If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[FleshNBones]

Why wouldn't I compare it to gravity? Evolution is an observable phenomena, just like gravity. The difference is that we can explain evolution, we cannot explain gravity.

 

Do you dispute gravity? Do you think gravity is a supernatural force, considering that we cannot explain it?

 

Lastly, without matter, we wouldn't have gravity.

Strange. You are comparing evolution to gravity which is one of the fundamental forces.

How much formal education have you had?

This could quite possibly be the most ignorant thing I have ever read on these forums.

 

"Evolutionists" are concerned with biology, not cosmology. The Big Bang theory is currently the most popular explanation we have for the state the Universe is in at the moment (and we get more evidence all the time). I am not aware of any biologists who reject it--not that it would matter. I am also not aware of any cosmologists who reject it.

 

Maybe if you would read a science book we could find out why you don't like it.

Probably a better term would be "Darwinist".

It is not popular, but it is the most widely accepted because there is more evidence to support it. Many people don't like it because the concept of a Big Bang suggests a creator. There is no logical reason why matter has the properties it has. These properties cannot be evolved. It is almost like a creator decided what forces should exist and in what proportions. A creator like that would have to live outside the anomaly we call the universe, and outside of space and time.

[Moai]

Strange. You are comparing evolution to gravity which is one of the fundamental forces.

How much formal education have you had?

 

What? how much formal education have you had? Can you even read for meaning?

 

Gravity is obvious to everyone. We cannot explain how or why it works, yet nobody doubts that gravity exists.

 

Evolution is obvious to every thinking person. We have an excellent explanation for how and why it works, and yet ignorant people doubt that it exists.

 

That is why I compare them. I could use relativity to illustrate the same point. Interestingly, i am not the one who came up with this comparison--Dawkins, Gould, Victor Stenger, and PK Myers (a professor from the University of Chicago), among others--have all used the same illustration. Perhaps if you had more formal education or even read about the subject we are discussing you would be aware of that.

 

Probably a better term would be "Darwinist".

 

Or "biologist". Or maybe "anyone who has had an entry level biology class."

 

It is not popular, but it is the most widely accepted because there is more evidence to support it. Many people don't like it because the concept of a Big Bang suggests a creator.

 

How much formal education have you had? The Big Bang is not only popular, it is getting stronger every day. And it no more "suggests a creator" than any other scientific explanation.

 

There is no logical reason why matter has the properties it has.

 

Sure there is. You just don't know it, and so claim that it doesn't exist.

 

These properties cannot be evolved.

 

Nobody suggests that the properties of matter "evolve." How much formal education have you had? Evolution is a force that operates on living matter in the Universe. If an organism reproduces, it evolves. It's a fact.

 

It is almost like a creator decided what forces should exist and in what proportions. A creator like that would have to live outside the anomaly we call the universe, and outside of space and time.

 

No, it is not like that at all.

 

First, if a creator lives outside of space and time, he cannot effect it. Second, something must have "created" the state in which a being could exist outside of space-time, by your own definition. What that means is there could not have been "nothing" if a creator existed.

 

Not only that, if the physical properties of the Universe are as complex as we know they are, and they were created, the creator MUST be more complex than the Universe. Since you feel the need to postulate a creator for this complexity, you must then postulate a creator to explain its complexity. And on and on, ad infinitum. If the creator could always exist, why couldn't the Universe?

 

Here is an excellent essay about possible reasons why there is "something" rather than "nothing". http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

[shadowofman]

Strange. You are comparing evolution to gravity which is one of the fundamental forces.

 

Fundamental force is a physics term. Evolution is the fundamental force of biology if you want to use that term.

 

Nobody suggests that the properties of matter "evolve." How much formal education have you had? Evolution is a force that operates on living matter in the Universe.

 

Actually, I have heard physists use the term evolution in discussing the move from simple hydrogen to the more complex, heavier elements. I am no physist, but elements like iron didn't exist until the first stars begaan to supernova and throw their guts across the galaxies. It's not the same as the evolution of life, but it an evolution of matter.

 

It is almost like a creator decided what forces should exist and in what proportions. A creator like that would have to live outside the anomaly we call the universe, and outside of space and time.

 

This is the type of thing that a two year old would say.

Did you ever see the episode of Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends when Goo and Mac get into the imagination feud?

 

First, if a creator lives outside of space and time, he cannot effect it.

But, what if he is wearing the Socks of Outside Space and Time?

Then he could exist outside of it!

Edited December 27, 2007 by shadowofman
sp

[Moose]

I am no physist, but elements like iron didn't exist until the first stars begaan to supernova and throw their guts across the galaxies. It's not the same as the evolution of life, but it an evolution of matter.

First stars eh?. Where did those come from?

[disgracian]

5 second of Googling yielded one explanation:

 

http://access.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Stories/FirstStars/Stars1.html

 

Cheers,

D.

[Geishawhelk]

Oh Disgracian, thanks for that, how COULD you - ?!

 

Now when I sing;

"Twinkle twinkle little star,

How I wonder what you are!"

 

I'm just gonna sound stooopid!

[Moose]

5 second of Googling yielded one explanation:

 

http://access.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Stories/FirstStars/Stars1.html

 

Cheers,

D.

Interesting.

 

So, one has to wonder, do we adhere to this web site rather than something much older, more proven?

[disgracian]

We make up our own minds, Moose. I didn't check the validity of this site, it's just a demonstration of how easy it is to find an answer to the question you asked. There are actually a lot of different ideas as to what the first stars where and how they formed.

 

I'm almost too afraid to ask, knowing you, but what is this much older and more proven thing to which you refer?

 

Cheers,

D.

Edited December 30, 2007 by disgracian

[Moose]

We make up our own minds, Moose.

That's right, so then why must you and several others have to claim that Christianity is wrong? And that God doesn't exist?

I didn't check the validity of this site, it's just a demonstration of how easy it is to find an answer to the question you asked.

Being somewhat unlimited with my resources, I know how to find answers. That website, and many others don't have much to offer as far as how the universe came about. And you won't find one.

what is this much older and more proven thing to which you refer?

To me it's God and His word. And yes, to me He's proven it over and over. I believe the Bible is divine. You don't. You live your life according to how you view your origin. I do the same.

[disgracian]

Why must you and other Christians proclaim otherwise if you are suggesting a kind of "live and let live" mentaility as you seem to be doing? You have your Great Commission, so do I, and anybody who listens has the chance to decide for themselves.

 

That website, incidentally, has more to offer about the origins of the universe as we know it than "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

Cheers,

D.

[shadowofman]

First stars eh?. Where did those come from?

 

I don't know Moose. Never had an overhelming interest in the physics and cosmology. It is all very interesting, but I prefer to keep up with biology and socio-biology when it comes to science.

 

I am curious.

Why are you interested in anyone's ideas as to the origins of stars?

You seemed to have a tone that implies that you know the answer to your question. Well, I have to tell you that no scientist would be so bold as to claim to know everything there is to know about how the universe was formed. They have observed much, but that is just a scratch on the surface.

 

Science will continue to observe and test, and your children's children will continue to know more about how this universe works than you or I could ever hope to in our lifetimes.

[Geishawhelk]

To me it's God and His word. And yes, to me He's proven it over and over. I believe the Bible is divine. You don't. You live your life according to how you view your origin. I do the same.

And this for me personally, is the crux of the matter. this is the nub of the whole thread and the perpetual argument, the semantics and the ping-pong...

 

Personally, (and disgracian, please don't be offended and take this as a dig - it's not intended as such, it's just my POV) if I were in the position of discussing God vs no God with Moose - I'd stop right here.

The two views - mine and his - are at exactly opposite poles.... But (as I'm using physics as a metaphor) they actually attract, because each is strong in it's discussion, heartfelt, believed and the focus steadfastly holds the heart and mind - of each pole.

This is where the 'magnetic' attraction lies. The two 'poles' are just as strong, just as convinced and just as focussed as each other. But 'N' will never be 'S' and 'S' will never be 'N'.

 

I could never hope to persuade Moose that what he truly believes in his heart is flawed, any more than he can convince me that what I follow is the road to perdition. (oh, hya Tom, how's the kid?)

 

But if I were next to him right now, I hope we'd be able to just shaddup, have a cup of coffee, and be the closest we could be - the two polarities joined by the single magnetism that after all, binds every single person to another.

 

We're here, aren't we?

 

Just ramblin' and hoping for a really good 2008 for myself - and every other 'Pole' - on this rock.....

[JamesM]

But if I were next to him right now, I hope we'd be able to just shaddup, have a cup of coffee, and be the closest we could be - the two polarities joined by the single magnetism that after all, binds every single person to another.

 

We're here, aren't we?

 

Just ramblin' and hoping for a really good 2008 for myself - and every other 'Pole' - on this rock.....

 

And I have to tell you that when I read your posts, I really appreciate what you say and how you say it. Personally, I think I can learn alot from you.

 

I hope you have a happy new year, and I hope you keep posting here, G.

[Geishawhelk]

Hugs James, thanks. you too.

[Moose]

Why are you interested in anyone's ideas as to the origins of stars?

I'm not going there again. Next thread.....just keep up will ya??

if I were in the position of discussing God vs no God with Moose - I'd stop right here.

Thanks G. There are members here who can do that.

But if I were next to him right now, I hope we'd be able to just shaddup, have a cup of coffee, and be the closest we could be - the two polarities joined by the single magnetism that after all, binds every single person to another.

 

We're here, aren't we?

Yes I like to believe we are.

 

I know I rub some people the wrong way......sometimes you just have to beat each other up before you can be friends......