Creationism taught in school?

[Rivux]

Is that at all related to other great site seen at night, the Areola Bareassless?

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I believe that you can know there is a God from looking around. The trees, the animals, etc. All bear the evidence of a great engineer.

John, this is poetry, not evidence

[evilregis]

LOL not related at all Riv... but tell your Mom I said hi! HEYOH!

[Atom]

Originally Posted by ehman

No they don't. All that proves is that there are trees, animals, etc around you.

I believe he said I believe. So them bearing the evidence of a great engineer would be to him, I believe, not you.

Wait...

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I believe that you can know there is a God from looking around. The trees, the animals, etc. All bear the evidence of a great engineer.

no he said he believed that you can .... can doesn't mean will or do. You are assuming he's made a statement of fact where it could be a statement of opinion.

[ehman]

Originally Posted by evilregis

I'm most inclined to believe in a God for the same reasons... especially when I look into space on a clear moonless night (guys, feel free to use that line on a chick... or a dude if that's yer thing. Whichever.). It's quite incredible. And tonight I got to see Aurora Borealis for the first time in about a decade. Amazing to see. Anyone in the area (Michigan, New York, Northern Ontario) happen to catch any of that? Not to break the current thread up...

I missed it, probably way too much artificial light to see anything here in toronto anyways.

[Rivux]

Originally Posted by ehman

I missed it, probably way too much artificial light to see anything here in toronto anyways.

I wish there was a little more enlightenment going on in here, artificial or otherwise.

[ehman]

Originally Posted by Atom

I believe he said I believe. So them bearing the evidence of a great engineer would be to him, I believe, not you.

he said

I believe that you can know

so he believes that I (or we collectivly) can know.

Now that i think about it he might mean otherwise but thats how i interpreted it.

[docquesting]

I will say that John is right. But hopefully each of you will find the truth someday. You can always pm me if you really seak to know more. Riv the weather I am sure is a lot better than up there. It was almost perfect this afternoon and chilly tonight.

We would be more than happy to have you and you could always stay at my place. If I were rich I would pay your way down but being on SSI doesnt help on that part lol. I probably am better off even than the other folks in my church which is very small.

Guess ill say gnight to all for now unless I cant sleep. A very decent thread considering.

P.s You can know, are the key words.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by docquesting

Guess ill say gnight to all for now unless I cant sleep. A very decent thread considering.

yes, I also think it's been a decent thread. All the best to you, doc.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I believe that you can know there is a God from looking around. The trees, the animals, etc. All bear the evidence of a great engineer.

Originally Posted by ehman

he said

I believe that you can know

so he believes that I (or we collectivly) can know.

Now that i think about it he might mean otherwise but thats how i interpreted it.

Yes, that's how I interpreted it too, and I agree with him, I believe you can know. Now if you don't know, that still doesn't mean that you can't... or that they don't bear the evidence, just because they don't to you, and the proof of this is that he has stated that they do, to him. So, they do bear the evidence, whether you agree or not, just from the fact that evedicence was born to someone.

Wait, is that right... born?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by ehman

I missed it, probably way too much artificial light to see anything here in toronto anyways.

Originally Posted by Rivux

I wish there was a little more enlightenment going on in here, artificial or otherwise.

Enlightingment.

[ehman]

Originally Posted by Atom

Yes me too, and I agree with him, I believe you can know. Now if you don't know, that still doesn't mean that you can't... or that they don't..

O.K. I now see what he was saying. All I have to say to that is -

I think you can know that there is no solid evidence supporting or refuting the existence of god.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by ehman

O.K. I now see what he was saying. All I have to say to that is -

I think you can know that there is no solid evidence supporting or refuting the existence of god.

Uh oh...

Doc? You in bed?




j/k..

[thebassman]

Wow... I go away for a couple hours, and this whole thread went way off topic... I believe we were initially debating the merits of teaching alternate theories to evolution in school, like intelligent design, and now we're arguing whether or not god exists? Oh well. Interesting read, if only for Rivux's sarcastic remarks (though not at all helpful).

[dave conz]

Definitely my last post. I'm heading out the door.

Originally Posted by littleFella

The science which proposes BB certainly does not allow time to exist outside space. It is either a part of space-time, or it doesn't exist at all. Therefore the physical (including time) could not exist before BB.

Correct up until the last sentence. Perhaps I'm being pedantic but since time is a feature of this Universe and does not exist outside it, there is no such thing as "before BB". The concept of "before" simply doesn't apply.

BTW, by "conventional science" I mean the general concensus (wherever possible) of scientists in the Western world. I certainly count Einstein's GR and SR theories as being part of conventional science.

Originally Posted by littleFella

Have a good trip.

Cheers. I'll look forward to seeing what you've all decided when I get back. I'm sure you will have reached a concensus by then

[thebassman]

I think we should all decide that a god exists, but he's just messing with us most of the time.

[Rivux]

Originally Posted by thebassman

Interesting read, if only for Rivux's sarcastic remarks (though not at all helpful).

Hey thanks bassman, glad I could amused you. I figure it's better to be amusing and not helpful then serious and not helpful like a lot of the posts in this thread

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by dave conz

Definitely my last post. I'm heading out the door.

Correct up until the last sentence. Perhaps I'm being pedantic but since time is a feature of this Universe and does not exist outside it, there is no such thing as "before BB". The concept of "before" simply doesn't apply.

Yup, in a way you're right, since we may have a problem with the tools we use, i.e. language and semantics. I would argue that the use of the word "before" doesn't necessarily imply the existence of time at point < 0 where 0 is the beginning.

Still, it appears that the physical universe had a beginning. Whatever exists physically has a beginning, and therefore must have a cause (not necessarilly to be confused with a "reason to exist"). That cause, in the case of the physical universe could not have been physical, since nothing physical existed of the universe at a point < 0. That point could be possibly defined as the moment of the initial BB explosion minus Planck Time. This seems logical since BB doesn't offer any information about 0 time of the universe's history, but starts at the first 5.391 × 10-44 seconds. Thus, even your postulate that "before" doesn't apply in the context of BB has no merrit. Time did exists before BB, it lasted 5.391 × 10-44 seconds.

Originally Posted by dave conz

BTW, by "conventional science" I mean the general concensus (wherever possible) of scientists in the Western world. I certainly count Einstein's GR and SR theories as being part of conventional science.

Fair enough, albeit pretty general. I don't know why would you mention the notion of Western World. Doesn't "Western World" derive lots of it's knowledge from the time before the Western World even existed? Our dear number zero comes from a world that is very much eastern. There is really not much to 0 but we can't live without it

As for the "general concensus; c'mon. You can't be serious. In Poland where I come from, 95% of people are Catholics, or at least they say so. That's as close as you can get to a general concensus. Does that mean thet God exists in Poland, but doesn't in Czech Republic where communists were so successful in changing the concensus in regards to God?

A few notes about various conventional scientific methods of achieving concensus, just for kicks:

Proof by Obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be mentioned."

Proof by General Agreement: "All in Favor?..."

Proof by Imagination: "Well, We'll pretend its true."

Proof by Convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true, so ..."

Proof by Necessity: "It had better be true or the whole structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."

Proof by Plausibility: "It sounds good so it must be true."

Proof by Intimidation: "Don't be stupid, of course it's true."

Proof by Lack of Sufficient Time: "Because of the time constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."

Proof by Postponement: "The proof for this is so long and arduous, so it is given in the appendix."

Proof by Accident: "Hey, what have we here?"

Proof by Insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?"

Proof by Mumbo-Jumbo: " For any epsilon> 0 there exists a corresponding delta > 0 s.t. f(x)-L < epsilon whenever x-a < delta"

Proof by Profanity: (example omitted)

Proof by Definition: "We'll define it to be true."

Proof by Tautology: "It's true because it's true."

Proof by Plagiarism: "As we see on page 238 ..."

Proof by Lost Reference: "I know I saw this somewhere ..."

Proof by Calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll skip it."

Proof by Terror: When intimidation fails ...

Proof by Lack of Interest: "Does anyone really want to see this?"

Proof by Illegibility: " ¥ ª Ð Þ þæ"

Proof by Logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, then it must be true."

Proof by Majority Rule: Only to be used if General Agreement is impossible.

Proof by Clever Variable Choice: "Let A be the number such that this proof works."

Proof by Tessellation: "This proof is just the same as the last."

Proof by Divine Word: "And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,' and it came to pass."

Proof by Stubbornness: "I don't care what you say! It is true!"

Proof by Simplification: "This proof reduces to the statement, 1 + 1 = 2."

Proof by Hasty Generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it works for all reals."

Proof by Deception: "Now everyone turn their backs ..."

Proof by Supplication: "Oh please, let it be true."

Proof by Poor Analogy: "Well, it's just like ..."

Proof by Avoidance: Limit of Proof by Postponement as it approaches infinity.

Proof by Design: "If it's not true in today's math, invent a new system in which it is."

Proof by Intuition: "I just have this gut feeling ..."

Proof by Authority: "Well, Bill Gates says it's true, so it must be."

Proof by Vigorous Assertion: "And I REALLY MEAN THAT!"
Proof by A.F.K.T. Theorem: "Any Fool Knows That!"

Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom.

Proof by seduction: "Convince yourself that this is true!"

Proof by accumulated evidence: "Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample."

Proof by Divine Intervention: "Then a miracle occurs ...