• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

calamity said:
And, quite an effective theory it is

495px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
Click to expand...

Pretty picture. What is it trying to prove, that trillions of stars started forming at a single point in the universe and over time new stars were added as the ones before them spread out into the infinitely distant corners of the universe? Who invents these kinds of stories, Walt Disney?
 
calamity said:
I can explain it just fine. BTW: matter did not suddenly appear in the universe.

495px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
Click to expand...

Matter never had a beginning? Matter has always existed, but God could not possibly have always existed? Are you sure? Can you prove that?
 
Dragonfly said:
All good, except so many folks wish to go quite a few steps farther and assign all kinds of other attributes to that force.
A personality. Anger. Vengeance. Love for some. Hate for others. Eternal Reward. Eternal Punishment.....and then they want to convince/force others to accept those attributes as facts and follow specific rules and laws and morals...

You see where that starts to go right?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Attributing human, animal or other characteristics on an unknown force except those that can be known or shown by results is silly....but it's also human. It helps people to relate to it and the chaos of reality.

Similar to this, I've long observed the characteristics of "conspiracy theorists" and read papers researching such people. The common thread seems to be people trying to make sense of chaos. There are a few reasons for it. One is fear of the unknown, the greatest fear of all humans. Another is a trait peculiar to humans, particularly men; seeing patterns in random dots. Back in the days of analog television, who hasn't watched the static and seen vague images in it? That's normal. Believe those images are sending messages to you is definitely not normal. Which goes to the joke "It's good to talk to God, but if God talks back...."

The reason people seek patterns in chaos, especially male hunters is in the picture below; it's to hunt prey and to avoid becoming prey. In a civilized world of 8 billion people and technologies most people don't understand, the chaos can be so loud some people can't cope, so they try to find a way to make sense of it; hence "conspiracy theories".

main-qimg-0c6318e88f9b9a0bbe1f8bf4505e5831
 
maquiscat said:
I think you either meant can't coexist, or else you have the meaning of "mutually exclusive" wrong. The term means that they cannot exist at the same time. However, there is nothing to show that faith and science cannot coexist. There are those who claim such but they cannot substantiate it.



I think you may be mistaking my questioning the faith I have in something with questioning the faith. This could be poor wording on my part and/or the fact the word "faith" has multiple uses. However , I will say, like science, I am constantly reviewing what I experience and evaluating how that fits in with my faith and what I am mistaken. There is nothing wrong in realizing that something you believed in was wrong, and adjusting as new evidence arises.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



“I think you either meant can't coexist, or else you have the meaning of "mutually exclusive" wrong. The term means that they cannot exist at the same time. However, there is nothing to show that faith and science cannot coexist. There are those who claim such but they cannot substantiate it.”

Good point to make clear that they mutually exist in spite of each other. Neither has to do with the other. According to science, there is no proof of the existence of the supernatural. Only the observable natural. The physical world. Physics. Science is not necessary to prove faith in the supernatural. That’s the essence of faith. Fact is not required to support a belief of faith, only to support a belief of science.

“I think you may be mistaking my questioning the faith I have in something with questioning the faith. This could be poor wording on my part and/or the fact the word "faith" has multiple uses. However , I will say, like science, I am constantly reviewing what I experience and evaluating how that fits in with my faith and what I am mistaken. There is nothing wrong in realizing that something you believed in was wrong, and adjusting as new evidence arises.”

I think that’s a “yup”. I’m just saying that faith does not require scientific justification whatsoever. That for a person to search for scientific support of one’s faith IS NOT FAITH. An intellectual exercise, perhaps.
 
marke said:
I gather by your questions that you have no answers for some of these troubling questions.
Click to expand...

Deflection.

That's your new tactic isn't it?

Get asked some tough questions to back up your weak proclamations and you try to deflect. Never answering the questions you were asked.
 
marke said:
You cannot explain how matter suddenly appeared in the heavens from nowhere so you attack people who believe God created the universe.
Click to expand...

Please quote where science states matter "suddenly appeared from nowhere".
 
marke said:
Matter never had a beginning? Matter has always existed, but God could not possibly have always existed? Are you sure? Can you prove that?
Click to expand...

Matter currently exists - it's proveable

What you can't prove is that god exists.

That things exist doesn't prove "god".

Regardless of your special pleading.
 
marke said:
Matter never had a beginning? Matter has always existed, but God could not possibly have always existed? Are you sure? Can you prove that?
Click to expand...

We have evidence for matter. We also have evidence supporting the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy (literally all of it). We have zero evidence for any God.
 
calamity said:
I can explain it just fine. BTW: matter did not suddenly appear in the universe.

495px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Matter did not appear suddenly? Did it gradually appear? From one spot and then spread out? How many atoms were in the initial appearing of matter and where did they come from? If new planets and starts were added to the original then where did those atoms come from? Where do you go to get scientifically accurate and verified answers to all these questions?
 
Questerr said:
Yes, they are. At most, they take an Intro to Geology class in their curriculum.
Click to expand...

Is it impossible for anyone but graduate geologists to study, learn, debate and reason about issues related to geology?
 
Questerr said:
Please quote where science states matter "suddenly appeared from nowhere".
Click to expand...

I don't know what science says. Does it say atoms developed slowly and formed stars and planets gradually over long periods of time?
 
Questerr said:
Zero archaeological discoveries confirm any of the supernatural elements of the Bible.
Click to expand...

And no archaeological evidence has ever disproved natural elements and details of the Biblical record.
 
Dragonfly said:
Matter currently exists - it's proveable

What you can't prove is that god exists.

That things exist doesn't prove "god".

Regardless of your special pleading.
Click to expand...

I can accept that science proves matter exists. I cannot accept that science proves matter has always existed.
 
Questerr said:
We have evidence for matter. We also have evidence supporting the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy (literally all of it). We have zero evidence for any God.
Click to expand...

Does your evidence answer questions about whether or not matter has always existed? Can science prove that?
 
marke said:
I can accept that science proves matter exists. I cannot accept that science proves matter has always existed.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Science can't and doesn't prove all kinds of things.

That doesn't mean "god did it".

You've been told this repeatedly.
 
marke said:
And no archaeological evidence has ever disproved natural elements and details of the Biblical record.
Click to expand...

Nonsense

The Book of Genesis and Book of Exodus describe a period of Hebrew servitude in ancient Egypt, during decades of sojourn in Egypt, the escape of well over a million Israelites from the Delta, and the three-month journey through the wilderness to Sinai.[7] This episode is not corroborated by any historical evidence. Israelites first appear in the archeological record on the Merneptah Stele from between 1208–1203 BCE at the end of the Bronze Age.

History of the Jews in Egypt - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

In fact, it's safe to say that nothing in the Bible is true. All the Biblical stories are make believe, like this one.

There are other stories and historical names which bear a resemblance to the biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. Some possible natural explanations for the events described have been proposed, but no widely accepted or strongly verified sites for the cities have been found.

Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
marke said:
Are mechanical engineers ignorant about geology?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't make such a facile generalisation, but dilettantes are not experts.

Can people like you study what geologists have to say and become informed about geology?
Click to expand...

I already have, but I would not profess to be an expert and I wouldn't arrogantly devise a fringe hypothesis such as hydroplate theory without deferring to experts, or even refusing to discuss it with experts with a higher level of education-that's just arrogance based upon a misguided view of one's own self-importance.

I studied what geologists said about the Channeled Scablands and found geologists disagree about the cause until satellite images helped those large numbers who were wrong about the cause admit they had been wrong for more than 50 years.
Click to expand...

Geologists disagreeing about something does not mean much, for that is how the scientific method works. Surely you know this if you supposedly studied geology? I've been studying the Rhyolite formations of the Tweed Valley shield volcano and I disagreed with some of the findings until I sought an explanation from geologists who have a greater understanding than I. None of this implies that Young Earth Creationism has any validity as a theory, or even the fringe theory of hydroplate tectonics.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Nonsense



In fact, it's safe to say that nothing in the Bible is true. All the Biblical stories are make believe, like this one.
Click to expand...

Come on, you have to concede that the archaeology supports the existence of some locations mentioned in the Bible, not that means a whole lot in most cases. It is also an historical source that should be examined with the same scrutiny one applies to any historical source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom