Ben Stein Stumps Richard Dawkins.

[DriftingSand]

Time is a perceived construct from our frame of reference. Both the Bible and scientific research reflect this.

edthecynic says that energy and matter are both eternal but that time has a specific beginning. That makes absolutely ZERO sense so I've been asking him how he can reach that conclusion.

Actually it makes perfect sense if you understand that time only exists in terms of motion. What makes ZERO sense is virgin birth.

How do you know that energy wasn't in "motion" before your "big bang?" Any evidence?

 

[edthecynic]

edthecynic says that energy and matter are both eternal but that time has a specific beginning. That makes absolutely ZERO sense so I've been asking him how he can reach that conclusion.

Actually it makes perfect sense if you understand that time only exists in terms of motion. What makes ZERO sense is virgin birth.

How do you know that energy wasn't in "motion" before your "big bang?" Any evidence?

Not yet. It is still theoretical. One of the 3 possible outcomes for the universe. One, the heat death that the earlier Creationist video posited and already disproved. Two, the universe expands forever, and three, the Big Crunch.

 

[DriftingSand]

Actually it makes perfect sense if you understand that time only exists in terms of motion. What makes ZERO sense is virgin birth.

How do you know that energy wasn't in "motion" before your "big bang?" Any evidence?

Not yet. It is still theoretical. One of the 3 possible outcomes for the universe. One, the heat death that the earlier Creationist video posited and already disproved. Two, the universe expands forever, and three, the Big Crunch.

I appreciate your honesty.

Would you agree that much of your worldview (in regards to origins & beginnings) is based on personal belief rather than actual fact? As we've seen, several highly intelligent atheists have come to a belief in intelligent design as a result of the scientific data currently available. Regardless, you have to admit that at least some of what you believe requires faith.

 

[edthecynic]

How do you know that energy wasn't in "motion" before your "big bang?" Any evidence?

Not yet. It is still theoretical. One of the 3 possible outcomes for the universe. One, the heat death that the earlier Creationist video posited and already disproved. Two, the universe expands forever, and three, the Big Crunch.

I appreciate your honesty.

Would you agree that much of your worldview (in regards to origins & beginnings) is based on personal belief rather than actual fact? As we've seen, several highly intelligent atheists have come to a belief in intelligent design as a result of the scientific data currently available. Regardless, you have to admit that at least some of what you believe requires faith.

No, my world view is based on the available scientific data and the theories based on that data. When more data becomes available as we improve our instruments that measure the data, theories are either eliminated or supported or new theories emerge. I am not locked into any one theory by faith, I only have "faith" that the data will eventually lead to the truth.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Geezzzz, the fireman does not go into the house with the specific purpose of dieing. And it is not the sacrificial victim who is morally bankrupt, but the person who agrees to have an innocent punished in their place.

but that is specifically what you claimed.....you said God was morally bankrupt and he WAS the sacrificial victim....

Liar!

????....which are you saying is a lie....that you said God was morally bankrupt or that he was the sacrificial victim?......because both are obviously true......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Damn, you are dense!
energy = matter = energy = matter
they are equal

energy may equal matter in that particular equation if the variable c=1.....that is different from energy being matter....

c is NOT a variable!!!!
c is a constant, and it equals the speed of light.
All the e=mc2 equation means is a small amount of mass equals a very large amount of energy. The fact remains matter and energy are equal.

what is the speed of light before there is time?......186k miles per nothing?.....

 

[edthecynic]

but that is specifically what you claimed.....you said God was morally bankrupt and he WAS the sacrificial victim....

Liar!

????....which are you saying is a lie....that you said God was morally bankrupt or that he was the sacrificial victim?......because both are obviously true......

Liar! Made in the image of God!

 

[thebrucebeat]

edthecynic says that energy and matter are both eternal but that time has a specific beginning. That makes absolutely ZERO sense so I've been asking him how he can reach that conclusion.

Actually it makes perfect sense if you understand that time only exists in terms of motion.

What makes perfect sense is that edthecynic is an ignorant dumbass who don't know what he is talking about.

If you want to question a poster's intelligence it is wise not to use grammar that sounds like a third grade dropout.

 

[DriftingSand]

Not yet. It is still theoretical. One of the 3 possible outcomes for the universe. One, the heat death that the earlier Creationist video posited and already disproved. Two, the universe expands forever, and three, the Big Crunch.

I appreciate your honesty.

Would you agree that much of your worldview (in regards to origins & beginnings) is based on personal belief rather than actual fact? As we've seen, several highly intelligent atheists have come to a belief in intelligent design as a result of the scientific data currently available. Regardless, you have to admit that at least some of what you believe requires faith.

No, my world view is based on the available scientific data and the theories based on that data. When more data becomes available as we improve our instruments that measure the data, theories are either eliminated or supported or new theories emerge. I am not locked into any one theory by faith, I only have "faith" that the data will eventually lead to the truth.

So you don't know but you do know?

 

[asterism]

Religionists prove over and over their gods are of human creation. Religionists assert the various human attributes of their gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- they assert their gods are perfection and then assign to those gods emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some lack or need that is required to be satisfied.

Religionists are the one assigning human attributes to their gods. It's a limit on their nature. Think about it. These gods exist as gods of love and mercy (even though most of them behave in ways that are cruel and vengeful), and religionists shove them into a human timeline and a human paradigm.

Conjecture from emotional opinions is not scientific proof.

You can't prove God is a human creation.

I'm not the one screeching out emotional opinions as to the existence of gods. That is done by religionists.

I'm not the one specifically attributing human emotions to the gods. That was done by the writers of the bibles.

While you do recognize that the postulation of your gods raises paradoxes, you don’t seem to understand that human logic is the only mechanism available to recognize and to address the paradox. Is there a supernatural logic that we can access to address supernatural paradoxes?

The truly pitiable part of the ideological cowardice embraced by religionists is that they require an unsolvable paradox to exist because that relieves you of the burdensome task of taking responsibility for your actions and the world you create. It requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any god who rewards fear over reason is not worthy of worship.

I think you're misinformed of the responsibility my religion places on me. I'm not sure why well-meaning people who happen to believe in God are so offensive to you but you might want to get some help with that.

 

[edthecynic]

I appreciate your honesty.

Would you agree that much of your worldview (in regards to origins & beginnings) is based on personal belief rather than actual fact? As we've seen, several highly intelligent atheists have come to a belief in intelligent design as a result of the scientific data currently available. Regardless, you have to admit that at least some of what you believe requires faith.

No, my world view is based on the available scientific data and the theories based on that data. When more data becomes available as we improve our instruments that measure the data, theories are either eliminated or supported or new theories emerge. I am not locked into any one theory by faith, I only have "faith" that the data will eventually lead to the truth.

So you don't know but you do know?

Yes, I do know what the scientific evidence supports, and ID is not supported.

 

[MaxGrit]

No, my world view is based on the available scientific data and the theories based on that data. When more data becomes available as we improve our instruments that measure the data, theories are either eliminated or supported or new theories emerge. I am not locked into any one theory by faith, I only have "faith" that the data will eventually lead to the truth.

So you don't know but you do know?

Yes, I do know what the scientific evidence supports, and ID is not supported.

Maybe other people will believe your lies, but I can easily tell that your scientific knowledge is severely lacking.

 

[DriftingSand]

No, my world view is based on the available scientific data and the theories based on that data. When more data becomes available as we improve our instruments that measure the data, theories are either eliminated or supported or new theories emerge. I am not locked into any one theory by faith, I only have "faith" that the data will eventually lead to the truth.

So you don't know but you do know?

Yes, I do know what the scientific evidence supports, and ID is not supported.

Scientific evidence supports intricate design. Design requires intelligence. Mistakes and happenstance do not give birth to intricate design. Therefore, the scientific evidence supports design.

 

[DriftingSand]

After a huge explosion what is left? Design or chaos? How many explosions recorded in man's history resulted in fully functional, operational system?

We may a well expect to see a 747 Jet "created" as a result of a tornado rampaging through a junkyard.

 

[Hollie]

So you don't know but you do know?

Yes, I do know what the scientific evidence supports, and ID is not supported.

Scientific evidence supports intricate design. Design requires intelligence. Mistakes and happenstance do not give birth to intricate design. Therefore, the scientific evidence supports design.

That's completely unsupportable and simply false. There is nothing in science that supports supernaturalism or magic as an explanation for anything.

 

[Hollie]

After a huge explosion what is left? Design or chaos? How many explosions recorded in man's history resulted in fully functional, operational system?

We may a well expect to see a 747 Jet "created" as a result of a tornado rampaging through a junkyard.

The above is boilerplate creation ministry nonsense. Your lack of study in science is appalling. Do a search and learn something. The Big Bang was not an "explosion" but a rapid expansion.

 

[DriftingSand]

After a huge explosion what is left? Design or chaos? How many explosions recorded in man's history resulted in fully functional, operational system?

We may a well expect to see a 747 Jet "created" as a result of a tornado rampaging through a junkyard.

The above is boilerplate creation ministry nonsense. Your lack of study in science is appalling. Do a search and learn something. The Big Bang was not an "explosion" but a rapid expansion.

Thank you for your input dear. Now it's time for your nap.

 

[Hollie]

After a huge explosion what is left? Design or chaos? How many explosions recorded in man's history resulted in fully functional, operational system?

We may a well expect to see a 747 Jet "created" as a result of a tornado rampaging through a junkyard.

The above is boilerplate creation ministry nonsense. Your lack of study in science is appalling. Do a search and learn something. The Big Bang was not an "explosion" but a rapid expansion.

Thank you for your input dear. Now it's time for your nap.

Snide comments won't mask your lack of knowledge.

CE441: big bang, explosions, and information

The universe was supposedly formed in the big bang, but explosions do not produce order or information.

Source:Big-Bang-Theory, 2002. Big Bang Theory


Big-Bang-Theory, 2002. Big Bang Theory
Response:

The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang.

The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the big bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion.

Explosions do produce some order amidst their other effects:

Large surface explosions, such as nuclear bombs, produce the familiar mushroom clouds. There are not very highly ordered, but they are not purely random, either.

Supernovae produce heavy elements, and the shock waves from them compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars.
Powerful explosions can compress carbon into diamond crystals, the most ordered arrangement.

Explosions of atomized gasoline produce compressed gas, which is harnessed in internal combustion engines to power automobiles and other equipment.

 

[MaxGrit]

After a huge explosion what is left? Design or chaos? How many explosions recorded in man's history resulted in fully functional, operational system?

We may a well expect to see a 747 Jet "created" as a result of a tornado rampaging through a junkyard.

The above is boilerplate creation ministry nonsense. Your lack of study in science is appalling. Do a search and learn something. The Big Bang was not an "explosion" but a rapid expansion.

Thank you for your input dear. Now it's time for your nap.

Lets be a bit more technical. It's not explosion, expansion, nor any word that ends in -sion.

I need a nap. LoL.

 

[edthecynic]

After a huge explosion what is left? Design or chaos? How many explosions recorded in man's history resulted in fully functional, operational system?

We may a well expect to see a 747 Jet "created" as a result of a tornado rampaging through a junkyard.

I shot down the explosion rationalization presented in your video, and you ran away from it then, it is no more valid now then then.