Proof of Creation - Page 2

Environment Man · 01-03-2008, 11:14 AM

And a plan needs a planner. Ergo God. No way around it. Self worship is the only way to dodge it.

mentor · 01-03-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonesy

I'm not here to hold your hand and give you cookies. Truth is my guide. If truth is too uncertain for you, do not read my posts.

If you are a religious wacko, do not twist what i'm about to explain. I am not advocating any religions or their fake Gods. The following is merely about proving this universe was created... by a... creator.

My theory is you can find proof in constants. Constants being things like pain, pleasure, fear and reproduction. We find reproduction in the cosmos, as well as in organisms. Can you find a single species devoid of the pain, pleasure, fear, reproduction model? If not, how can you explain this overwhelming evidence of creation? Is it possible not a single other model managed to survive through natural selection? There are multitudes of different species, as created through evolution, the environment and the above model; but the above model is present in all.

Do these constants actually prove creation? How else can these constants be explained?

This argument does not explain creation at all. It merely deferes the question of creation to "who created the creator?" Besides, the evidence can simply be explained by "the laws of physics/time/space/mass have simply always existed" with no beginning or end. There is no reason to assume the Big Bang is anything more than a punctuation in an infinite series of natural events. 2+2+4, always has, always will be. No one needed to create this relationship.

Environment Man · 01-03-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentor

This argument does not explain creation at all. It merely deferes the question of creation to "who created the creator?" Besides, the evidence can simply be explained by "the laws of physics/time/space/mass have simply always existed" with no beginning or end. There is no reason to assume the Big Bang is anything more than a punctuation in an infinite series of natural events. 2+2+4, always has, always will be. No one needed to create this relationship.

It is not prudent or logical to assume energy has always existed in an inanimate state. A more Occam's Razor explanation would be sentience existing with the power to make energy. Sentience is more appropriate than just matter. For the is order in that energy and matter. Systems and designs. And inanimate energy cannot design systems or build complex structures.

djack · 01-03-2008, 11:30 AM

There's no difference in you say god is the planner and me saying my cat is the planner. You can't prove your assumption any more than I can prove mine. Except I can see my cat. Which gives my belief more substance.

Environment Man · 01-03-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djack

There's no difference in you say god is the planner and me saying my cat is the planner. You can't prove your assumption any more than I can prove mine. Except I can see my cat. Which gives my belief more substance.

Then you suspend science and logic sir. The HAS to be a planner. And that was our point. And it is not your cat, which has shown its abilities or lack therof, althuogh some choose to worship cats.

My proof is in the creations. The clocks. How you can reject the design/build of awesomely complex systems is mystifying to me. The 'laws' of physics had to have a lawmaker. And a rational reason for the law.

LeisureChrist · 01-03-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

People who do not believe in God are NOT serious people so I have no need of their affectations.

NASA has not found ANY life on the Moon or any other planet it has visited. So that is a scientifically established fact. And that supports my postulation. Mars is a particularly glaring example.

Given the paucity of data regarding the vast majority of the universe that has been searched at all, saying there's no life in the universe outside or Earth based on that data would be aking to saying there's no life on Earth because Eman clearly has no life.

Environment Man · 01-03-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeisureChrist

Given the paucity of data regarding the vast majority of the universe that has been searched at all, saying there's no life in the universe outside or Earth based on that data would be aking to saying there's no life on Earth because Eman clearly has no life.

Very weak response. I cite science and you throw the bones. The sample that our solar system represents has been visited by human probes. And those probes have not found a bacterium. So science supports my contention.

Titanium Cat · 01-03-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

Very weak response. I cite science and you throw the bones. The sample that our solar system represents has been visited by human probes. And those probes have not found a bacterium. So science supports my contention.

Very weak on your part. If you understood statistics at all you'd know that the sample size of planets in our solar system is far too small to support any sort of scientific conclusion whatsoever. Nor would it be considered a properly stratified sample since there are no other earth or near-earth type of planets in our system while there are likely millions of such planets in other systems.

Environment Man · 01-03-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium Cat

Very weak on your part. If you understood statistics at all you'd know that the sample size of planets in our solar system is far too small to support any sort of scientific conclusion whatsoever. Nor would it be considered a properly stratified sample since there are no other earth or near-earth type of planets in our system while there are likely millions of such planets in other systems.

What about SETI? Nothing there either. Hubble Space Telescope? Nothing. Everywhere woman has looked. Nothing. Science supports me.

Comicsartist · 01-03-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

What about SETI? Nothing there either. Hubble Space Telescope? Nothing. Everywhere woman has looked. Nothing. Science supports me.

You do know that the universe is GI-FRIGGIN-NORMOUS right? And you do know that even though Hubble is a very strong telescope, it still can't see everything out there. And, here's another, life on other planets could be as simple and small as a single celled organism. I don't think Hubble can see single celled organisms...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode