Romeo4real:

I am surprised you have just come to this conclusion.

Hehe, I'm actually sorry for my loss!
I thought he could be taken on seriously. . . it must be the eleventh wonder that it took me this long to realize the discussion was leading nowhere.

viaro:

Hehe, I'm actually sorry for my loss!
I thought he could be taken on seriously. . . it must be the eleventh wonder that it took me this long to realize the discussion was leading nowhere.

but u really tried for responding thus far. U ve really got the nerve for discussion.

viaro:

I don't think mazaje is interested in discussing in an interesting manner. If it is not jumping here and there and making false statements and dragging "science" into it, then he's turning round and saying it was all part of his "rhetorics". If you laugh it off, then again he turns round and cries that he is VERY serious!

It is not that I am not intereted in discussing in an intesting manner, its just that you don't know what you are really discussing? You keep trying to force me to argue that the universe did not have a begining some thing I never claimed, since I never claimed that, you go around claiming that the I am not interested in discussing seriously, How have you shown that you are interested in discussiing seriously since you are only trying to put words into my mouth. . . .

It is interesting to see how some of these loud mouthed atheists just assert things under "science" and end up showing that they do not have a clue what "science" they are talking about. I was waiting for mazaje to surprise me all along for the "science" - any type of "science" - that says what he said such a "science" has said! WHY has that taken so very long?

Where did I make mention of any science saying that the universe had no begining, Point to it, you keep running wild, and puting words into my mouth, that is what you are good at so keep on keeping on. . . .

When I hinted that most atheists argue and assert that the Universe has been in existence for all eternity, mazaje was worried and quibbled and danced all around between the implications of that hint. It is obvious that not all atheists everywhere at every time hold/held the view that the Universe was eternal or that it created itself; but in very fact, many atheist have held that view and celebrated it under the excuse of a "science" that only they can talk about but has never shown itself to stand anywhere! With a little help, perhaps, mazaje knows this already, but decided to dance around when challenged on that event, a few examples to the point:

Many theist also believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago, no?. . . .Is that the entire view of all theist? Its obvious you have no argument at all and as such you only clutch at straws. . . .Many theist in fact a majority of the christians believe that the universe is 6000 years old and use the excuse of the God hypothesis no?. . . .if you want to discuss then discuss based on the merits of what I have said, I never jumped off trying to force you to accept that the universe was created 6000 years ago because it remains the view of majority of the christians, I only try to discuss with you based on the claims you have made. . . .

(1) Here's one of such assertions that is just asserted out of wind with no science anywhere to show for it:
I am not saying that the above is precisely mazaje's claim or statement; but I am drawning on these things to make him take a position because they often pass to our notice that such is the ideology behind the atheist's assertion that the Universe has always existed. When such people are challenged, then begin to quibble and then turn round and forver mention "science" this and "science" that, and yet will never at any place show such a "science" that has researched 'God' to have concluded that the Universe was not created by God. Anyone who wishes might just go to that blog and read the whole page - for all the arguments of this materialist ideology, there is NO SCIENCE anywhere to show the basis of their assertion of a self-created or eternal Universe.

A majority of christian theist also believe that the universe is 6000 years old and their evidence for that is the bible, no? Where did I present any argument for any of the things you are talking about here?. . . .You are only arguing with yourself here and running baseless commentaries since I never made of such claims. . . .

However, even in recent times, some have tried to cheat along the lines in their attempts to rise to the challenge of providing the said "science" that says God did not create the Universe. An example is one Terrence A. Lynch who posits "The Infinite and Eternal Nature of the Universe as a Sinusoidal Flux in the Space-Time Continuum". In his piece, he argues:

Just so we don't risk misunderstanding what Terrence meant by an eternal universe, he goes on to explain that -

Anyone who reads such a proposition might at first sight assume that Terrence was on to something brilliant. But the so-called "science" he propounds is a cheat all the way - because he takes far too much leaps and gaps in his proposed theory and explains nothing about the nature of existence and causes. For those who just want to cut to the chase, perhaps we need to ask Terrence how he arrived at any calculations of "inifinity" where he just jumps into huge conclusions with nothing in his models to show the workable calculations for his proposition.

I can as well go to the AIG or ICR website and provide meaningless opinions, but since that is not what we are discussing here, I consider your rants a waste of time and of no use, since this is NOT what I am talking about here, If you want to discuss with me then go ahead and discuss what I have said, discussing other people's opinions that are not mine says that you are more interested in chasing your tale than discussing about anything important. . ,

However, for those who have tried to consider the same question of ORIGINS in science (I'm not talking about cheap shots from brazen atheistic loud mouths who show nothing), I am still waiting to see where any such sciences have established this run-away lie of an eternal Universe. Leaving "creation" for a while, what would theoretic physicists conclusde from their years of research? I give you an example of Stephen Hawkings:

You are still ranting and arguing with yourself here, since I have not stated any of the things you are talking about here. . . .

I'm not a scientist nor a cosmologist. But when I read atheists arguing for an eternal Universe that had no beginning in its existence, I become very interested indeed to see what theorems they have propounded to draw such conclusions. Atheists may argue that the Universe was not created; but SCIENCE does not come to that conclusion at all anywhere.

Which atheist argues for an eternal universe on this thread? . . .Pls learn to stop running after your shadow. . . .You never argued for the universe being 6000 years old even though a majority of christians theist believe it is, and as such you can never see me arguing about it because you never stated it, I only argue the points you have raised but you keep arguing with yourself. . . .

The above is by no means all there is to the subject - but where someone is saying that "origins science says" thus and thus, it would help greatly if such people lay aside their own atheism and show us where any research in ORIGINS SCIENCE has ever SAID what they want to force into "science". To keep making such assertions and showing nothing is quite mischievous - and we can leave it at that.

I was not talking about origin sciences. My argument is a simple one and the argument is that scientific observations did not match or agree with the genesis creation account, Like the sun and stars coming into existence after the earth was created as very clearly stated in genesis to which a lot of christians agree to that fact. Since some of the scientific explanations have evidence for them and the evidence do not match with the genesis creation account, It simply means that the genesis creation account is false and if it is false then the universe was not created by the God of the bible because the genesis creation account remains his account of creation. . . . .This is my argument not the shadow chasing that you have been doing all along. . . .

Romeo4real:

I am surprised you have just come to this conclusion. This particular issue has been trashed out so many times with Mazaje. He still clings to his "observable evidence" mantra, singing it like a scratched broken record.

You at least are more honest than vairo that keeps running around arguing with himself. . . .When i had this discussion with you, you agreed that the genesis creation account may or may not be factual, but you still belief that the universe was created by God. . .That is a honest position to take IMO, not the dancing around that vairo is doing, In one sentence he says that he doesnt know how the universe was created, when the version of God he claims created the universe says how he created the universe, yet, in another sentence he argues and trys to show that the genesis creation account explains the existence of the universe by lying all over the place, by trying to say that the bible talks about the creation of planets and recodnizes that other stars are solar systems. . . . . . .He also acknowledges that his fellow christians get angry with him when he leave the book of genesis and its explanations and go to other books, that have nothing to do with what genesis is saying. I wonder why he is ONLY person that sees the connection, I have argued with so many christians here and he seems to be the ONLY person that sees things that way. . . . . . . .What an interesting person he is. . .

He disagrees, and argues vehemently with the Creationists, sometimes eloquently, mostly erratically -  but he is YET to put forward an alternative theory. The scientists and cosmologists he is quick to refer to say they do not know, and they are not sure. Yet he swears by them. He acknowledges the "observable evidence" is not dependable, yet he swears by it.

I find this funny, since its is coming from some one that says the genesis creation account may or may not be factual. . .You are not sure if the genesis creation account is factual as you said, but you still maintain that your version of God created the universe when you can not even point to the universe and what was [i]created [/i]and show how it agrees with the way Your said he created it, You do not think that the genesis creation account is factual but you keep swearing by the said God who gave his detail account of creation in genesis as the creator of the universe, when you agree that the way he said he created the universe is not dependable . . . . .

I have comprehensively deconstructed all of Mazajes assertions and arguments elsewhere on this forum. I have proven to him that the science he clings to is unreliable and inconclusive. I have shown him the most eminent scientist of our time, in the fields of Relativity, Astrophysics and Quantum Physics do not agree with his views. I have done these things, and yet he still spews out the same garbled views.

My friend you did no such thing, Which of my views did you show that eminent scientist disagree with?. . . .You did non of these things. . . .

@Mazaje -  I salute and acknowledge your right to disagree, but that is now simply not good enough. You MUST put forward a conclusive alternative theory. So far the actual science is far from conclusive, and you know that. So, I am waiting.

You have not shown or provided any evidence at all to show that your version of God created the universe, all you have done is put forward your assumption, yet you want me to provide alternative theory evidence for what exactly?. . .

toba:

Hes trying to reconstruct what u have already deconstructed. Till date science doesnt have answers to many things, yet the bible does especially on morals.

Which morals does the bible have answers to? Human sacrifice and killing of people in the name of God, lying in the name of God, stealing in the name of God, slavery in the name of good, homophobiain the name of God, racism in the name of God. . . .There are verses that have the bibleGod supporting and issuing all these "morals" in the bible, no?

viaro:

Hehe, I'm actually sorry for my loss!
I thought he could be taken on seriously. . . it must be the eleventh wonder that it took me this long to realize the discussion was leading nowhere.

How can the discussion lead anywhere when you are only chasing after your long tail, biting it and crying at the same time?

@mazaje - I will deal with this at a more opportune time later today. Its 3am and its kinda late for detailed NL posting - especially if it is replying to you.

mazaje:

[size=15pt]Which morals does the bible have answers to?[/size] Human sacrifice and killing of people in the name of God, lying in the name of God, stealing in the name of God, slavery in the name of good, homophobiain the name of God, racism in the name of God. . . .There are verses that have the bibleGod supporting and issuing all these "morals" in the bible, no?

Guy why dnt u use a more reasonable&logically manner to argue? Other than like a confused&agitated fellow. The first thing u learn from God in the bible is work 'ethics' which is a moral. [size=17pt]He worked for 6days&rested on the 7th. Is work&rest not a moral compared to laziness?[/size]

mazaje:





My friend you did no such thing, Which of my views did you show that eminent scientist disagree with?. . . .You did non of these things. . . .

I think he should re do it here

mazaje:


You have not shown or provided any evidence at all to show that your version of God created the universe, all you have done is put forward your assumption, yet you want me to provide alternative theory evidence [/b]for what exactly?. . .

To be candid, u know we ve been on the 'God created or God didn't" for quite some days now and I have been an observant. To me u have just been on the defensive trying to refute all the alternatives viaro have been giving u without u providing a single alternative as to how u think the universe was created.
If the theist are arguing based on the bible, [b]whats your own basis of argument that God didnt create it? u must not say its science based since u told viaro that u re not talking about science. So what alternative do u have as a 'reasonable theory' that the God of the bible didnt create the universe. Enough of being on the defensive, provide an alternative theory that will negate our own claim.

I said the bible teaches morals u said know. Out of the numerous moral laws therein, i gave one above on 'work ethics, try to prove to us that work for 6 and rest on the 7th day isnt moral or ethic 'reasonably

Im giving a suggestion to make this discussion meaningful cos u made it meaningless from conception with only defense and no midfield or attack. With this u cant score a goal in this match. yet viaro have score many 

Creating something out of nothing. A lot of acaedemic physicists are already saying that our universe is a thought universe, meaning a conceptual universe, meaning that we are in someone's or something's mind.

Could it be said that imagining things, or conceptualizing ideas as well as physical things, and bringing them into manifestations(which humans do everyday, anyway) is a form of creation from nothing? If the answer is yes, then we humans can also create "exnihilo", no?

Jenwitemi:

Could it be said that imagining things, or conceptualizing ideas as well as physical things, and bringing them into manifestations(which humans do everyday, anyway) is a form of creation from nothing? If the answer is yes, then we humans can also create "exnihilo", no?

No. . . unless you have something to show how it could be so in reality.

mazaje:

How can the discussion lead anywhere when you are only chasing after your long tail, biting it and crying at the same time?

I have come to the conclusion you're a waste of time in discussion - my only regret is that I learnt it late. If ever anyone would tell me you of all people have a clue about the "science" you have been noising up and down the street, I would know better now that such is another one of your "rhetorics".

But whenever you can, please show me your "science" for this assertion -

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

It is either you're a mischievous fellow who is absolutely clueless about "science", or you just like to make noise with that word and show nothing. Please show me where "Origins Science" has asserted what you did above there - I want the "science", not your jokes.

viaro:


It is either you're a mischievous fellow who is absolutely clueless about "science", or you just like to make noise with that word and show nothing. Please show me where "Origins Science" has asserted what you did above there - I want the "science", not your jokes.

Here it is. . . .Lets the the BB model with is the standard model. . .

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe  that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.  As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago and continues to expand to this day.

Its does not say any God created the universe does it?. . .You on the other hand say that God created, will you point to anything to support it other than your basless assertions?. . .You say that orgigin sciences say that the universe was created, Will you then show that your version of God created the universe and not something else, you keep crying that you version of God created the universe, show that he did or point to the sciences that talks about him creating the universe. . . .I asked you how he created the universe from nothing, you said he spoke it inot existence, where is the evidence that the universe was spoken into existence, what language did he use, and since when does language or words turn into matter?. . .If he spoke the universe into existence we can test it and see that it was spoken into existence, no?

mazaje:

Here it is. . . .Lets the the BB model with is the standard model. . .

Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB?

The thing is that you made a blatant assertion, viz:

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

. . . and what you have posted about the BB theory does not in any line assert such a thing anywhere. The BB theory does not even draw the conclusion that you tried to make it argue.

I'm waiting for your "science" that asserts that God did not create the Universe - the BB theory does not say any such things. Do you want to try another excuse again pretentiously termed your "science"?

Even if you want to hide behind the Big Bang, perhaps the question at the heart of this discussion eludes you - and here it is, enlarged and highlighted below:

The Big Bang

Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask “how did it come into existence, and what existed before it?”

Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes.

The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?

http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm

Your excuse of the Big Bang is a late arrival, dude. As is highlighted above, the core question of "what caused the singularity to be created in the first place" is what is at the heart of this discussion. If you know any "Origins Science" that has made your blatant assertion concluding that God did not create the Universe, please show - or just shut up about what you don't know. The BB theory does not draw any conclusions about "God" or "ORIGINS SCIENCE" or even about "creation" - so pick another joke up your sleeves.

The BB theory have defeciencies that are unresolved scientifically.
Another better theory of what&how the universe was created other than by God would help on this thread if provided

viaro:

No. . . unless you have something to show how it could be so in reality.

Come on, viaro! All human creations start out as concepts made of thoughts that sprang out of moments of inspiration. You know that. As a matter of fact, these moments of inspiration could be termed as the big bang, the eureka flash, the flash of inspiration that a lot of creative humans have daily that gives birth to concepts from whence physical creations are made manifest and could very well be the big bang that scientists talk about.

And since we are capable of this creative abilities, we can also create out of nothing with our minds, just like God did. To be a creator, you have to be a naturally creative being, and to be that, you will have to have regular moments of inspirations, the big bangs.

Jenwitemi:

Come on, viaro! All human creations start out as concepts made of thoughts that sprang out of moments of inspiration. You know that. As a matter of fact, these moments of inspiration could be termed as the big bang, the eureka flash, the flash of inspiration that a lot of creative humans have daily that gives birth to concepts from whence physical creations are made manifest and could very well be the big bang that scientists talk about.

There's nobody I ever came across who makes the kind of run-away physics you're doing here. If you can show me any scientist who makes such an inference as to suppose that inspiration compares to such things as the big bang, please show me.

Jenwitemi:
And since we are capable of this creative abilities, we can also create out of nothing with our minds, just like God did.

Please give me a solid example of your own creatio ex nihilo - just one example will do.

Jenwitemi:
To be a creator, you have to be a naturally creative being, and to be that, you will have to have regular moments of inspirations, the big bangs.

^^ that does not even come close to creatio ex nihilo.

viaro:

Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB?

Sure, Where in the time line of the big bang does it state that God created the universe?. . . .

I'm waiting for your "science" that asserts that God did not create the Universe - the BB theory does not say any such things. Do you want to try another excuse again pretentiously termed your "science"?

The BB does not say that God created the universe, You said that you are waiting for any sciences that says that, where in the BB does it say any God created the universe, Where in its time line does it say any God created the universe, Show any sciences that say God created the universe since you argue that no sciences says that God did not create the universe, so the sciences that says your version of God created the universe.

"what caused the singularity to be created in the first place" is what is at the heart of this discussion.

This is false, What is at the heart of this discussion is if what we see around from scientific observations agree with how your vesion of God says he created the universe. The genesis creation account is how your God said he created the universe weather you accept it or not, You can not say that you do not know the details of how the universe came about but t yet crying that your version of God created the universe when his detailed explanation of how he allgedly created the universe is found in the bible, You said the bibleGod spoke the universe into existence and the evidence is there in the bible, does the evidence we see around agree with your God's detail story and explanation of creation? Which of the observable evidence says that the earth was created before the sun and stars as your God and bible says?. . .Which of the observations  we see shows that the moon gives out its own light as the bible says it does?. . .

Which of the observations we see says that the universe came about through spoken words?. . .Which of the observations agrees with a firmament separating the waters above from the waters below. . .That is what you keep running away from. . I know why you don't even want to discuss these, you even confessed that you fellow Christians get angry at you for your mental gymnastics by reading things into the genesis creation account, and he I was thinking I was the only person that noticed your running around, Your fellow christian brothers notice it also, no?. . .

what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?

To say the singularity came from a creator (God) is an assumption. Science doesn't make assumptions it follows the scientific method. If a God doesn't fit into the scientific method then it gets left out of the theory. You keep saying that your version of God created the universe what I want you to do is show or provide objective evidence to show the existence of the God you keep talking about and I will consider it as a possible explanation for the creation of the singularity. Otherwise, there is no reason to even seriously consider it.

mazaje:

viaro link=topic=451756.msg6113504#msg6113504 date=1275126770:

Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB?

Sure, Where in the time line of the big bang does it state that God created the universe?

You're a confirmed waste of space! The BB does not say anything about God - nothing in the excerpts made about the BB says a word about "God", and I think your insisting your assertion there has become far more serious than being desperately and deliberately dubious.

mazaje:

The BB does not say that God created the universe, You said that you are waiting for any sciences that says that, where in the BB does it say any God created the universe, Where in its time line does it say any God created the universe, Show any sciences that say God created the universe since you argue that no sciences says that God did not create the universe, so the sciences that says your version of God created the universe.

Lol, is it not rather silly that you made an obviously brainless assertion that you can't show anything for? I have always and consistently maintained that no science anywhere has come up with any research on "God" - that is not what "science" is about. Yet, no science has said anywhere that God did not create the Universe - scientists are trying to grapple with the question of what caused the existence of the Universe after coming to the conclusion that the Universe is not eternal or uncaused. Science has not said anywhere that God created or did not create the Universe - and for you to have dodged behind your excuse to make science say what it did not say is quite dishonest - which is why up until now you have not found any research paper asserting your duplicity!

mazaje:

This is false, What is at the heart of this discussion is if what we see around from scientific observations agree with how your vesion of God says he created the universe.

What is at the heart of this discussion is CREATION - I have mentioned that same thing to you several times until you begged that you were not discussing "origins". To turn round and confuse yourself is hardly surprising, but you must insist on a "origins science" that you're clueless about, and that was why I asked you to do the simple sane thing of showing me any line where your science mentions anything about "God". Where is that paper? Why do you like to be so shamelessly gutless like this?

Again, sir. . . if you are feigning ignorance at the same time as you're making vacant noise, this is the part I would like to bring again to your attention:

The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?

http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm

So, try another game up your sleeves - provide an paper that says the same thing that you asserted here:

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

I don't know how many times I have to ask that simple request: but surprise me and provide any "science" that says that same thing - it's either you can't find and then come back with another excuse.

mazaje:

To say the singularity came from a creator (God) is an assumption. Science doesn't make assumptions it follows the scientific method.

What do you mean by "science doesn't make assumptions"? The more I read your wild statements foisted on "science", the more I feel you should go back to school!

Science makes "assumptions" - scientists know this. Without these 'assumptions', you can't even begin to make any mention of the "scientific method". At the elementary level, this is the connection -

Wikipedia: Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.

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

Dude, please cut to the chase and stop making unfounded assertions cooked up in your backyard! You sound more and more detarched from "science" - otherwise you would not be making the silly statements one reads from you these days.

Vairo you are complete waste of time. . .No wonder your fellow christians get mad at you as you said yourself for trying to find meaning outside what is being discussed. . . .Even your fellow christians as you said yourself get mad at you because they can not stand your equivocations and endless lies. . . . You are on record here to have lied that the bible does not say that the Noah's flood is a global flood . . . .Even your fellow christians could not stand that one too, lol. . .keep on chasing your long tail. . .

You're a confirmed waste of space! The BB does not say anything about God - nothing in the excerpts made about the BB says a word about "God", and I think your insisting your assertion there has become far more serious than being desperately and deliberately dubious.

The argument here is simple, you said that your version of God spoke the universe into existence and that the evidence is in the bible if I want to see, and i said that scienctific explanations for the origins of the universe  which at least has some evidence to support them can be used to compare to with what is written in the bible which you said is your evidence for your assetion of God creating the universe, We can compare how the bible says the universe came into existence and the detail explanation of creation that is written in the book to see how it agree with the observable evidence, you first tried to do that and when you saw that you had no foot to stand on there by forefully trying to change what was written you, then dedided to conclude that you don't know the details of how the universe was created.   . . . .Does the bible not offer a detailed account of how the universe(matter, space and time) was supposeldy created in the 6 days account of creation? By universe I mean the universe not some universe with some mythical angels and heaven that remain in mythical books. . . .

You say that the your version of God created the universe but you still maintain that you do not know how the universe was created even when though the bible you said was your evidence gives a detailed explanation of how the God you keep yapping about created the universe. . . .I know why defending the genesis creation account is something you dread. . . .You said the bible is your evidence that God created the universe yet you don't want to talk about how the biblical creation account fits with the observable evidence that we know. . .You just keep shouting that God created the universe and the bible is your evidence, but you don't know the details when the first page of the bible contains the alleged detailed explanation of how the universe came about . . . .If your version of God created the universe the we should be able to test the universe and see that  it was spoken into existence,no?. . . .You are joke and a waste of them. . . .

viaro:

What do you mean by "science doesn't make assumptions"? The more I read your wild statements foisted on "science", the more I feel you should go back to school!

What I mean is that science isn't presumptious(assumption of something as true without really finding out if it is indeed true). . .Presumption also one of the many definitions of assumptions, no?. . . .learn to take things in context before running away chasing your tail as always. . . .

Science makes "assumptions" - scientists know this. Without these 'assumptions', you can't even begin to make any mention of the "scientific method". At the elementary level, this is the connection -

Dude, please cut to the chase and stop making unfounded assertions cooked up in your backyard! You sound more and more detarched from "science" - otherwise you would not be making the silly statements one reads from you these days.

Did you read what you posted? . . .Show me any paper that says presumption is part of the scientific methods. . . .

Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.[/b]

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

You seem to be arguing with yourself here as always. . .Where in the above does it say that the scientific method makes presumptions?. . . .

mazaje:

Vairo you are complete waste of time. . .No wonder your fellow christians get mad at you as you said yourself for trying to find meaning outside what is being discussed. . . .Even your fellow christians as you said yourself get mad at you because they can not stand your equivocations and endless lies. . . . You are on record here to have lied that the bible does not say that the Noah's flood is a global flood . . . .Even your fellow christians could not stand that one too, lol. . .keep on chasing your long tail.

Haha. . . you're not desperate, no? You're looking for every wind to use as your excuse for your obvious duplicity that you can't sustain, so you have to go on a long search about whether other Christians are mad at viaro, yes? Dude, I don't argue by jingoism - I notice that is the firstaid of a desperate atheist, and that's what you're doing now. Just climb off your high horse and keep to what is being discussed in this thread.

mazaje:

The argument here is simple, you said that your version of God spoke the universe into existence and that the evidence is in the bible if I want to see, and i said that scienctific explanations for the origins of the universe  which at least has some evidence to support them can be used to compare to with what is written in the bible which you said is your evidence for your assetion of God creating the universe, We can compare how the bible says the universe came into existence and the detail explanation of creation that is written in the book to see how it agree with the observable evidence, you first tried to do that and when you saw that you had no foot to stand on there by forefully trying to change what was written you, then dedided to conclude that you don't know the details of how the universe was created.   .

Are you now again clutching at straws? When I reminded you several times about "origins science" and "creation", what did you say afterwards? Did you, mazaje, do turn round and say that you're not discussing "origins"? If you were a sensible chap, you would have left it there and not force yourself to lie into "science" by making very silly statements and confirming what a clueless chap you actually are! This is why I let you drive on rough until now you just argue endlessly and show nothing for what you asserted - not to mention your illiterate statements that makes one wonder if you read basic science at all!

mazaje:

Does the bible not offer a detailed account of how the universe(matter, space and time) was supposeldy created in the 6 days account of creation?

How many times have I tried to answer this question and hinted that we may not agree as to details? "I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details" was what I said in post #23, and I've reminded you a couple of times that for me, the Bible does not give the details in step-by-step procedural layout. Yet, no "science" anywhere as drawn any coclusion about "God" - which is why I have been asking you to show me any such scientific research on God that should warrant your dubious assertion which you now tuck under the BB theory.

mazaje:
By universe I mean the universe not some universe with some mythical angels and heaven that remain in mythical books.

Choose any Universe and still show me your "science" for your dubious assertion. By all this excuses, you sound even far more desperate! Where is the "science" for this assertion you made ?? --

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

I want to know how you play your games. . .

viaro:



Haha. . . you're not desperate, no? You're looking for every wind to use as your excuse for your obvious duplicity that you can't sustain, so you have to go on a long search about whether other Christians are mad at viaro, yes? Dude, I don't argue by jingoism - I notice that is the firstaid of a desperate atheist, and that's what you're doing now. Just climb off your high horse and keep to what is being discussed in this thread.

How does this not relate to the topic, Who brought the issue of other christians getting made about how he interpertes the bible?  . . .You said it yourself, so why are you crying now? . . . .

How many times have I tried to answer this question and hinted that we may not agree as to details? "[color=#000099]I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know [b]HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details[/[/b]color]" was what I said in post #23, and I've reminded you a couple of times that for me, the Bible does not give the details in step-by-step procedural layout. Yet, no "science" anywhere as drawn any coclusion about "God" - which is why I have been asking you to show me any such scientific research on God that should warrant your dubious assertion which you now tuck under the BB theory.

What of the passages in genesis that gives a detailed account of how the universe was created?. . . .Does the passage not say that this is the accounts of the heaven and the earth when they were created?. . . .Do you not agree with the details. . . .You were the one that said i should go to the bible for evidence of your God speaking the universe into existence, no? Evidence for your God speaking the universe into existence and not some other God or thing is WHAT? Since a lot of other Gods have also said that they created the univers. . . . .I am more interested in your evidence to show that your particular version of God created the universe and not some other Gods that also make that claim or something else. . .

mazaje:

I want to know how you play your games. . .

I'm not playing any games. Just provide me with the one clear answer I have been asking you for this obviously dubios statement you made:

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

Mazaje, how long am I going to wait? If you can't show in your next reply, I take it that you're just out for mischief, and we can let it be at that.

Viaro science vs biblical account, are they from same orientation? If they are not give in ur opinion what the bible teaches&what science does on the other hand. Ur detailed explanation will lead me to my next question.

Jenwitemi:

I've heard this arguement being made by cristians in some of these endless debates about creation that scientists can't create out of nothing when they do their genetic manipulation voodoos. And i thought to myself, "well, the bible god cannot, either".

According to genesis, the creation of adam and eve did not come out of nothing. Adam was formed out of the EARTH (a big SOMETHING), and Eve was formed out of Adam's RIB (another SOMETHING).

In a nutshell, not even God(the jewish version, anyway) can create something out of nothing. The implication of that being that the bible god was an ancient genetic engineer just like the ones we have today.

I just thought that i should let that one out of the bag.

A group of scientists, got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one scientist to go and tell God that they no longer needed Him.

God listened patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist finished, God said, "Very well! How about this? Let's have a man-making contest."

To which the man replied, "Okay, great!"

But God added, "Now we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and gathered a handful of dust.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You have to make your own dust out of nothing!"

OLAADEGBU:

A group of scientists, got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God.  They picked one scientist to go and tell God that they no longer needed Him.

God listened patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist finished, God said, "Very well!  How about this?  Let's have a man-making contest."

To which the man replied, "Okay, great!"

But God added, "Now we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and gathered a handful of dust.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no.  You have to make your own dust out of nothing !"

The scientists then said, "okay, we will do it like you did it and create out own universes in our minds so that we can have all the dusts we need. How about that?"
The bible god answered, "ye are indeed too clever for me. I need to create dumber humans."

Jenwitemi:

The scientists then said, "okay, we will do it like you did it and create out own universes in our minds so that we can have all the dusts we need. How about that?"
The bible god answered, "ye are indeed too clever for me. I need to create dumber humans."

according to u above the bible 'god' did create a physical universe,but the scientist never did rather in their heart not so? Who is greater?

I think that we are ignoring the BTS factor here, folks. By BTS factor, i mean the "B[/b]ehind [b]T[/b]he [b]S[/b]cene" factor. What is the "behind the scene" of this universe? The BB and the concept of a creator confirms that already. If their is a creator of something (the universe in this case), then there has to be a BTS of that something.

The BTS of the universe will, of course, contain the irrefutable informations on the process that set in motion and brought the universe in which we exist, into existence. But since we are all locked within this universe, how can we look outside of it to see the process of creation or get the identities of the creator(s)? We can't, meaning we are very limited in knowing how it was done.

And because we can't, all our subsequent arguements will be based on mere speculations, and that also includes the biblical creation myths, yes, myth[b]s because there are two of them in the genesis. Interestingly enough, one of the two creation myths showed creation out of nothing(or exnihilo, as viaro puts it), and the other showed creation out of something that already is( creation of Adam and Eve). That there are two creation stories in the book of genesis is irrefutable, so let no one even bother to argue about that.

I was ripping out audios from some video files a while back and something was happening that got me thinking a bit. I set the output of these audio file to my desktop and started the ripping. Then i leaned back and watched the audio files materialize one after the other seemingly out of nothing on my desktop. I found that very interesting, even if i was not surprised.

Why was i not amazed witnessing audio files seemingly materializing from nothing? You guessed it, the BTS factor. I am the person behind the scene and i knew exactly what the process was to make this materializing happen. I was the person using the software to make the process possible. Now imagine the desktop as a world in which sentient beings are living and witnessing all these materializing. Ofcourse they will be amazed! Why is that? Because they have no way of having the knowledge of the BTS to see who is causing the materializing of all these aufio files and how that person is doing it, so they are all left with all sorts of speculations.

Now, remove the desktop and put the universe we live in and you will all see quite clearly that we are all in such a situation right now playing with all kinds of speculations and using them as arguementation bases. Ridiculous, ain't it? We know way too little of the BTS of the universe to prove anything empirically. Unless somebody wants to argue that there is no behind the scene to this universe. If that is the case, then that person need to provide evidence to back that up.