Darwin's Day - Religion (6) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Darwin's Day (37789 Views)
Charles Darwin To Receive Apology From D Church Of England 4 Rejecting Evolution / Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes / Does Anyone Not Know About The Giant Hawk Moth: Darwin's Prediction (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (14) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:45am On Mar 10, 2012 |
mantraa: You need to answer a few foundation questions. How did all the information contained in the DNA originate? How did life originate? mantraa: What is the ultimate cause of the universe? mantraa: First of all answer those core questions before you begin to make your assumptions and conjectures.  mantraa: How do you know it is true? Were you there to observe the explosion at the beginning?  They only become facts when you answer those foundation question, other than that your assumption remains fairytales. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mantraa: 2:25am On Mar 10, 2012 |
How did all the information contained in the DNA originate? How did life originate? The information in DNA supports the evolution theory even though Darwin knew nothing about DNA wnen he proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. I do not know yet how the original Abiogenesis occured but scientists working on it think it could be related to RNA and proteins etc, The moment when complex chemical structures became biological structures is still a mystery for now. If you know the answer please share it and provide the evidence to support your theory. What is the ultimate cause of the universe?The universe is observed to be expanding, so if you reverse the expansion it reverses to a singularity approx. 13.5 billion years ago. What caused the initial expansion is not known yet. If you think you know what caused it please share it and provide some falsifiable evidence to support your theory. First of all answer those core questions before you begin to make your assumptions and conjectures. CoolThis is why scientist build huge particle colliders, radio telescopes, hubble space telescope, search for exo-planets and extra-terrestrial life, spectrum analysis of distant stars and found the red - shift of distant galaxies just last century after finding out that our milky way galaxy is one of billions of galaxies. The universe that we are a part of is much much more grander than the writers of the creation story in the bible were able to comprehend. We are just beginning to understand it, and there is a lot more to learn. How do you know it is true? Were you there to observe the explosion at the beginning? Shocked They only become facts when you answer those foundation question, other than that your assumption remains fairytales.You dont need to be there to observe it. light travels at over 670 million miles an hour. We can observe objects in the universe who's light has taken 13.5 billion years to reach us and which are accelerating away at a speed which causes their light to shift into the red end of the spectrum. If you have a better theory please share it and provide the evidence to support it. Please do not refer to a book written by some ignorant bronze age middle eastern desert nomads 3000 years ago. There are hundreds of other faith based supernatural creation stories around the world written down. Some are quite poetic and beautiful, but just like the story in genesis, there is no evidence to support their simplistic bronze age supernatural claims. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 3:39am On Mar 10, 2012 |
mantraa: How does this answer my question? Let me put it clearer. Since information is nonmaterial and in all observed cases always requires an intelligent sender, how did all the information contained in DNA originate? The fact here is that you have no clue as to how life originated and that to me proves that your Neo-Darwinian evolution has no leg to stand on. mantraa: You are missing the point again here. Scientists only observe in the present it is evolutionists that interprete the evidence with their assumptions and conjectures. Without a cause and a mass energy source there can be no big b ang. So what made the big b ang to go bang? mantraa: Don't confuse science with your neo-darwinian evolution. Observation science doesn't do interpretation of past history. Neo-Darwinian theory is dabbing into the past where they only assume what happened in the past and many of these assumptions have been discarded. You have not answered any of the core questions I put to you all you have been doing is citing the works of scientists that can be repeated can the big b ang and life be repeated out of nothing? If the answer is no then you have to have faith in the position you hold on to and your position has no foundation because you cannot answer the core questions. mantraa: Where you guys get confused is that millions or billion of light years does only means a measure of distance, it has nothing to do with the age or years it began. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence but we interprete it differently according to our presuppositions it is just that biblical creationists have solid foundation. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by Enigma(m): 7:17am On Mar 10, 2012 |
mantraa: The same book which some of the greatest and wisest scientists ever believe/d in and which is/was even inspiration for their scientific inquiry!  The same book which a foremost "scientist" even unknowingly acknowledges had always held the correct position on mankind when "scientists" were using "science" to advocate or support racism!  Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?(Sir Arthur Keith) Personally, I don't bother arguing "evolution v creationism" but find it pitiful that those who advocate the "scientific method" can be so blithely, perhaps deliberately/dishonestly, closed-minded. If the bronze age middle Eastern nomads were "ignorant" of "science", the so-called naturalists/materialists are wholly ignorant of spiritual matters and bereft. And if writers of the Bible were ignorant bronze-age people, what about the world's "greatest philosophers" - what about your Pythagoras, your Socrates, your Plato etc? Oh and for the plugging of Richard Dawkins and his wares - well, Dawkins is a well-known philosophical and theological dunce. Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.(Terry Eagleton --- himself an atheist/marxist for that matter) |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 8:21am On Mar 10, 2012 |
This man takes the opinion of one person and tries to make it seem as it it covers the opinion of every other person. . . The bible has been used for centuries to advocate slavery and segregation. . .If Christianity is all about equality then why was the bible used to advocate that system of living for centuries? Even the God of the bible is himself a strong advocate of slavery assuming the stories of the bible are true. . . . .A book whose central tenet is that unbelievers are condemned already and light(believers) and darkness(unbelievers) can not be a book used for equality, even in the mind of the deluded. . . . There is actually no need for discussion creationism with science, since science is based on a set of guidelines that are defined and universally accepted to be true among those in the scientific community while spirituality has never been clearly defined and does not have a universally acceptable way of testing or knowledge among those that talk about it or believe in it, spirituality is a game of making things as you go. . . .Science has universally acceptable values, on the other hand no two believers in the same God will define spirituality the same way or even share the same beliefs about it, no wonder it is always called personal and involves faith, in essence it just that means people should believe what they want to based on their personal feelings and prejudice and not because it is real or has evidence to back it up. . . The evidence is there for all to see, the cell theory or principle of flotation is the same for any body that reads it and understand it and tries to apply it in real life in constructing ships or floating bodies in water, but when it comes to spirituality, OLAADEGBU will read the genesis creation story and conclude that the earth was created 6000 years ago in exactly 6 24 hour days, Adam was the first man and no world was every created before him, while davidylan or viaro who are christians will read the same story and conclude that the earth was created billions of years and the day mentioned is not the normal 24 hour day and there was a world that existed before Adam. .All of them will lay claim to this elusive spirituality that has never been defined and completely lack universal acceptability or adherence. . . .No two people will tell u what exactly is spirituality or even try to apply it the same way. . .Spirituality simply means making things up as you go and pretending to know things that you have absolutely no knowledge about. . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:38pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
mazaje: Read the book of this one person titled The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York; A. L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178, Darwin wrote: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin And don't say that this is just the ranting of a deluded man because the quotes below shows how he has influenced disciples after himself who share the same racist thoughts. "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley And as a result Henry Fairfield Osborn, a disciple of Thomas Huxley wrote this in support of their white supremacist and human racism view: "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens." -- Henry Fairfield Osborn mazaje: Lets read what Charles Darwin thought about science. He thought that bears evolved to become whales. How scientific is that? The scientific method was formulated by a Christian who had the Bible for his inspiration, if you must know. Here is one example from Charles Darwin’s own writings in an early edition of The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 184. "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely opened mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale" This is the kind of bad science practiced by evolutionists and taught in schools and promoted in the media. mazaje: I can only speak for myself using the Scripture as my final authority not the infallible ideologies of sinful men. Let the likes of davidylan and viaro speak for themselves. We shall all stand or fall by the written word of God. If the foundation be destroyed what can the righteous do? |
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:15pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
OLAADEGBU:
|
| Re: Darwin's Day by Enigma(m): 2:28pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
@Olaadegbu And it is not just those few you have mentioned; there is a long list of "scientists" from even before Darwin's book actually to the present day who have used the Darwinist theory or line of thinking to justify racism. And obviously, there is the eugenics debacle, Hitler etc etc etc. Our "friends" would of course close their eyes to these. A more general point: do you ever see our friends hold "science" responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or for napalm use in Asia? Or its role in abortion (especially in absence of health risk to either patient or foetus)? This is why I was pointing out the point about double-standards to kay17. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 2:42pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
OLAADEGBU: Your God is one of the greatest advocate of slavery. . . . However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 ). . . . . Back in the days the white slave owners used passages in the bible to justify enslaving blacks. . . . They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9). . . . .Genesis 9:25-27 says that "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. . . . . . " Many christians traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa. The believe that the dark skin of Africans became associated with this"curse of Ham." as a result slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable to many christians. . . . . "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley You bible is filled with your God advocating racism, segregation and slavery. . . .So what exactly are you talking about?. . . .  I can only speak for myself using the Scripture as my final authority not the infallible ideologies of sinful men. Let the likes of davidylan and viaro speak for themselves. We shall all stand or fall by the written word of God. If the foundation be destroyed what can the righteous do? Sure, you can only speak for yourself because that is what the whole spirituality and its brouhaha is all about. . .Just self project yourself as God and pass of your personal opinion, ideas and fantasies as the only truth. . .There is no way of establishing any truth when it comes to spirituality since everything is made up without any agreeable standard or platform to work with. . . .The same scripture you use as your final authority is the same scriptures davidylan and other christians who are old earth creationist use as their final authority, and the holy spirit told them based on the scriptures that the universe is no 6000 years old. . . .If you want to argue why not go and argue with the elusive holy spirit for sending different signals and understanding to different people with regards to the age of the universe according to their understanding of the bible stories. . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 2:50pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
Enigma: Just as many christian leaders have used the bible to justify slavery. . . . Quotations by learned men from the 19th century: "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God, it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation, it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2 "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.". Rev Alexander Campbell "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.", Rev. R. Furman D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA). "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. "If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff. By the way I am not dogmatic or indoctrinated to say that science doesn't have its disadvantages, even atheism has its disadvantages and I am ever willing to accept it and state it, unlike some indoctrinated fellows here that will tell you that the universe is 6000 years old or the bible is completely without errors and contradiction based ONLY on indoctrination and nothing else. . , |
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 4:20pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
mazaje: You are committing the logical fallacy of question-begging epithet here. By the way, this does not in any way address my point about the racist and white supremacist view of Charles Darwin and his croonies. mazaje: What you are doing here is to confuse yourself by misunderstanding the proper biblical passage in its grammatical-historical context. mazaje: Using the views of some heretical sects does not prove your point either. mazaje: The Bible does not even use the word race when it refers to people, it is the evolutionists that coined that word when it comes to describing peope groups. The Bible describes all human beings as being of "one blood" (Acts 17:26), which shows that we are all related as we are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), who was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27), and this makes us all equal in the sight of God. We became descendants of Adam as only descendants of Adam can be saved because of Jesus Christ who is our mutual relative by blood when He died and rose again from the grave. mazaje: We may have different opinions and that is why we have many denominations but what we have in common is our faith in the Deity, death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is foundational to our faith. "The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are His" (2 Tim 2:19). |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 6:31pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
OLAADEGBU: Just the way racist and white supremacist have been using the bible as their justification for slavery and segregation. . . What you are doing here is to confuse yourself by misunderstanding the proper biblical passage in its grammatical-historical context. I thought you claim that the bible is fresher than tomorrows newspapers and your God remains the same yesterday today and for ever?. . .So when slavery was the norm your God was there advocating slavery, right?. . .Just as when genocide was the norm your God was also there advocating genocide, your God was also in the game of advising people on how to brand their slaves, no?. . . . Using the views of some heretical sects does not prove your point either. Where is the DNA evidence that shows that all humans descended from one man and one woman. . .There is no DNA evidence to back up your baseless assertion of all humans descending from one man so drop that nonsense. . . We may have different opinions and that is why we have many denominations but what we have in common is our faith in the Deity, death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is foundational to our faith. "The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are His" (2 Tim 2:19). False, many christians have different conception and idea of who or what God is. . .Many ascribe what ever concept they want to their God based on the bible stories and project it unto others. . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 9:09pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
Origin Of The Races "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood." (Genesis 10:32) This is the concluding verse of the tenth chapter of Genesis, known as "The Table of Nations." It tells us that all the original nations of the world were formed from the descendants of Noah. The basis of this worldwide division was their dispersion at Babel (Genesis 11:9), "every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations" (Genesis 10:5; see also 10:20 and 10:31). Lest anyone think this list of original nations is simply folklore, he should remember that William F. Albright, probably the greatest archaeologist of the twentieth century, called it "an astonishingly accurate document." Many ethnologists still speak of Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic peoples and languages. But what about the origin of races? One searches the Bible in vain for this information, for neither the word nor the concept of "race" appears in the Bible at all! There is no such thing as a race—except the human race! Skin colour and other supposed racial characteristics are mere recombinations of innate genetic factors, originally created in Adam and Eve to permit development of different family characteristics as the human race was commanded to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28; 9:1). "Race" is strictly an evolutionary concept used by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and the other nineteenth-century evolutionists to rationalize their white racism. But from the beginning it was not so! "God that made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:24,26). "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?" (Malachi 2:10). HMM For More . . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 9:47pm On Mar 10, 2012 |
mazaje: Anyone can use the Bible to justify their evil practises. So I wouldn't be surprised if evolutionists used it. Let me give you an example, an atheist can use Psalm 14:1 to say that "There is no God" when he takes it out of context. mazaje: The norm is you atheist evolutionist taking the Scriptures out of its grammatical and historical context. I quote Dr. Walter Kaiser, former president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Old Testament scholar, who states: "The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war. Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale. . . . In all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted" Job recognised that all human beings were equal before God, and that all should be treated as image-bearers of the Creator. See Job 31:13-15. If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant when they complained against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him? Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb? Peter H. Davids, in commenting on Paul’s remarks to the slaves in his epistles, states the following: "The church never adopted a rule that converts had to give up their slaves. Christians were not under law but under grace. Yet we read in the literature of the second century and later of many masters who upon their conversion freed their slaves. The reality stands that it is difficult to call a person a slave during the week and treat them like a brother or sister in the church. Sooner or later the implications of the kingdom they experienced in church seeped into the behavior of the masters during the week. Paul did in the end create a revolution, not one from without, but one from within, in which a changed heart produced changed behavior and through that in the end brought about social change. This change happened wherever the kingdom of God was expressed through the church, so the world could see that faith in Christ really was a transformation of the whole person" Those consistently living out their Christian faith realise that the forced enslavement of another human being goes against the biblical teaching that all humans were created in the image of God and are of equal standing before Him (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). The most ardent abolitionists during the past centuries were Bible-believing Christians. People such as John Wesley, Granville Sharp, William Wilberforce, Jonathan Edwards, Jr., and Thomas Clarkson all preached against the evils of slavery and worked to bring about the abolition of the slave trade in England and North America. Harriet Beecher Stowe conveyed this message in her famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. And of course, who can forget the change in the most famous of slave traders? John Newton, writer of "Amazing Grace," eventually became an abolitionist after his conversion to Christianity, when he embraced the truth of Scripture. (AiG). And you will not feign ignorance that we do have servants working either for us or our parents back at home. How did we treat them?, like equals or like slaves? mazaje: You should be answering the question your fellows are unable to answer. Where did the information in the DNA originate from? mazaje: Anyone who does not know our Lord Jesus Christ experientially cannot say that they are true Christians. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 8:07am On Mar 11, 2012 |
OLAADEGBU: Here are what some Christians have said about the bible and its support for slavery. . . . "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God, it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation, it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2 "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.". Rev Alexander Campbell "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.", Rev. R. Furman D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina You should be answering the question your fellows are unable to answer. Where did the information in the DNA originate from? You made the ridiculous claim that we all descended for one man and woman, if your claim is true then there should be DNA evidence to back it up,since there isn't then it means you are talking trash. . . Anyone who does not know our Lord Jesus Christ experientially cannot say that they are true Christians. People know Jesus experimentally differently with no acceptable set of rules, so your talk makes no sense. . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 1:15pm On Mar 11, 2012 |
Ola, I can see that you have accepted defeat. That is ok, but you dont seem to have learnt anything from our interaction. You have repeated again that information requires an intelligent sender. I refuted that earlier by telling you that even gibberish is information. "Fowl scratch" is also information. Think about it. Using DNA to prove "god" is a fail from the get go. I have told you that and you still persist. I waited for your "transcendental arguments" which never came. I'll help you out. Go here ---> https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=771933.msg9250000#msg9250000 I really was waiting for you but you never delivered. You prefer to go round and round. The way you argue, you seem like you are trying to convince yourself.  Not my wahala. We will see on another thread. Not before I help you with a few pictures though  |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 1:26pm On Mar 11, 2012 |
.
|
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 1:28pm On Mar 11, 2012 |
.
|
| Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 3:54pm On Mar 11, 2012 |
Jayriginal - The best argument for the existence of God is simple. Its called the cosmological argument. It goes largely as follows - 1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause 2. The Universe BEGAN to exist 3. The Universe has a cause The foregoing can be summarized as an offshoot from the laws of motion. Nothing can move without a triggering factor. NOTHING. The big bang was a major movement. It thus required a triggering factor. This CANNOT be disputed. The only question therefore remains the NATURE of the triggering factor. For that - I advance to you the argument that nothing can evolve from anything that does not bear elements of the succeeding thing within it. This wraps up the existence of God. Also, the experiments of Louis Pasteur - life can only come from pre existing life. Olaadegbu may make a caricature of proper arguments in the way he goes about it - but the fundamental sensing of a pre-existent purposeful cause is definitively correct. What is this horrible new format on NL by the way, YUCK! Mods, remove it! |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 6:29pm On Mar 11, 2012 |
^^ Seen. Remember however, that Ola set out not to prove just a creator but a particular creator. The cosmological argument has its own problems built in. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 7:59pm On Mar 11, 2012 |
^^^ Such as? |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 12:00pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
Deep Sight: ^^^ Such as?It does not lead one to a valid conclusion. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 1:01pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
Deepsight have you watched the video i posted, it addresses the some of flaws of the kalam cosmological argument. . . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 1:20pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
jayriginal: Surely you can do better than this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Sorry, but this is the most feeble response I have ever received to any argument on this forum. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 1:20pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
mazaje: Deepsight have you watched the video i posted, it addresses the some of flaws of the kalam cosmological argument. . . . Sorry I cannot watch the video. You can post the rebuttals here in written form and I will read them. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 2:01pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I am really reluctant to go on another wild goose chase. I am pretty sure that you know about the cosmological arguments and the rebuttals. If I felt like there was a chance of teaching you anything, I'd happily delve into it. As it is, we are probably going to end up going round in circles. The cosmological argument is junk. You may make a case for god, but you can hardly do it with logic. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 2:39pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
jayriginal: This simply sounds escapist to me. The cosmological argument is junk. What a grand assertion, made without a single line of a rebuttal. You are very diligent and hardworking, sir. You may make a case for god, but you can hardly do it with logic. The existence of God is a logical and empirically verifiable construct. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by mazaje(m): 2:50pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Really. . .The arguments for good might sound logical, they have never been shown to be empirically verifiable. . .How many Gods created the universe and what did they use in creating the universe from nothing? provide that empirically verifiable evidence Mr deepsight. . . . |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 3:31pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
Deep Sight:If you say so. Deep Sight:You may say what you like. The point is that I am not willing to argue with you. Especially not now. Speaking of being diligent and hardworking, if you would do some research and cast aside your assumptions, maybe you would know better than to brandish the cosmological argument as the best for god. Infact, it is precisely this that makes me reluctant to argue with you. Deep Sight:No its not. No matter how many times you repeat it,it is not. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 3:47pm On Mar 12, 2012 |
mazaje:Get ready for unmoved movers and uncaused causes, leading inevitably to a oneness of infinity. Also get ready for 0+0=0, and 0+1=1 Voila, GOD !!! |
| Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 10:05am On Mar 13, 2012 |
Transcript from the video (concerning the Kalam Cosmological Argument) . . . aside from the evidential arguments for the existence of gods, various arguments have been proposed by some logic but I have yet to hear a single one that doesnt contain at least one fatal flaw. We have the multi flawed kalam which falls down on its first premise. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) The Universe begins (sic) to exist 3) Therefore the Universe has a cause 4) This cause is a god The phrase begins to exist refers to creation ex nihilo; creation from nothing. This contrasts with creation ex materia; creation from pre-existing matter. The problem with proposing creation from nothing is that for a cause to be a cause, it has to act on something. To have an effect, there has to be something there to be effected. A cause acting on nothing to produce something, is a magical explanation. When we ask how this god is supposed to have created the Universe, one word crops up repeatedly. It is said to have "willed" creation to happen and this bizarre assertion is presented as if it has explained something. It hasnt! It makes no less sense to talk about "swimming" the Universe into existence or "laughing" it into existence. "Willing" has no more been established as a mechanism for the creation of matter than any of these other verbs. |
| Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 1:07pm On Mar 13, 2012 |
There we are. I absolutely knew your reticence on this matter would only lead to very flawed understanding and presentation of what the cosmological argument actually asserts. As it happens, the transcript you have provided is little more than a caricature of the argument. As follows - 190. jayriginal: The argument says nothing about creation ex-nihilo - and creation ex-nihilo is only falseful imposed on the argument by whoever you are transcribing from. For something to "begin to exist" does not translate necessarily into creation ex nihilo. A cigarrete begins to exist from the moment it is fully formed in the Tobacco factory. That does not mean it was created ex-nihilo. It simply means that it came to exist, it began to exist as the thing that it NOW is, from the time that it was formed - and from whatever it was formed from. Now the fact of the the matter is that the universe did have a beginning as we know it - it began with the initial expansion which is called the big b.ang. It is futile to attempt to argue, as I know you will - that the pre-existing singularity was infact the universe - and as such there was no beginning for the universe. The reason such an argument falls flat is simply the fact the the singularity was at best just that - a singularity - and certainly not a universe. A universe is exactly what we see of the cosmos today - and we named it just that exactly because it is the compound field of cosmic bodies which is the universe. The pre-existent singularity was just that - a singularity - and NOT a universe. Arguing otherwise stretches logic on its head. Indeed i should point out to you that NOBODY actually knows what excatly that singularity was or comprised of. We only have conjecture regarding what it might be. So this is another reason why you cannot state that the singularity was the universe. Thus you need to understand that the comical rebuttal above falls (x) because the cosmological argument is not necessarily an argument for creation ex nihilo as I have shown you and (y) The universe indeed BEGAN to exist from the moment of the initial expansion called the big ban.g. Now as I earlier said, and as acknowledged even within the inchoate attempt at a rebuttal which you transcribed above, there is the law of cause and effect. Nobody - and certainly not any one who claims to be scientifically minded - accepts that there can be effects without causes. That is the height of irrational claims. As such, it is self evident that the initial expansion called the big ban.g - which was an event that BEGAN to happen, surely had a cause, or triggering factor. It could not be otherwise, given the laws of motion. I hope you see in this already that even if I were to accede that the singularity was already the universe (which I by no means accede) - it still remains that the EVENT of the initial expansion called the big ban.g was an EVENT that BEGAN to happen at a point. And as such, it requires a cause, or triggering factor. For the singularity could surely have sat there of all eternity - as, in the mind of the scientist, it must have done already - and what exactly triggered its expansion - the expansion which then formed what we call the universe? So I hope you can already see that you are making grave presumptions. You seize upon an ill-thought out video rebuttal - a very poor attempt philosophically - an attempt absolutely lacking in depth or rigour, and you gleefully advance such to ME, as your rebuttal of the cosmological argument? That will not wash: its altogether a non-starter as you can see: the very first premise which he so woefully sought to rebutt remains firmly standing as a perfectly correct premise. I also need you to understand and grasp the over-arching importance of the distinction between necessary elements and contingent elements with regard to the cosmological argument. That is far more pertinent than the mis-footed question of creation ex nihilo. By they way, there is no such thing as nothing in existence anywhere, as nothing = 0[zero]. So start again fella. I think you need to climb down your high horse in this matter as there is clearly no reason for you to be on one in the first place. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (14) (Reply)
Meet Grace Ojewande, 56-Year-Old Virgin Married To Prophet Samuel Abiara (Photo) / A Comparison Between Jesus And Muhammad / Fufeyin: I Saw The Death Of Abba Kyari, Prayed About It But It's The Will Of God
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 172 |