Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

[JBeukema]

It is so funny, science is not even as sure as you are.

Scientists are

Intellectual has nothing to do with it

So you admit that people like you, del, and rgs are simply dishonest?

Humans were created as humans, and no evolution played role in the process

Demonstrate. yet another baseless assertion form an uneducated creationist who can cite no evidence to support his hypothesis and is unable to refute the evidence presented.

There is created order throughout all of creation,

Prove it

and that was designed by God.

Then you should be able to prove it

No need to argue, neither of us will budge on this issue.

Then you admit that you're a dishonest liar who is mentally retarded, closed minde3d, and incapable of reason. See, we smart people follow the evidence to a conclusion, not the other way around

of course, if there's 'no reason to argue', why did you bother to reply?

 

[Liability]

You fail. I speak of no 'magical precondition', but of the logical implication of space-time coming into being with the Big Bang.

The proper rebuttal actually involves the higher dimensions, and is unfalsifiable through any known means, making quite unscientific, which, combined with the fact that it requires a hypothesis with very little supporting evidence at all, makes it hardly a valid rebuttal at all

Your assertion of "fail" is as meaningless as your opinion in general. The reality is that YOU still fail.

Your PREMISE is that the BIG BANG came into existence without need of any causation. You can sit there and spin like a top, but that remains your premise all the same. According to what clearly IS your magical fantasy beginning, you are THEN (but only then) prepared to adopt the rules/laws of science. But you carefully EVADE those rules with your PREMISE.

You have no ability to scientifically or logically establish the truth value of your major premise; and that's not a personal failing of yours alone -- it just is what it is.

Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend that you ARE wrong. It is possible that you got it right, somehow. But you are utterly without ANY ability to prove that you ARE right by the rules of science or logic.

If someone says, "In the Beginning, God CREATED the Heavens and the Earth," many of your stripe love to "ask" the almost rhetorical question: "well, then, where did God come from?" It isn't a bad question. But you never turn that logic on yourselves all that well.

YOU guys claim, in effect, "in the beginning (i.e., before there was space/time), there was this primoridal stuff which went BANG." And WHERE did that primordial "stuff" come from? YOU guys pretend that the "answer" is that it always existed outside of time and space and only when it went "bang" did time and space come into existence so that "stuff" required no causation.

But somehow you never seem to be able to recognize that your would-be little fantasy "answer" requires the supernatural (i.e., an "explanation" outside and beyond the natural laws of science) every bit as much as a supernatural Creator.

 

[JBeukema]

Your PREMISE is that the BIG BANG came into existence without need of any causation.

Incorrect. Your strawman will not stand here. I have laid out the case that the only logical conclusion is that causation is impossible, and you have yet top refute that conclusion.

You can sit there and spin like a top, but that remains your premise all the same

You are the one who is spinning and desperately seeking a means f looking correct while not actually refuting what I have posted.

. According to what clearly IS your magical fantasy beginning,

Such an assertion as you make is meaningless. You must demonstrate that my reasoning or the initial facts are incorrect.

you are THEN (but only then) prepared to adopt the rules/laws of science. But you carefully EVADE those rules with your PREMISE.

Incorrect. I have followed the laws of physics and causation exactly. until you prove otherwise, all you are doing is evading the matter and offering no meaningful rebuttal.

You have no ability to scientifically or logically establish the truth value of your major premise;

Incorrect. It is established that spacetime as we know it came into being with the Big Bang (that is why spacetime is expanding). Now, if you wish to challenge that point, you must refute all the scientific evidence for that model and then apply for your Nobel prize for disproving all accepted models of the universe.

Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend that you ARE wrong. It is possible that you got it right, somehow. But you are utterly without ANY ability to prove that you ARE right by the rules of science or logic.

blahblahblah... to assert that my logic is flawed is meaningless. You must DEMONSTRATE the flaws in my reasoning.

If someone says, "In the Beginning, God CREATED the Heavens and the Earth," many of your stripe love to "ask" the almost rhetorical question: "well, then, where did God come from?" It isn't a bad question. But you never turn that logic on yourselves all that well.

'you guys'?

It is the religious who insist that anything was created or 'came from' anywhere

YOU guys claim, in effect, "in the beginning (i.e., before there was space/time), there was this primoridal stuff which went BANG." And WHERE did that primordial "stuff" come from?

Actually, there are several models. It could have 'always' been there- against no time as we know it would exist 'before' TBB. It could come from a layer of another universe. It could be the result of vibrating superstrings. TBB happened; you have not been able to refute that. TBBT does not concern itself with anything 'before' TBB or with any 'causation' thereof. You are clearly uninformed, or you would know what TBB does and does not address. You're like those idiots who think 'evolution' includes cosmology and geology

But somehow you never seem to be able to recognize that your would-be little fantasy "answer" requires the supernatural

Incorrect. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'

 

[JBeukema]

For all your personal hatred for science.. you've still offered no refutation

 

[Liability]

For all your personal hatred for science.. you've still offered no refutation

For all your babbling incoherence, you have yet to OFFER anything to be refuted.

I, unlike you, do not hate science. I just don't PRETEND, illogically as you are so wont to do, that it provides "answers" where it simply does not.

You make grandiose silly claims like "I have laid out the case that the only logical conclusion is that causation is impossible, and you have yet top refute that conclusion." Zzz. The truth of course, is that you have done no such thing.

You urgently need to study some formal logic. You (at least at present) suck at it.

 

[JBeukema]

*yawn*

If I 'suck at {logic}', then you would have been able to demonstrate some fallacy in my reasoning. You cannot.

 

[Liability]

*yawn*

If I 'suck at {logic}', then you would have been able to demonstrate some fallacy in my reasoning. You cannot.

Epic FAIL.

As I pointed out already, the problem is with your very premise.

Your PREMISE requires that you view things entirely outside the laws of science and logic. It cannot be addressed in ANY way which depends upon our knowledge of the rules of science or logic.

And you know it.

 

[JBeukema]

My 'premise' is that one follows logically the known laws of the universe

Again, you cannot refute anything. You're just another D.arth Moron

 

[UltraModernist]

About argument that the beginning of chain of existence must be god

Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."

there is a theory that the universe (or first of universes) came into being from the vacuum, then if your god is the 'beginning of chain' then your god is the vacuum (on this ground); but the vacuum can't speak, can't think, can't move etc. so your god is so stupid that even can't think or say even one word

so the god is more stupid than most stupid idiot, isn't it ?

 

[Liability]

My 'premise' is that one follows logically the known laws of the universe

Again, you cannot refute anything. You're just another D.arth Moron

Bullshit, moron. You are so satisfyingly (and predicatably) self-congratulatory, it's fun to watch you constantly step on your own toes.

Your PREMISE is that all matter/energy and space/time itself emanated from a condition that is OUTSIDE of time and space and OUTSIDE the laws of science.

You refuse to admit it because you are a coward and a bit of a liar.

The LAWS of science require that there must be causation, yet your MAJOR premise is predicated on an initial state that is, by definition, OUTSIDE of that law. And you actually think (or pretend to think) that it offers some kind of explanation for all that followed.

 

[JBeukema]

feel free to cite where i said that. Oh wait, i didn't

The LAWS of science require that there must be causation

Demonstrate. We still await an actual refutation or single sign of intelligence on your part

That's your refutation?

 

[Liability]

feel free to cite where i said that. Oh wait, i didn't

It is more than mildly amusing to see that you are so dense that you don't even see what it is you ARE arguing.

Let's make everything nice and simple for you. You will need to proceed slowly. In your case, VERY slowly.

So as to avoid making any of this too hard for you to follow, I am going to make it ONE question at a time. And since I might not be here for a while after any given question, you WILL have to WAIT between questions. IF you can "handle" that, I'll get you started.

WITHOUT REFERENCE TO any period of "time" prior to the formation of planet Earth, do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that it is ONE of the invariable LAWS of science that NOTHING can exist prior to itself?

You may feel free to avoid your usual pontification and deflection.

That IS a simple, direct and easily answerable question which IS susceptible to a straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. So do that. Answer with JUST a "yes" or a "no."

 

[JenT]

LOLOLOLOLOL and I didn't think you were the real liability

WAIT a second...

i know who you are

 

[JBeukema]

WITHOUT REFERENCE TO any period of "time" prior to the formation of planet Earth, do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that it is ONE of the invariable LAWS of science that NOTHING can exist prior to itself?

You may feel free to avoid your usual pontification and deflection.

That IS a simple, direct and easily answerable question which IS susceptible to a straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. So do that. Answer with JUST a "yes" or a "no."

I see what you're trying to do, and it will not work. the laws of physics we know today (including your implication that 'a thing cannot exist prior to itself', which is a meaningless attempt to play words) are not applicable to even the very early stages of the infaltionary period. Therefore your premise is invalid,as you seek to apply your arguer to conditions in which it is not applicable.



Given your obvious ignorance and dishonesty, this is the last response I shall wast on you.

 

[Liability]

WITHOUT REFERENCE TO any period of "time" prior to the formation of planet Earth, do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that it is ONE of the invariable LAWS of science that NOTHING can exist prior to itself?

You may feel free to avoid your usual pontification and deflection.

That IS a simple, direct and easily answerable question which IS susceptible to a straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. So do that. Answer with JUST a "yes" or a "no."

I see what you're trying to do, and it will not work. the laws of physics we know today (including your implication that 'a thing cannot exist prior to itself', which is a meaningless attempt to play words) are not applicable to even the very early stages of the infaltionary period. Therefore your premise is invalid,as you seek to apply your arguer to conditions in which it is not applicable.



Given your obvious ignorance and dishonesty, this is the last response I shall wast on you.

See?

I knew, and now anybody who bothers to read this thread can PLAINLY see, that you are both unable and unwilling to engage in honest debate.

As I said in my previous post, the ANSWER to that very limited and precise question could be accurately and honestly answered with a simple yes or no.

You chose, instead, to dodge, duck, weave and attempt to evade.

You "see" what I'm trying to "do?" Wow. Aren't you clever? Of course you see it. That's exactly WHY you dodged.

You pussy.

 

[JBeukema]

*yawn*

another ad hom, a complete evasion of my refutation of your fallacies in your previous post- still no refutation of my older posts...

why is it that all your d-a-r-t-h dumbasses are so stupid?

 

[hoMohammed]

The laws of physics were invented by my mentor, the great Mohammed, the true and only savior. Creationism, since not endorsed by Islam, can only be false, as is jesus the knobhead.

 

[Liability]

*yawn*

another ad hom, a complete evasion of my refutation of your fallacies in your previous post- still no refutation of my older posts...

why is it that all your d-a-r-t-h dumbasses are so stupid?

Zzzzz.

A galactic asshole, who just finished a glaringly obvious and deliberate evasion, like the pussy he is, talking about "evasion?"

LOL

Sorry, pussy boy. But you have ZERO credibility on this or any other topic as long as you remain such a total quivering pussy.

 

[G.T.]

I'm not a creationist or anything; but in terms of the big bang .....

"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant." --from Wiki under Big Bang but listen: the "initial condition" cannot and will not be explained in anyone's lifetimes here. We can only argue in-terms of human language and knowledge, and in our experiences and observances as humans can anyone show me where "something" .... comes from "nothing?"

No, I'm not religious. Just thinking a bit.

 

[Liability]

I'm not a creationist or anything; but in terms of the big bang .....

"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant." --from Wiki under Big Bang but listen: the "initial condition" cannot and will not be explained in anyone's lifetimes here. We can only argue in-terms of human language and knowledge, and in our experiences and observances as humans can anyone show me where "something" .... comes from "nothing?"

No, I'm not religious. Just thinking a bit.

Very good post (even if it is hampered by any reliance on Wiki!)

Some people (like JBeukema, for example) either believe (or find it necessary to pretend to believe) that an "explanation" that cannot be proved or falsified by logic or science is a sufficient explanation.

You are right. That whole Big Bang theory is -- and always has been -- unable to explain the conditions, or pre-conditions, for the initial event. And that's fine, but it STILL requires a premise that is founded OUTSIDE the laws of known science and logic.