Originally posted by twhiteheadNo one's arguing over definitions: you just apparently don't know what harmonious means, which is why you couldn't understand why marbles sitting "neatly" doesn't prove anything. It's not a matter of "arguing" or quibling over semantics; you were just wrong, and thus couldn't understand what was meant.
I simply don't see any point arguing over definitions. Its stupid. I merely wished to understand your position and explain to you where you have got it wrong, but it seems you are only interested in argument and don't actually believe the position you are posing in the thread ie you are a troll.
5 edits
Originally posted by vivifyGet real. From your second post:
You're misquoting. I never said "for [b]mankind to get where we are today has been too big a stroke of luck and designer has to be inovled".
I said the UNIVERSE would be too big a stroke of luck, and designer has to be inolved.
It seems that you guys here can only argue against what I say if you completely change what I'm saying. That's just shameful.[/b]
For example, there just happned to be a Big Bang, which just happened to create trillions and trillions of particles, which just happened to form into atoms; those atoms just so happened to be able to ALL have electron shells that just so happened to be able to bond with each other create new elements. Those new elements "just so happened" to eventually form planets, stars and solar systems which just so happen to orbit in predictable, cyclical and measurable patterns; and in this universe, life "just so happened" to be able to arise. This life "just so happened" to be able to evolve. And they "just so happened" to survive, multiple, and grow more complex over time.....and on this planet, water (the necessary ingrediant for most life) just so happened to have properties which allow it to be part of a water cycle, which includes wind and vapor to form clouds, so that it could just so happen to be able to spread around the planet....and on and on, etc., etc.
So unless you're going to claim that mankind isn't a part of "this life" that "'just so happened' to survive, multiple[sic], and grow more complex over time", you haven't got a leg to stand on.
This type of stuff happens all too often on this forum. When one of your ilk get cornered by your own irrationality, you start making false and/or pointless accusations and/or "playing the victim" and/or denying the undeniable and/or taking the discussion off in pointless tangents, etc. You guys really need to get a grip. Some have taken exception to me pointing them to look into ego defense mechanisms, but I really have to believe that that's what's at work in these situations if they aren't trolls.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMine-quoting? Wow. You'd make a great anchor for Fox News.
Get real. From your second post:
[quote]For example, there just happned to be a Big Bang, which just happened to create trillions and trillions of particles, which just happened to form into atoms; those atoms just so happened to be able to ALL have electron shells that just so happened to be able to bond with each other create new elements. Those new el ieve that that's what's at work in these situations if they aren't trolls.
So you ignore an entire paragraph the speaks of the universe, and isolate one sentence about mankind? Lol.
So do you feel proud of yourself? Even though that same paragraph you quoted mentions the universe, Big Bang, solars systems, planets, etc...you ISOLATE the one sentence that mentions man as proof that I wasn't refering to the whole universe?
Man. You guys get more desperate looking with each post.
2 edits
Originally posted by vivifyActually the following summarizing sentence followed the text I quoted:
Mine-quoting? Wow. You'd make a great anchor for Fox News.
So you ignore an entire paragraph the speaks of the universe, and isolate one sentence about mankind? Lol.
So do you feel proud of yourself? Even though that same paragraph you quoted mentions the universe, Big Bang, solars systems, planets, etc...you ISOLATE the one sentence that ment t refering to the whole universe?
Man. You guys get more desperate looking with each post.
While the intelligent correctly concludes that life evolved, I don't think any truly rational man (or woman) can conclude that it's all just one insane case of random luck on a cosmic scale.
So it seems that a major part of the point you were trying to make was in the culmination of the evolution of life which is mankind. Your attempt to downplay it is almost absurd as you are absurd.
Like I said earlier:
"It seems likely that you're just messing with everyone or that your belief is so intrinsic to your world view that you're unable to be rational about it. Neither is a good thing."
I suppose another possibility is that you're exceedingly dim which seems more and more likely all the time.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLol, it's the Glen Beck Parade.
Actually the following summarizing sentence followed the text I quoted:While the intelligent correctly concludes that life evolved, I don't think any truly rational man (or woman) can conclude that it's all just one insane case of random luck on a cosmic scale.
So it seems that a major part of the point you were trying to make was in ...[text shortened]... possibility is that you're exceedingly dim which seems more and more likely all the time.
In that sentence you quoted, I clearly say a "cosmic" scale. You do know who what the cosmos are, right? Yeah, that obviously proves I didn't mean the universe, right?
This is the biggest case of self-ownage on a message board I've ever seen.
Continue posting, your desparation is amusing.
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyNot sure you'll be able to wrap your mind around this, but that doesn't change the fact that a "major part of the point you were trying to make was in the culmination of the evolution of life which is mankind."
Lol, it's the Glen Beck Parade.
In that sentence you quoted, I clearly say a "cosmic" scale. You do know who what the cosmos are, right? Yeah, that obviously proves I didn't mean the universe, right?
This is the biggest case of self-ownage on a message board I've ever seen.
Continue posting, your desparation is amusing.
The possibility that you're exceedingly dim seems more and more likely all the time. Evidently you're so dim that you don't have a clue as to how much you've embarrassed yourself on this thread.
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWrong.
Not sure you'll be able to wrap your mind around this, but that doesn't change the fact that a "major part of the point you were trying to make was in the culmination of the evolution of life which is mankind."
Evolution of mankind was barely mentioned. Barely. Remove any mention of mankind or evolution, and my arguments aren't affected at all.
You just continue trying to insinuate I was, because your arguments are too weak to argue with.
You're a sad guy.
Originally posted by vivifyI agree. I have no idea what you mean by harmonious. I did ask you to explain it, but you choose to be rude and argumentative. That is because you are a troll. You don't believe what you are claiming, you simply want a fight. Knock yourself out, but leave me out of it.
No one's arguing over definitions: you just apparently don't know what harmonious means, which is why you couldn't understand why marbles sitting "neatly" doesn't prove anything. It's not a matter of "arguing" or quibling over semantics; you were just wrong, and thus couldn't understand what was meant.
Originally posted by twhiteheadUm, I posted a link from dictionary.com, and even bolded it for you. How more do u need a word explained?
I agree. I have no idea what you mean by harmonious. I did ask you to explain it, but you choose to be rude and argumentative. That is because you are a troll. You don't believe what you are claiming, you simply want a fight. Knock yourself out, but leave me out of it.
Originally posted by jaywillStill pushing this tiresome video after I (and I am sure many others) refuted it in a thread some while ago! Tired circular arguments going nowhere to no useful purpose because you have no desire to learn.
Dr. Hugh Ross talks about a Testable Creation Model:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4
Originally posted by finneganI actually found it very interesting and not a little informative, but then again, i was
Still pushing this tiresome video after I (and I am sure many others) refuted it in a thread some while ago! Tired circular arguments going nowhere to no useful purpose because you have no desire to learn.
willing to evaluate the material from a purely objective perspective.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere is a copy of my post on this topic dated 30 April 2010 - no reason to update it and confirms that this video has been going round and round and round. Quite what you mean by "purely objective" escapes me. Do you mean "uncritically" as in suspension of disbelief when listening to fairy stories? Well that's nice for you.
I actually found it very interesting and not a little informative, but then again, i was
willing to evaluate the material from a purely objective perspective.
"OK I have watched the lecture you recommended. I might look at more but I will comment on what I heard.
Hugh Ross is a physicist I know and in the talk refers to his "twenty year project" called "Reasons to Believe." So I also know that he is working to push a particular view: he has a project and is not neutral. That's ok - people can do that if they are upfront about what they are doing. It does mean we have to take his known views into account when he claims to evaluate evidence.
He points out in this talk that "bad science" is not acceptable in education and he explicitly says that much bad science has been promoted in support of creationism. He disapproves of that. Good man.
By the same token (and as a physicist) he presumably knows what good science looks like and would wish to conform to the very high standards of good science.
He relies heavily late in this talk on some material in a 1970 paper by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. This argues that classical Relativity Theory would lead us to conclude of the Big Bang that it represents a beginning of time, and that no time can exist prior to that moment. Hugh Ross says this supports what the bible says - that time was created by God at the point of creation. Indeed Hugh Ross celebrates this confirmation for his reading of the bible.
Hugh Ross does not mention that both Hawking and Penrose have since refuted their own conclusion because Classical Relativity breaks down in the initial moment (the Planck time) and thus has nothing whatever to say. They were wrong and they openly say as much. Instead we turn to Quantum Physics, not relativity. This leads to - or opens up - new possibilities.
I am open to the possibility that Hugh Ross will notice this important change in a later talk but in the one I watched, he made use of the 1970 article to score important debating points when he knows perfectly well that no serious scientist would rely on a refuted paper, especially when the refutation comes from and is openly explained by the authors of that article.
Ross also (I did not hear him say this but it is the nature of his argument) seems to hold with an old Islamic argument to this effect: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. However, we know very well - and Hugh Ross does as a physicist committed to good science - that in Quantum Mechanics (which is directly relevant to the Big Bang and is the best scientific model to study this) stuff happens without a cause.
He can't have his cake and eat it. He can't pick and choose bits of good science that suit and omit to mention matters that directly undermine his argument. Well he can, since he patently does, but I am not going to be persuaded by such methods."
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganIt seems to me that he merely introduces the paper in its historical context, that's its later been retracted is practically irrelevant as there are , in his opinion, other instances where general relativity lends itself to his arguments, irrespective of what has transpired since the seventies. ( I myself do not know what general relativity is, but it was not important for me to know what is is within the framework of his arguments, merely to know that's its accepted and established)
Here is a copy of my post on this topic dated 30 April 2010 - no reason to update it and confirms that this video has been going round and round and round. Quite what you mean by "purely objective" escapes me. Do you mean "uncritically" as in suspension of disbelief when listening to fairy stories? Well that's nice for you.
"OK I have watched the le since he patently does, but I am not going to be persuaded by such methods."