"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Yes, you have identified one way everything could die (which is a dramatical loss of functionality) ... what you haven't identified is how the life could possiblly arise and develop functionality spontaneously, in the first place ... which is the question that Creation answers ... and Abiogenesis/Evolution purports to answer ... but doesn't.

Creationism doesn't give any answers. "God did it" isn't an answer, it's an excuse to stop trying to find the answer.

Everything needs a creator except god. This immediately contradicts the "everthing needs a creator" concept. Add to that, the creation myth isn't based on any evidence rather it is attempting to subvert science to support the passages of your holy book.

You keep repeating the "develop functionality spontaneously" phrase, which shows you don't understand evolution because you are basically saying that single cell organisms transformed into homo-sapien in seconds :rolleyes:

This would mean that the intermediate stages of evolution between the single cell organisms and modern man wouldn't have any fossils. Even though you have said yourself that evolution is involved, albeit re-branded as macro-evolution.

J C

papu wrote: »

Hmm not quite no you asked for complexity ,taking my example a step further , the next state would be a plasma , again a plasma is very different to the block of ice we originally started with , it has different properties , and if shown the two without knowing / seeing the transition process one would not assume they are of the same starting material.

Living organisms live within the realm of the three common phases of matter ... so superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, ionic + quark-gluon plasmas are just 'red herrings' introduced into the debate by Robin, to save Materialist blushes, because he has no actual examples of a non-intelligently designed system that uses energy to increase the complexity and functionality of anything!!!

papu wrote: »

Functionality , The functionality of a solid / gas / liquid/ plasma are completely different , the function of wine and water are similar if not almost the same

The Gardai and the RSA would beg to differ on whether water and wine have similar functionality!!!:)
... although, it would be an interesting argument to put before a Judge, if you got caught drunk driving.

papu wrote: »

Cool story Bro , this sounds like someone reading a story from a book and claiming it as fact.

It is a true account of what happened ... and even if you don't believe it ... it is a lot more plausible than the Evolutionist 'story' that Pondslime miraculously produce the Grapevine ... and it also miraculously produced the Human ... who then made the wine!!
The Evolutionist story requires two enormous miracles (which Materialists believe can't happen) ... while the Biblical account is of one small miracle (which Theists accept can happen).:)

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The issue here is where did the gas come from? ... and saying that it all came out of nothing at the Big Bang is a non-answer with no logical validity ...
Even if you call it a fancy word like a 'singularity' ... because nobody knows how it could ever happen by materialistic processes, this still doesn't account for where it came from.

The other answer, that the Universe is there ... and it must have arisen by purely materialistic procesess, is just circular reasoning, based on nothing other than an overwhelming belief in Materialism ... irrespective of the fact that only a Transcendent Super-Intelligence could have created the Universere and life as we observe it.

No, J C, noone minds if you want to refer to vacuum-potential, the source of all the energy in the unverse, as God, it's the 'intelligence' and 'planning' aspects of your 'hypothesis' that causes problems.

Our star, the Sun, exists through mechanisms that will ensure its eventual demise. An intelligent designer would have provided a source of hydrogen to replenish the fuel used in the fusion process instead of making trillions of redundant stars that do not support life.

Your God is very wasteful and that is not a sign of intelligence.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

The weather?

Again there is no increase in functionality ... weather is just the interaction of air, heat and water in its three physical states with the relative movements of the Earth, Moon and Sun.
The results may be complex, just like the water in a boiling kettle is complex ... but its functionality doesn't change.

Boiling water is boiling water ... rain is rain ... snow is snow ... but when intelligence is applied, specific (and otherwise impossible) things, like life and Jumbo Jets, can be created.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

No, J C, noone minds if you want to refer to vacuum-potential, the source of all the energy in the unverse, as God, it's the 'intelligence' and 'planning' aspects of your 'hypothesis' that causes problems.

Our star, the Sun, exists through mechanisms that will ensure its eventual demise. An intelligent designer would have provided a source of hydrogen to replenish the fuel used in the fusion process instead of making trillions of redundant stars that do not support life.

Your God is very wasteful and that is not a sign of intelligence.

God is even more amazing than the Universe He Created ... and what you call 'wasteful' is simply God expressing His Infinite capacities.

Wastefulness is only a problem with finite resources ... it is not a problem for an entity of infinite power, like God.

papu

J C wrote: »

Wastefulness is only a problem with finite resources ... it is not a problem for an entity of infinite power, like God.

And your Source for this? Energy cannot be created or destroyed , though the universe is expanding , the content in it stays the same , therefore it IS finite.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

No, J C, noone minds if you want to refer to vacuum-potential, the source of all the energy in the unverse, as God, it's the 'intelligence' and 'planning' aspects of your 'hypothesis' that causes problems.

Our star, the Sun, exists through mechanisms that will ensure its eventual demise. An intelligent designer would have provided a source of hydrogen to replenish the fuel used in the fusion process instead of making trillions of redundant stars that do not support life.

Your God is very wasteful and that is not a sign of intelligence.

It's precisely these capacities that make God a personal God ... the 'God of Forces' that you are talking about doesn't exist ... and is the equivalent of a belief that there is a God in a TV.

J C

papu wrote: »

And your Source for this? Energy cannot be created or destroyed , though the universe is expanding , the content in it stays the same , therefore it IS finite.

The Creation of the Universe was simply God expressing His Infinite capacities ... and the Universe will last long enough for Humanity to live out its 'alotted span' !!!

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

God is even more amazing than the Universe He Created ... and what you call 'wasteful' is simply God expressing His Infinite capacities.

Wastefulness is only a problem with finite resources ... it is not a problem for an entity of infinite power, like God.

You originally wrote 'showing off' where you now have 'expressing'.

If God wanted to impress us, why did He make the Sun to die at which time all the precious life on God's Earth will be vaporised?

Except, of course, life that has developed science to the extent that some life will escape the planet.

Noah's Ark might have been a space-ship and the flood may have been a supernova explosion.

If we listen to religion, we're doomed; science gives us a dog's chance.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

It's precisely these capacities that make God a personal God ... the 'God of Forces' that you are talking about doesn't exist ... and is the equivalent of a belief that there is a God in a TV.

Now we are getting somewhere; you finally concede that God is not omni-present.;):p:pac:

:cool:

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

If we listen to religion, we're doomed; science gives us a dog's chance.

The religion of Atheistic Humanism tells us we are doomed to annihilation when we die ... and Materialistic science concurs.

The Christian Faith tells us that if we accept Salvation we will live in eternal bliss when we die ... so, it depends on which view is correct whether we are doomed ... or not.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Now we are getting somewhere; you finally concede that God is not omni-present.;):p:pac:

:cool:

Where did I say that?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

You originally wrote 'showing off' where you now have 'expressing'.

God was both showing off and expressing His magnificent omniscience when He created the Universe.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If God wanted to impress us, why did He make the Sun to die at which time all the precious life on God's Earth will be vaporised?

... the Sun hasn't given up yet ... but, you are correct, the Universe will end in fire.

2 Peter 3:12
New King James Version (NKJV)
Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

Sarky

So I think this is the fourth or fifth time I asked, and I'm sure you'll either ignore the question or dodge it with some complete rubbish like you do with everything, but:

Did you lie about watching the videos in this thread, J C, or did you lie about understanding them? I've already covered how it has to be one or the other. So which is it?

Cock Fart

J C wrote: »

Do you also scoff at the distinction between Crude Oil and the Lubricating Oil in your car, that has been refined from Crude Oil by the use of intelligently designed processes?

... as an engineer, have you ever come across a non-intelligently designed system that uses energy to increase the complexity and functionality of anything?
... if you have, your fellow Materialists could do with a 'dig out' from you ... because they have got themselves into a right 'pickle' on this one!!!

Natural selection is an unintelligent process that can achieve intelligent outcomes. It bridges the gap between dumb physics and intelligent agency that you seem to believe is unbridgeable.

Turtwig

papu wrote: »

And your Source for this? Energy cannot be created or destroyed , though the universe is expanding , the content in it stays the same , therefore it IS finite.

Umm.... I don't think anyone can make a ballpark guess on this one.

Delirium

saw this vid and thought of this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

J C

Cock Fart wrote: »

Natural selection is an unintelligent process that can achieve intelligent outcomes. It bridges the gap between dumb physics and intelligent agency that you seem to believe is unbridgeable.

... but NS doesn't bridge this gap ...
... NS selects from pre-existing CFSI ... but it doesn't produce new CFSI ... and it relies on the CFSI infused into the original genomes of the Kinds at Creation.

NS itself may not be intelligently directed ... but it requires intelligently created genetic diversity from which to select.

Cock Fart

J C wrote: »

... but it doesn't bridge this gap ... NS selects from pre-existing CFSI ... it doesn't produce new CFSI ... and it relies on the CFSI infused into the original genomes of the Kinds at Creation.

NS itself may not be intelligently directed ... but it uses intelligently created genetic diversity from which to select.

The diversity it selects from is unintelligent and just random. Nature throws up mutations and some proliferate better than others.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

So I think this is the fourth or fifth time I asked, and I'm sure you'll either ignore the question or dodge it with some complete rubbish like you do with everything, but:

Did you lie about watching the videos in this thread, J C, or did you lie about understanding them? I've already covered how it has to be one or the other. So which is it?

I've watched them and I understood them ... but I reject them as an explantion for 'big picture' 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution.

They present examples of Natural/Sexual Selection of pre-existing CFSI ... but they don't explain how the CFSI could arise in the first place.

J C

Cock Fart wrote: »

The diversity it selects from is unintelligent and just random. Nature throws up mutations and some proliferate better than others.

Random mutations cause damage ... and not new functionality ... that is why nobody wants to undergo mutagenesis!!!

J C

koth wrote: »

saw this vid and thought of this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

When this young lady refers to 'Theists' ... she is actually referring to Old Earth Theistic Evolutionists ... and, as I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, I agree with practically all of her arguments against their scientific and theological beliefs.:)

... and her Atheistic colleagues ideas of 'multiverses' ... and 'nothing inflating to produce everything' are simply contradictions in terms ... and examples of 'clutching at theoretical straws'.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

When this young lady refers to 'Theists' ... she is actually referring to Old Earth Theistic Evolutionists ... and, as I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, I agree with practically all of her arguments against their scientific and theological beliefs.:)

But her arguments were very much in support of an old age universe and earth model.

Sarky

It's almost like he didn't watch it, or didn't understand it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

When this young lady refers to 'Theists' ... she is actually referring to Old Earth Theistic Evolutionists ... and, as I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, I agree with practically all of her arguments against their scientific and theological beliefs.:)

you definitely didn't understand the video if you came up with that statement. I'm off to bed so I'll just leave this here.....

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

But her arguments were very much in support of an old age universe and earth model.

My point is that her arguments against the 'Theist' claims that she cites ... are arguments against Old Earth Theistic Evolutionism (and not Young Earth Creation Science) ... and I agree with her on most of what she has to say in this regard.
Please note that all of the 'Theists' featured were Old Earth Theistic Evolutionists

When she comes to defending the Atheistic Old Earth Evolutionist position it all become logically and evidentially untenable, especially when she has to resort to concepts such as 'multiverses' and a belief in 'nothing blowing up to produce everything' to justify her position!!!:)

J C

koth wrote: »

you definitely didn't understand the video if you came up with that statement. I'm off to bed so I'll just leave this here.....

Pease look at my full posting #4974 ... and the entire video!!!:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

But her arguments were very much in support of an old age universe and earth model.

The video is a debate between two types of Old Earth Evolutionists ... Theists and Atheists ... and they are both correct in their criticism of each other ... but they are both wrong in relation to what actually happened.

The young lady illustrates the confusion within Materialistic Evolutionism when, for example, she cites the Infinite Inflation Theory and the Big Bang/Big Crunch Theory ... when these theories are mutually incompatible with each other!!!:)

J C

Sarky wrote: »

It's almost like he didn't watch it, or didn't understand it.

Yourself and Koth seem to be the ones who didn't watch the video!!!:)

... and I would respectfully suggest that you do so ... before embarassing yourselves any further.:D

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Pease look at my full posting #4974 ... and the entire video!!!:)

you mean the video I posted?

The one you didn't watch or if you did, didn't understand?

J C wrote: »

When this young lady refers to 'Theists' ... she is actually referring to Old Earth Theistic Evolutionists ... and, as I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, I agree with practically all of her arguments against their scientific and theological beliefs.:)

Your response to the video is,'she was talking about those other creationists'?

Nowhere in the video did she say she addressing a subset of creationists. That is you just injecting some wishful thinking in an attempt to twist the meaning of the video to suit your point of view.

You only had to watch the first 2 minutes to see what the video set out to address. I'll even list it for you.

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is god.

Nothing else is addressed, nor is it modified to only address a subset of creationists. Feel free to try and explain how the video doesn't apply to you.

The video addresses the whole foundation of your creationist myth, and you don't even have the good manners to address it?

... and her Atheistic colleagues ideas of 'multiverses' ... and 'nothing inflating to produce everything' are simply contradictions in terms ... and examples of 'clutching at theoretical straws'.

You addressed none of the points in the video, so I'd say it's you who is clutching at straws.