Inteligent Design

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:25 am

i will post more this week, it is an interesting book but its fatal flaw is that it ignores God.

Only you could post stuff as evidence which undermines your premise!

P.s. God should be ignored as a causal factor for everything.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:01 pm

actually i didn't. i posted certain quotes that should make you think and which proves what i have been saying all along--- the non-religious find the evidence for God and attribute it to something else.

we do not know what was in the beginning except God, so we cannot say whatsize space was or is.

rene again has fallen on his mantra instead of posting a constructive reply so he is again ignored. but those type of comments are typical when they come from someonefrom your side who wants to think they are smarter than they really are and are tyring to keep their intellectual house from being proven inadequate.

i will have more quotes later as it is fun poking holes in your thinking

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:22 pm

There is no god, arch.

Human weakness and stupidity accounts for his continuing acceptance by those who are too frightened to face life without thinking that there is some holy father-figure up there taking care of them.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:53 pm

here are some more quotes from the book, 'origins':

"Not only were entire classesof irregular galaxies omitted form this scheme, but astrophysicists would later learn that the oldest stars in every galaxy were about the same age, implying that all the galaxies were born during a single era in the history of the universe." pg. 115

(evidence that backs up Gen. 1:1 , God did it at the same time)

"a complete description of how structure emerged in the cosmos requires that we meld two aspects of reality whose commbination now eludes us." pg. 122-3

(structure happened because God is a God of order not chaos and He made the universe to have structure).

At first glance, we could no more rely on gravity to form massive objjects out of diffuse gas than we could use a shovel to move fleas across a barnyard, yet somehow gravity has done the trick." pg. 127

(again attributing the work of God to something other than God which has no power or ability to accomplish such a feat. typical attitudeof those who refuse to acknowledge God's work).

"yes, the observable universe once fit within a grapefruit." pg. 129

(this one is just laughable as where did that material comefrom? how did such a small place hold all the materials needed to create all the suns, stars and planets let alone other anomolies. like i said before, non-religious people come up with bigger fairy tales than they accuse God of doing.)

"since astrophysicists have no way of seeing back to the universe's first 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second, they do the next best thing, anduse scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe" pg.129-30

(which means they use conjecture, corrupted data, personal bias, their own beliefs to concoct a story that eliminates God from the picture. again, whatyou observe is how Gopd made things and manyof the questions disappear once you add Him into the mix. non-religious scientists exclude important data so they really do not have a clear picture of what they are observing. since God spoke and it came into being, it is quite possible that what scientists have observed did happen but only to an extent. )

"as happy fate would have it, the anistroopies appeared precisely on schedule." pg. 131

(happening by chance is too great of odds but add God in there and you can see how these anisotropies were placed at the right time so all things work together for existence.)

"during this cosmic dark age, the uiniverse contained only whatit had made during its first few minutes--hydrogen,helium, with traces of lithium." pg. 132-3

(how could it have made these gases? how could this explosion create all the other gases now known in the world? how could it create something out of nothing? these three elements are not common in all areas of life, so where did oxygen come from? water? nitroglycerine? etc. you are serving up an old's wive's tale with no substabnce nor foundation. something does not come from nothing)

again, you are stringing one big fallacy as you have no idea how things came about nor can you account for the creation of anything from nothing. especially when it is a non-thinking process with no ability to even consider how to put the jigsaw puzzle called the universe, together.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:12 pm

again, you are stringing one big fallacy as you have no idea how things came

This from a bible-thumper!

Talk about one big fallacy.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:35 pm

This from a bible-thumper!

this is all you got?/

i will have more quotes later in the week for you.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:48 pm

You do understand that your "quotes" are basically worthless, don't you?

You never put them in any sort of context or attempt to use them to explain whatever point it is that you think you are making.

I can give a list of quotes, too. So what?

You have never understood the concept of "evidence."

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:23 am

You do understand that your "quotes" are basically worthless, don't you?

i disagree besides you say anything to avoid dealing with the reality.

You never put them in any sort of context or attempt to use them to explain whatever point it is that you think you are making

i believe my bracketed comments give the gistof the point, but again you find any excuse to justify your failure to deal with points from the other side.

You have never understood the concept of "evidence

i do but i also know that your way is corrupted and slanted towards that which provides you what you want to hear. when you place the wrong restrictions on investigation then you will always have false conclusions.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:48 am

so Jehova is the god of the christian church and YHWH of Judaism is the original template on which he was based is that correct ?
so which pagan god was YHWH based on ?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:29 am

Why are you talking about astronomy on an archaeology forum? If this is a theological discussion which doesn't include archaeology, it should be moved to another forum. I come here to discuss archgaeology, not debate whether or not there is a god. This has gotten so far off track that it's ridiculous.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:47 am

marduk wrote: so which pagan god was YHWH based on ?

Wasn't he originally a storm/war god?

Anyway, YHWH didn't create the universe. El did

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:50 am

Why are you talking about astronomy on an archaeology forum

this thread is about intelligent design
surely all of gods creation is relevant

or didn't he do that bit ?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:20 am

marduk wrote:
Why are you talking about astronomy on an archaeology forum
this thread is about intelligent design
surely all of gods creation is relevant

or didn't he do that bit ?

Which begs the question, "why is any of this on an archaeology forum?"

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:44 am

archaeology clearly disproves the god of the bible
perhaps the question should be
why is archaeologist posting on an archeology forum

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:32 am

why is archaeologist posting on an archeology forum

Or, why does "archaeologist" call himself "archaeologist" instead of "Bible-Thumping Jackass?"