Creationists

[The Irish Ram]

What data supports that it was gradual? What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one. What happened? What was the cause? What caused it into motion?
God created the cosmos. He wasn't trying to solve anything. He was creating.

You can simply say that God is timeless. Science can say that now. They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3 dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave. We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.

Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.

What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.

Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).

Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.

Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider

Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause. But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago? or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning. He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite. I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang. What caused the big to bang?

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.

 

[UltimateReality]

Here is some creepy prophecy from Revelation...

Revelation Chapter 11:

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city —which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

The book of Revelation was written by John sometime between 60 and 95 AD. The method of travel at that time was by horse drawn buggy or boat or walking. If someone read this passage in 60 AD, they would think this verse preposterous. How is someone from every tribe and nation going to "gaze on their [dead] bodies" if they are only laying there for 3 and one half days? The possibility of this prophecy coming true has only materialized in the last 50 years with the advent of the internet and satellite television. How would James even know this would become a REAL possibility 1900 years later?

 

[The Irish Ram]

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

SkyGod did though.
27% of the Bible is prediction. The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one". They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer. I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years. Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel. To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile. Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948. The date of the rebirth of Israel. I could go on and on. Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......

Show me in the bible where it says Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years, and what does captive mean? Israel has been captive many times under many different peoples and religions (the crusades). How are you interpreting this and more important, what are you interpreting from?

Jeremiah 25:11-12 is one.
I have to hit the sack. It's late here, but tomorrow I'll do the math for you up to 1948.
God exiled Israel 3 times. Egypt, Babylon and the worldwide dispersement with no Israel to return to, and then restored them to their land on the exact day He said he would.
Night.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Ultimate, I think you meant John, not James. That prophesy could not come to fruition until the advent of satallites, as well as the prophesy about the gospel being preached in all the earth.
There is debate as to who the 2 prophets will be. Enoch, Moses or Elijah. The Bible states that it is for all men to die once. 2 of those men never experienced death, so I think it will be Enoch and Elijah.
God sends them to witness against the anti-christ and to rise from the dead as a sign that what they were witnessing about is true.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Here's a fact you might ponder: Virtually every single major person who has criticized the Darwinian viewpoint has faced personal attacks on his or her character. It happens to everyone, myself included. So one of two things are true: Either (1) virtually every single critic of Darwinism (of which there are many) is "dishonest" and "deceiving," or (2) evolutionists habitually respond to scientific challenges with personal attacks."

I'll take number 2 for the win.

Personal Attacks Against ID Proponents Say More About the Attackers than the Abused - Evolution News & Views

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?

The answer to your question above is no.

Within the environment of the Christian religion, complexity magically emerges in the form of Adam and Eve. Humanity and terrestrial earth are fully formed, ie: complexity emerges somehow instantaneously.

You’re positing super magical gods perform super magical “creation” in super magical ways. It’s a convenient claim because you excuse your super magical gods from the criteria of reason and rationality that you insist reality must conform to.
It's a simple formula:

"God did it, in a mysterious way, using mysterious methods, for mysterious reasons which I cannot support or prove or demonstrate" = "I invent this stuff as I go along."

In the rational, natural world, we have understandable processes and demonstration of how eons of time have allowed organisms to evolve and how fitness for survival acts to define survivability in niche environments.

The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Hollie]

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
Until then, SkyGod rules.

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

SkyGod did though.
27% of the Bible is prediction. The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one". They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer. I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years. Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel. To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile. Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948. The date of the rebirth of Israel. I could go on and on. Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......

That’s false. As with all these claims to supermagical gods making supermagical predictions, under the glaring light of scrutiny, they fail.

The problem with all the claims to supermagical, fortune telling gods is that we are never given anything narrow and specific. Invariably, the claims require a great deal of creationist imagination and creationist selective interpretation to be believable and then, they’re only believable to those with a need to believe them.

The fact remains that unexplainable things have tended to be explained away by invoking the supernatural / supermagical gods. The list of those unexplained things has shrunk considerably since the time of bibles and fortune telling gods. Not surprisingly, the role of the gods has also shrunk considerably since science, education and literacy has proved natural causes for what was once consider the supermagical / supernatural.

None of the alleged supermagical fortune telling moves the many bibles any closer to being a book of divine nature. One needs only apply critical thinking to come to a reasoned conclusion.

 

[Hollie]

What data supports that it was gradual? What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one. What happened? What was the cause? What caused it into motion?
God created the cosmos. He wasn't trying to solve anything. He was creating.

You can simply say that God is timeless. Science can say that now. They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3 dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave. We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.

Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.

What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.

Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).

Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.

Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider

Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause. But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago? or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning. He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite. I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang. What caused the big to bang?

You’re hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. It’s a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile, dishonest and naïve.

Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...

The Big Bang – My personal favorite.
Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.

As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.

So let's restate the possibilities:
1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) This one is my best bet as mentioned.

2. The universe has always been here.

3. The universe is simply an illusion: it doesn't really exist.

4. The universe came from nothing, supermagically, supernaturally.

Based on what I wrote above, number 1 gets my nod as the most likely based upon possibilities that fit scientific evidence. Number 2 invokes steady-state, which has all but been discarded by the scientific community. Numbers 3 and 4 involve metaphysics / supremagical’ism and supernatural’ism and so is not a topic for modern cosmologists / science. Feel free to debate supremagical’ism and supernatural’ism with anyone other than me, but based on evidence, I can't comment.

So....it really boils down to 1, with numbers 3 and 4 being both metaphysics and a religious claim. The question that would lead us to the correct answer would be "Was the initial singularity natural, or made by the hand of one or more gods". Now – keep in mind that as I understand it, science has generally predicted the “after effects” of a Big Bang using classical physics to what is known as Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang.

Now here is another twist, at least in my mind. What is the difference between the big bang theory, and the oscillating theory? The answer is not much. Current thought is that the amount of "dark matter" in the universe may decide which scenario is the correct one. If there is too little, the universe will continue to expand forever. If there is enough, the mass of the universe will eventually pull the universe back into itself...much like the formation of a black hole. It will continue to contract until it becomes a singularity again. Then boom, another big bang. wash, rinse, repeat.

The scientists at CERN are already studying the implications of new particles recently discovered using the collider.

What are the religious institutions doing to study the gods… except for simply repeating dogma?

We have no reason to accept your religious claims to three supermagical, supernatural gods as true so how many designer gods were required to design the currently configured christian gods?

 

[UltimateReality]

Ultimate, I think you meant John, not James.

Your are right. I fixed it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.

What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.

Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).

Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.

Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider

Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause. But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago? or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning. He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite. I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang. What caused the big to bang?

You’re hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. It’s a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile, dishonest and naïve.

Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics [PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ON WHAT PHYSICS TRAINING YOU'VE HAD-"CUT AND PASTER OF THE YEAR" DOES NOT QUALIFY], you would know the implication of this.
Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...

The Big Bang – My personal favorite.
Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.

As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.

So let's restate the possibilities:
1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) This one is my best bet as mentioned.

That figures, since the oscillating theory has already largely been dis-proven. This theory is akin to a ball that is thrown up from the earth. Gravity eventually takes over, stops the ball, and then draws it back to the earth's surface. The oscillating universe says that the expansion will eventually stop and start contracting back to the singularity point. There is only one HUGE PROBLEM. The expansion is ACCELERATING, not Decelerating!

I'd also like to point out your continual twisting of the truth. ALL ID Theorists accept the Big Bang as the most viable theory. This is not separate from religious philosophy as your strawman argument implies by listing #4 as an argument. This is just evidence of your lies and truth twists. The question is not whether the Big Bang is responsible for the universe but whether or not a supernatural Being caused the big bang. The only reason the oscillating theory was proposed is because it removed the necessity of originally cause if it had been expanding and contracting from and infinite past. You love this theory because you could get rid of God. Here is the problem with your flawed logic. You call fowl when theists propose that God could have always existed, yet you have no problem with the concept the universe has always existed as a perpetual explosion and contraction. You may be able to trick the brainwashed fundie atheists with your trickery, but anyone with any sense of logic is not going to fall for your silly cut and pasted arguments.

"The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.

CMBR readings are currently being gathered by a very accurate measuring device known as the WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It is the same device that has measured with sharp precision the age of our universe. It is therefore highly unlikely that future findings will deviate largely from what has been discovered regarding the Universe’s expansion now.

Oscillating Universe Theory

You should stick to attacks and typing the word fundie repeatedly. It is obvious cosmology is an area you should not attempt to cut and paste!

 

[Hollie]

Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause. But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago? or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning. He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite. I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang. What caused the big to bang?

You’re hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. It’s a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile, dishonest and naïve.

Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...

The Big Bang – My personal favorite.
Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.

As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.

So let's restate the possibilities:
1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) This one is my best bet as mentioned.

That figures, since it has already largely been dis-proven. This theory is akin to a ball that as thrown up from the earth. Gravity eventually takes over, stops the ball, and then draws it back to the earth's surface. The oscillating universe says that the expansion will eventually stop and start contracting back to the singularity point. There is only one HUGE PROBLEM. The expansion is ACCELERATING, not Decelerating!

"The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.

CMBR readings are currently being gathered by a very accurate measuring device known as the WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It is the same device that has measured with sharp precision the age of our universe. It is therefore highly unlikely that future findings will deviate largely from what has been discovered regarding the Universe’s expansion now.

Oscillating Universe Theory

You should stick to attacks and typing the word fundie repeatedly. It is obvious cosmology is an area you should not attempt to cut and paste!

The above has a certain appeal to religious fundies because they believe it off-handedly supports the many- gods of their religious views.

I would recommend that you stay with cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

 

[UltimateReality]

You’re hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. It’s a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile, dishonest and naïve.

Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...

The Big Bang – My personal favorite.
Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.

As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.

So let's restate the possibilities:
1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) This one is my best bet as mentioned.

That figures, since it has already largely been dis-proven. This theory is akin to a ball that as thrown up from the earth. Gravity eventually takes over, stops the ball, and then draws it back to the earth's surface. The oscillating universe says that the expansion will eventually stop and start contracting back to the singularity point. There is only one HUGE PROBLEM. The expansion is ACCELERATING, not Decelerating!

"The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.

CMBR readings are currently being gathered by a very accurate measuring device known as the WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It is the same device that has measured with sharp precision the age of our universe. It is therefore highly unlikely that future findings will deviate largely from what has been discovered regarding the Universe’s expansion now.

Oscillating Universe Theory

You should stick to attacks and typing the word fundie repeatedly. It is obvious cosmology is an area you should not attempt to cut and paste!

The above has a certain appeal to religious fundies because they believe it off-handedly supports the many- gods of their religious views.

I would recommend that you stay with cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

Who?

 

[Hollie]

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
Until then, SkyGod rules.

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions. No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous. eg:
When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day. Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it. Add them up and you get May 15, 1948. Israel's rebirth. Ezekiel prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....

You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.

The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.

But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.

My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.

 

[newpolitics]

What data supports that it was gradual? What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one. What happened? What was the cause? What caused it into motion?
God created the cosmos. He wasn't trying to solve anything. He was creating.

You can simply say that God is timeless. Science can say that now. They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3 dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave. We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.

Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.

What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.

Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).

Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.

Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider

Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause. But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago? or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning. He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite. I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang. What caused the big to bang?

You are not understanding what infinite regression means, at least, not how I meant to convey it. Infinite regression does not refer to causality within this spacio-temporal condition we call a universe, leading back to a big bang. That wouldn't make sense. There was definitely a beginning, meaning it is necessarily finite in its causal chain. I was using infinite regress to refer to the problem you get into when you assert that god caused the big bang. What caused God? You are left where you started. You're answer might be, another god. Then, what caused that god, and that god, and that god... this is an infinite regress of causes, before the big bang. How can you ever get to an uncaused cause? Of course, you answer will be, God has always existed. This presents another dilemma. If he existed for an infinite amount of time BEFORE our universe, then he never would have created it, by definition. Because, he would have had to have waited an infinite amount of time before getting to this point of creation, which is paradoxical and thus, impossible.

To answer your last question... I already did. There doesn't need to be a cause, necessarily, and even if there was, how do you know it was god? You don't, and you can't. You have to perform several logic leaps to get to god from a first cause, even assuming there is a first cause.

 

[newpolitics]

"Here's a fact you might ponder: Virtually every single major person who has criticized the Darwinian viewpoint has faced personal attacks on his or her character. It happens to everyone, myself included. So one of two things are true: Either (1) virtually every single critic of Darwinism (of which there are many) is "dishonest" and "deceiving," or (2) evolutionists habitually respond to scientific challenges with personal attacks."

I'll take number 2 for the win.

Personal Attacks Against ID Proponents Say More About the Attackers than the Abused - Evolution News & Views

what? when people are illogical, they are going to get lambasted for it, and should, especially when its something really obvious and simple, and they are simeltaneously preaching their to the world and imposing their worldview on others, constantly, which is a basic tenet of christianity. Just like when the dumbass in math class gets 2+2 wrong and is at the same time telling you you're going to hell, you have to snicker, but also, get pissed. Same deal

Also, don't paint yourselves these hapless victims. You deserve it. It is creationists who are so unable to engage in intellectual debate honestly. They continually try to bypass the rules of logic and create their own reality. After a while, this gets annoying and people lose patience.

 

[newpolitics]

Here is some creepy prophecy from Revelation...

Revelation Chapter 11:

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city —which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

The book of Revelation was written by John sometime between 60 and 95 AD. The method of travel at that time was by horse drawn buggy or boat or walking. If someone read this passage in 60 AD, they would think this verse preposterous. How is someone from every tribe and nation going to "gaze on their [dead] bodies" if they are only laying there for 3 and one half days? The possibility of this prophecy coming true has only materialized in the last 50 years with the advent of the internet and satellite television. How would James even know this would become a REAL possibility 1900 years later?

Regarding authorship of revelation:

Wikipedia

"More recent methods of scholarship, such as textual criticism, have been influential in suggesting that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors.The English Biblical scholar Robert Henry Charles (1855–1931) reasoned on internal textual grounds that the book was edited by someone who spoke no Hebrew and who wished to promote a different theology to John's. As a result, everything after 20:3, he claims, has been left in a haphazard state with no attempt to structure it logically. Furthermore, he says, the story of the defeat of the ten kingdoms has been deleted and replaced by 19:9-10.John's theology of chastity has been replaced by the editor's theology of outright celibacy, which makes little sense when John's true church is symbolised as a bride of the Lamb. Most importantly, the editor has completely rewritten John's theology of the Millennium which is "emptied of all significance."





Hmmmm.... The bible isn't true because it says so.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It is when it tells you what to expect and the expectations are correct.
There was one John. He told us what to look for before the return of Christ and for the first time in history, you can open your Bible and the newspaper and read the same thing in both.

Ultimate, those two prophets are another prediction used for a sign in the end times. The Bible states it is for every man to die once. 2 humans did not. Enoch and Elijah. I think they will be those two to come back. Some think Moses may be one of the two. That prophesy could not be filled until satellites were developed. It precedes the final battle between God and his followers and Satan and his followers.

 

[The Irish Ram]

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions. No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous. eg:
When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day. Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it. Add them up and you get May 15, 1948. Israel's rebirth. Ezekiel prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....

You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.

The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.

But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?

Nope, I meant exactly what I said. I am nothing if not consistent.
God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down. The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject.
As for his accuracy? His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death. No coincidences allowed.
Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy.
So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.