Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…217218220222223…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6572
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    scuba8 wrote: »
    This does not make any scense. The light from galaxy NGC 3370 took 100 million light years to reach earth. We know this from the red shift of the light. It did not leave the galaxy 10,000 years ago. In your scenario all light left every where 10,000 years ago. With your instant inflation ,,all light from every where could only have a red shift of 10,000 years as that is all it has been in existance. This is just not true. Regardless of how far away Stars and Galaxys are they all have different red shifts which means that the light has been travelling from them for different periods of time.

    Pelican Nebula, 2,000 light years away,
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111126.html

    The Wizard Nebula, 8,000 light years away.

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111102.html
    Bah. I see all your useless scientistic scientism and raise you god.

    See, the thing is, as far a JC is concerned god did it is a valid explanation. Have an issue with the size of the universe versus it only being 10000 years old. That is easy. God made it that way. Next. What, the ark does not make any sense? Hmmm, what? How could all the animals have been fed? Easy. God did it. Next.

    See. simple.

    MrP


  • Options
    #6573
    scuba8
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭scuba8


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Bah. I see all your useless scientistic scientism and raise you god.

    See, the thing is, as far a JC is concerned god did it is a valid explanation. Have an issue with the size of the universe versus it only being 10000 years old. That is easy. God made it that way. Next. What, the ark does not make any sense? Hmmm, what? How could all the animals have been fed? Easy. God did it. Next.

    See. simple.

    MrP

    Thanks for that Mr Pudding. Now I realise where I am going wrong. The application of some sort of logic or reasoning to the subject is not required. Mind you the Flying Spagetti Monster could just as easly have created the universe. There is exactly the same level of proof. What ever you find in science, eg red shift, was put there by his noodly appendage for you to find. You can't argue with that.


  • Options
    #6574
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    scuba8 wrote: »
    Thanks for that Mr Pudding. Now I realise where I am going wrong. The application of some sort of logic or reasoning to the subject is not required. Mind you the Flying Spagetti Monster could just as easly have created the universe. There is exactly the same level of proof. What ever you find in science, eg red shift, was put there by his noodly appendage for you to find. You can't argue with that.

    Obviously, dear friend you are lost. Now I do not mean that in any sort of condescending manner. I purely mean to help you and show you the light. The way. The truth. Open to your heart. Listen to it! The truth is there, instinctively coursing through your veins. Embrace the Lord. Saviour of all that is good and pure in this world! Embrace Enceladus.


  • Options
    #6575
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I love how some Creationists have now started to include the Big Bang Theory into their belief system to try and cover their arses because they denied it for so long. What's next? God created the Ape and gave us the ability to evolve into Humans?
    That position's called Theistic Evolution:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution


  • Options
    #6576
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Embrace Enceladus.
    For that, we would need to evolve exceedingly long arms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6577
    scuba8
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭scuba8


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Embrace Enceladus.

    Mmmmmmm! Very Interesting. Water Water everywhere and not a drop to drink.


  • Options
    #6578
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Hate to tell you this, but the God of the Bible is essentially the same as the God of the Torah and Allah of the Qur'an. In fact, your God is a ret-con of the Jewish God.
    Hell, even Zeus apparently created the world according the Greeks.
    Love to tell you, that the God of the Bible is the One and Only God ... and Zeus and Allah are the Ancient Greek and Muslim viewpoints on the Creator God of the Universe.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    But all the while, Gravity has remained the same, and moon has kept orbiting.
    The physical Laws of the Universe are as unchanging and universal as the Omnipotent and Omniscient God who created them.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Give it a hundred years, and the RCC will be allowing homosexuality and contraception, but gravity will still be the same, and we'll still circle the sun once a year.
    The RCC is a Human (and fallible) institution ... but whatever it does or doesn't do, the moral laws of the Universe are just as immutable as its physical laws.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    edit:
    As for the power it requires to create the universe, it's just as feasible that it required the collapse of a previous universe to trigger the creation of the current one, it's just as possible as God existing.
    ... there still must be an Ultimate Cause for the matter and energy ... even in an expanding and contracting Universe.:)


  • Options
    #6579
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Bollox. I reckon it is infinitely more likely multivax did it:

    http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

    I love this creation story. Any excuse to post it. :D

    MrP
    Whatever you call Him, if was God that did it ... and no amount of waffle will cover up this fact!!!:)


  • Options
    #6580
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    J C wrote: »
    Love to tell you, that the God of the Bible is the One and Only God ... and Zeus and Allah are the Ancient Greek and Muslim viewpoints on the Creator God of the Universe.

    Who's Bible?

    Catholic? Mormon? Jehovah's witness? Protestant? Amish?
    Oh that's right, you don't know. You can only guess, and pick the one that you "think" is the best for you.


  • Options
    #6581
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    J C wrote: »
    Whatever you call Him, if was God that did it ... and no amount of waffle will cover up this fact!!!:)

    It's not a fact! It's a belief.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact
    Educate yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6582
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    scuba8 wrote: »
    Thanks for that Mr Pudding. Now I realise where I am going wrong. The application of some sort of logic or reasoning to the subject is not required. Mind you the Flying Spagetti Monster could just as easly have created the universe. There is exactly the same level of proof. What ever you find in science, eg red shift, was put there by his noodly appendage for you to find.
    Like I have said, whatever you call Him ... it was God who Created it all.
    scuba8 wrote: »
    You can't argue with that.
    Your right!!!:)


  • Options
    #6583
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Who's Bible?

    Catholic? Mormon? Jehovah's witness? Protestant? Amish?
    Oh that's right, you don't know. You can only guess, and pick the one that you "think" is the best for you.
    They're all the Word of God ... and fully understandable by anybody indwelt by the Holy Spirit.


  • Options
    #6584
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    It's not a fact! It's a belief.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact
    Educate yourself.
    Physician, heal (and educate) thyself!!!:)

    Its a fact that an intelligence of God-like proportions Created life ... and its a fact that an agent of God-like omnipotence and transcendence Created the Universe.
    Who He was and what was His name is a matter of belief.


  • Options
    #6585
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    No, it is not a fact, it's all a belief.

    You have no proof that God exists. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch to prove that a God or any God truly exists and created everything.

    I admire your belief, but no matter how much you truly believe a God exists, does not make it a fact of existence.

    Children truly believe Santa Clause exists, but that doesn't make him real or a fact of existence.


  • Options
    #6586
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    feel free to provide evidence for your "facts".

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #6587
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    J C wrote: »
    They're all the Word of God ... and fully understandable by anybody indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

    How can they all be the word of God, when they don't agree with eachother?

    Why would God(s) write a book, and then give conflicting ideas of it. That doesn't sound like the action of an all-knowing all-powerful being.

    What the Bible is, is a collection of stories written by groups of people based around a certain faith, and has changed and has met altering opinions over time.
    It's no more realistic than Scientology.


  • Options
    #6588
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That's not very fair on Scientology.


  • Options
    #6589
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    How can they all be the word of God, when they don't agree with eachother?

    Why would God(s) write a book, and then give conflicting ideas of it. That doesn't sound like the action of an all-knowing all-powerful being.

    What the Bible is, is a collection of stories written by groups of people based around a certain faith, and has changed and has met altering opinions over time.
    There are various editions of the Bible ... but the Word of God rings true out of every edition ... and they all agree with each other.


  • Options
    #6590
    Ellian
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭Ellian


    J C wrote: »
    There are various editions of the Bible ... but the Word of God rings true out of every edition ... and they all agree with each other.

    Even the four gospels in my one version of the Bible don't agree with each other....


  • Options
    #6591
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    No, it is not a fact, it's all a belief.

    You have no proof that God exists. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch to prove that a God or any God truly exists and created everything.

    I admire your belief, but no matter how much you truly believe a God exists, does not make it a fact of existence.
    CFSI is physical evidence that an Intelligence of God-like proportions Created life.

    The scale, beauty and the legally regulated complexity of the Universe is physical evidence that an omnipotent Agent of God-like proportions Created the Universe.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Children truly believe Santa Clause exists, but that doesn't make him real or a fact of existence.
    Children have the same problems with logic and wishful thinking that Evolutionists have!!!
    There is are many alternative explanations for how toys get into people's sitting rooms on Christmas night ... rather than the physically impossible idea that an overweight old man does it by coming down the chimney!!!
    Similary, its a mathematical and physical impossibility to spontaneously produce CFSI ... yet Evolutionists believe that this occurs with the unfounded faith of a child in Santa!!!:):p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6592
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Cfsi is bullsh*t, and you're still running away from one little paper that shows this. Your arguments are completely useless until you manage to debunk it.

    So debunk it, or stop blathering on about something that even basic science can show as being very, very stupid.


  • Options
    #6593
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ellian wrote: »
    Even the four gospels in my one version of the Bible don't agree with each other....
    ... just like the headlines in tomorrows papers don't agree with each other ... because they give different emphasis to different issues and events.


  • Options
    #6594
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Cfsi is bullsh*t, and you're still running away from one little paper that shows this. Your arguments are completely useless until you manage to debunk it.
    ... and Santa Claus is coming to you!!!!:)
    Sarky wrote: »
    So debunk it, or stop blathering on about something that even basic science can show as being very, very stupid.
    ... basic maths, science and logic shows Spotaneous Evolution to be invalid ... so the 'blathering' is all on the Evolutionist side of the equation ... as evidenced by your complete inability to provide any evidence for Pondkind to Mankind Evolution.


  • Options
    #6595
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I see you're continuing to use CFSI as an argument in favour of creationism. but yet you continue to ignore the paper that shows it to be as worthwhile as pixie dust as a scientific argument.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #6596
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Focus, J C. You have a paper to debunk. Not one of your posts is with a ghost's fart in a hurricane until you debunk that paper, because it demonstrates in detail that cfsi is rubbish.

    Debunk the paper, or admit that you don't have an argument.


  • Options
    #6597
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is physical evidence that an Intelligence of God-like proportions Created life.

    It's really not.

    But as the others have said, we're still waiting for you to debunk that last paper.


  • Options
    #6598
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Try again, J C. This time you should try reading the paper. Debunking something you clearly haven't read is moronic. You don't want to look like a moron, do you?


  • Options
    #6599
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Focus, J C. You have a paper to debunk. Not one of your posts is with a ghost's fart in a hurricane until you debunk that paper, because it demonstrates in detail that cfsi is rubbish.
    ... or so you say ... without citing any evidence for your belief, from your cited paper.


  • Options
    #6600
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    It's really not.

    But as the others have said, we're still waiting for you to debunk that last paper.
    ... and I'm still waiting for you to bunk it!!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6601
    PunkFreud
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭PunkFreud


    J C wrote: »
    Sarky wrote: »
    Cfsi is bullsh*t, and you're still running away from one little paper that shows this. Your arguments are completely useless until you manage to debunk it.
    ... and Santa Claus is coming to you!!!!:)
    Sarky wrote: »
    So debunk it, or stop blathering on about something that even basic science can show as being very, very stupid.
    ... basic maths, science and logic shows Spotaneous Evolution to be invalid ... so the 'blathering' is all on the Evolutionist side of the equation ... as evidence by your complete inability to provide any evidence for Pondkind to Mankind Evolution.

    What "basic" maths and science do you mean? Elaborate on this, give us a few examples to explain what you mean by this statement


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement