few times. But since you can't prove that "mind" is metaphysical...

If there's "zero" evidence behind creationism, then there's an equal level of evidence for any other philosophy. With any theory that attempts to explain the creation of matter, you always start with something already having existed that can't be explained with certainty. Whether it's God or a big bang, trying to define the origins of either is (a) impossible or ( only suited to lead to further uncertainty. If you choose not to stand behind creationism, then you stand behind a theory that, while it may seem peachy scientifically, fails to address the most important questions, such as "how did thing x begin?"

Oh really? So isn't a DNA test + thousands of experiments done by certified scientists and just plain logic evidence for evolution? While there isn't any evidence for things popping into existence out of nothing.
And for the attempting to explain the creation of matter. Evolution doesn't. Accepting the theory of evolution as true doesn't mean that you agree with the big bang theory or even the theory of gravity.
The theory of big bang yet again just tells how it happened, not why it happened. It seems to me that you want an all-in-one explanation to give peace to your mind instead of actually trying to find it out through evidence. The theory of big bang doesn't suggest that energy came from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing(or is it just the limitation of my intelligence?). This suggests that whatever energy is or is made from, is eternal. Or there is some other explanation. Whatever it is, we don't discover it by reading science fiction and fantasy. It all depends, if you accept that there must be a beginning for everything,or do you accept that we just don't have enough information about the subject to draw a conclusion.

Some of the most popular scientists who have contributed to modern scientific thought and methods were creationists. Scientific creationists, but creationists, nonetheless. This includes Albert Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and countless others. Surely none of them had proof for creationism either, but they also understood that there were far too many things that humans could never understand. The universe is certainly too complex to be arbitrary. One single living creature is too complex to be arbitrary, and schematics don't derive from nothing. In this sense, the proof is not in some scientific equation, but rather the fact that science has failed to reach beyond a certain threshold.

False analogy. Most of the people believed that the earth was flat. It didn't make it flat, now did it? BTW, Einstein and Darwin weren't creationists, FYI. You've read too much of creationist quote-mining. Even if they were creationists, it wouldn't freaking matter at all. Because they didn't have the resources of evidence and information we have today. And telling that things are impossible to understand because we don't have an explanation now is kinda dumb. And stop with the complexity argument, it's so dumb and old that I don't even try to reply to it anymore. Instead, try finding the answer yourself.

[nolan 0]

[1] A correction to your line of thinking: evidence for evolution is not evidence against creationism. As you yourself have mentioned, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I firmly believe in evolution, as well. As for evidence of a "thing popping into existence out of nothing", the question of how the big bang came into existence is still unanswered, and no definitive (provable, if you will) answer exists for the origin of matter in any contending theories.

[2] I've already mentioned that evolution doesn't explain the creation of matter. I do not want an all-in-one explanation, nor did I ever imply such: doing so would imply narrowing the possibilities, whereas considering creationism possible (and even likely) serves to expand the array of possibilities. (It is the opposite line of thinking that is constricting.) As for your other point about "nothing" coming from "nothing", I'm not sure you have a grasp on what "nothing" is. If what you mean by "nothing" is lack of material structures of any form, you have no proof that such a concept exists or ever has, so yes, it is a limit on human intelligence (not just your own).

[3] Au contraire, mon ami. Einstein and Darwin were both scientific creationists (new term, old meaning). You don't have to believe me (nor do I expect you to), but if you read a halfway decent biography about either (preferably including personal letters), I'm certain you'd realize as much. I assume you have not done so.

I'm not sure what "quote-mining" is, nor do I particularly care. As I've mentioned, you can read their correspondences for yourself and uncover your own interpretation of them (in context). As for the complexity argument that I've mentioned, it's no more than a paraphrased version of one made by Newton years ago. If it strikes you as "dumb", maybe that's more a reflection of your own views than of the matter at hand.

Finally, as for some concepts being impossible to understand: it takes a certain level of humility to accept this notion. That being said, I don't expect it to come natural (or even possible) to some.

1. Oh really? So isn't a DNA test + thousands of experiments done by certified scientists and just plain logic evidence for evolution? While there isn't any evidence for things popping into existence out of nothing.
2. And for the attempting to explain the creation of matter. Evolution doesn't. Accepting the theory of evolution as true doesn't mean that you agree with the big bang theory or even the theory of gravity.
The theory of big bang yet again just tells how it happened, not why it happened. It seems to me that you want an all-in-one explanation to give peace to your mind instead of actually trying to find it out through evidence. The theory of big bang doesn't suggest that energy came from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing(or is it just the limitation of my intelligence?). This suggests that whatever energy is or is made from, is eternal. Or there is some other explanation. Whatever it is, we don't discover it by reading science fiction and fantasy. It all depends, if you accept that there must be a beginning for everything,or do you accept that we just don't have enough information about the subject to draw a conclusion.

3. False analogy. Most of the people believed that the earth was flat. It didn't make it flat, now did it? BTW, Einstein and Darwin weren't creationists, FYI. You've read too much of creationist quote-mining. Even if they were creationists, it wouldn't freaking matter at all. Because they didn't have the resources of evidence and information we have today. And telling that things are impossible to understand because we don't have an explanation now is kinda dumb. And stop with the complexity argument, it's so dumb and old that I don't even try to reply to it anymore. Instead, try finding the answer yourself.

[Baniboy 3]

[1] & [2]

I'm not trying to disprove creationism with evidence for evolution. I'm disproving creationism with simple logic that suggests that things can't pop into existence. You're messing with two different theories here, keep them separate. I wasn't attacking the "biology" in creationism, but quantum mechanics.Do you just have to repeat what I have already said or is this about the CENTs? Because as I already said, evolution doesn't explain the origin of matter, big bang doesn't... AHHHH! I'm totally wasting my time here. The theories of Big Bang and Evolution DON'T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF ENERGY. All they do is combine the facts and give you an explanation. Now, please don't make me repeat that again, will ya. One more time and I'll freaking explode, people just don't seem to get what these particular scientific theories are for. It's like saying that the theory of general relativity doesn't give the answer to the origin of matter. Stop with this argument because I'll just ignore it from now on if you don't bring anything new to that argument.

As for Einstein and Darwin, even if they did, it wouldn't matter. You're saying that because these men believed that way, it's correct or not correct.
You're doing the "popularity fallacy"-trick, might work on some rednecks, but you'll be disqualified instantly in any proper academic debate.

Don't make assumptions like "everything needs a beginning". As that assumption can be enough to keep people from debating with you when you have hidden assumptions, or in this case not so hidden. Everything needs a beginning would result in an endless cycle of beginnings. And let's not start assuming things about existence itself, because that is one thing I don't think we can ever understand. We have to be outside the system to monitor the things happening in the system itself. We can't get outside existence to monitor existence in the universe itself.

[truefusion 3]

[1] The context of the alleged support was public, so self-argument is irrelevant.

 

[2] I hold action and consequence above any motive. The same article also mentions (among many like statements):

[1] Your statement here says "personally." Context shows it is on a personal level, therefore my self-argument is relevant.

 

[2] I do not deny the things common of war (like killing, siege, et cetera); what i said was mentioned to show that there is no historical evidence that the violence was for the sake of conversion (as you mentioned here).

 

On a whole other note, you, again, didn't surround the material copied from an external source (in this case Wikipedia) within quote bbcode. Final verbal warning: Read number 8, look over the bbcode list on what is available and their usage.

 

[1] It is? Because the last time I checked the definition of evolution in biology it was the genetic change in a population of organisms over generations. You just didn't like it because you agreed with it and then you wanted to prove to yourself that I can't use that to prove the "theory of evolution". And FYI, when I'm busy I usually assume that people realize I'm talking about the theory of evolution when I'm talking about evolution and biology(+you don't have to pick on my mistakes, I usually correct the ones I see when I look at the submitted post, I didn't have the time to do it this time). Anyway, as I was saying...

 

[2] Let me repeat, the debate is hopeless. I'm not trying to disprove creationism because it's impossible due to the amazing imagination of the human mind. You can't disprove it by evidence, because the creator is "metaphysical" and "works in mysterious ways". Besides, proving creationism true still doesn't mean that evolution is false, because evolution(aw crap! I forgot it again! ) can be proven in REALITY and with EVIDENCE.

 

 

[3] You asked for it, now you're gonna get it.

Owning the existence of space under one minute:

[3.1] Space is defined as the boundless distance between particles which has no kinetic energy. By the laws of thermodynamics, possessing no kinetic energy means that it doesn't exist. Besides, space wouldn't exist without energy. "Space" is part of the four-dimensional continuum we call space-time.

Happy now? By your logic, everything that doesn't exist is metaphysical. I have this retarded monkey in my room that makes me damn good cappuccino every morning, it's metaphysical and it exists, you can't disprove its existence by anything because we can't detect metaphysical things.

 

 

[4] Yes, I've bumped into it a few times. But since you can't prove that "mind" is metaphysical...

[1] Definition in biology: hence why i said it is better to state the "theory of evolution," since "evolution" is "change over time," which encompasses more than the theory of evolution. I can answer "yes" to every one of those question you provided, but since "evolution" encompasses more than the theory of evolution, it does not follow that i believe the theory of evolution is true, especially since your questions only touch on the possibilities of things, not things that have actually occurred. Since your questions do not entail that these things actually did occur, i can wholly agree while still denying the theory of evolution.

 

[2] I've already told you the differences, you merely have to show which one is the case. The "can't prove a negative" mentality that is implied here will always be impractical, regardless of context. Proving one denies the other, since they are mutually exclusive at their core (in about every other area they are mutual). If one proves creationism, then it does prove evolution false, for as mentioned before, they are mutually exclusive at their core. Likewise, all evidence is interpreted. This means that proving creationism forces people to look at the evidence in a different light. But "in REALITY:" are not arguments for God or creationism said in reality?

 

And this evidence you speak of, you mean those little mutations that have yet to amount to anything to the extent of the theory of evolution as a whole? And from what i've been seeing in medical journals has been totally unbeneficial to the species, for why else would there be medicine and the like to fight things off? Natural selection? From what is observable, the species (not just humans) should have died a long time ago.

 

[3]

 

[3.1] My logic? I've already previously mentioned i was using your form of reasoning. So what do i have now? I have a closer look on the reasons why you believe metaphysical things do not exist. From what i can gather, you are limiting "existence" to only physical things, while providing no justification for such an assumption (presupposition). While i've never seen the "laws of thermodynamics" state that anything without kinetic energy does not exist (since that would be impractical), kinetic energy is energy in "motion." That means if it is not in motion, then there is no kinetic energy. That means anything, whether physical or metaphysical, would not therefore exist without kinetic energy.

 

But while we humans use words to reference things, even if they are ideas, it does not mean that because they are metaphysical that they don't exist. Granted, our minds normally cannot fully understand infinite things, especially since a lot of our words place limitations on these infinite things, though it is illogical to do so. You can't say "without space," because space is a void, and it is infinite: space - space = space. You can "take up" space, but you'll still be left with an infinite amount of space, even if you can't use the "remaining portion" (be it because of lack of oxygen or what-have-you). Because you can "take up" space, we know this void exists, for how else would you be able to "take up" space?

 

Metaphysical things, however, need not be limited to space alone; for, indeed, space isn't the only metaphysical thing.

 

[4] By quoting the word "mind," you are implying acknowledgment of its metaphysical nature. But my argument for its metaphysical nature is a process of elimination, so you'll have to explain what you mean or intend with the word "prove."