Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,579 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 142,166 of 142,579    |
|    MarkE to RonO    |
|    Re: You're gonna love this...    |
|    08 Jan 26 21:36:47    |
      From: me22over7@gmail.com              On 8/01/2026 6:23 am, RonO wrote:       > On 1/7/2026 5:15 AM, MarkE wrote:       >> On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:       >>> Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.       >>>       >>> https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-       >>> intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/       >>>       >>> You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how       >>> biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at       >>> all.       >>>       >>> Ron Okimoto       >>       >> Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/       >> cosmological argument?       >       > You are having this discussion with another creationist, just one more       > honest than the ones that you associate with. You should know that       > creationists have no solution to the first-cause argument. You can       > think that God existed before the Big Bang, but that doesn't solve the       > ultimate first-cause issue. Something likely existed before the Big       > Bang, but we don't know what that could be. The pure energy or quark-       > gluon plasma that existed at the start of the Big Bang would have come       > from somewhere. All we have to look at is our little piece of the       > cosmos, and we don't know what exists out side of the Big Bang's influence.       >       >>       >> I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this       >> argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time       >> beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or       >> speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic       >> Cosmology (CCC).       >>       >> Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;       >> (ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii)       >> materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics       >> (e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.       >       > The first cause issue is real for everyone including creationists. What       > caused some god to exist? This god would have to be able to interact       > with his creation in order to make you happy. This god would have had       > to be able to manipulate things in our universe so that 8 billion years       > of dying stars would produce a dust and gas cloud with the right mix of       > elements to make life possible in our star poor region of the milky way       > galaxy 4.5 billion years ago.       >       > Nyikos was a creationist that became an IDiot early in the beginning of       > the ID scam when it came to TO in the late 1990's. Nyikos is the type       > of creationist IDiot that no one should want to be like. Nyikos was not       > anti evolution, but was always dishonest about why he supported the ID       > scam, and he had his space alien fantasy to lie about ID being       > scientific. Nyikos claimed that he regularly attended Catholic Mass, but       > that, that didn't mean that he supported the ID scam for religious       > reasons. Pathetically, Nyikos was the type of Biblical creationist that       > believed in a god that you could lie to and expect to get what you       > wanted. I think that Nyikos was the only creationist on TO that ever       > supported Pascal's wager as something that was viable. You have to have       > a pretty pathetic view of your god to think that claiming to believe in       > that god would be enough ass kissing to get your just reward.       >       > Ron Okimoto       >              The short answer for creationists is that God is, by definition,       uncaused. An objection to this is that it explains nothing. My counter       would be that God is the ultimate - and only - brute fact. The one       exception to causality. Of course this is open to any amount of       philosophical and theological debate.              The causality question comes into focus with energy and entropy.       Penrose's CCC attempts to solve the fundamental problem of increasing       entropy and successive universe cycles.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca