Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

PaulP's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. Me: Anonymous Guy: Me: Anonymous Guy: Me: Anonymous Guy: The guy just does not get it.
  2. So you would agree with me when I said To someone who said this to me:
  3. When is it that an embryo is properly developed? And when it is properly developed is it then correct to call it a baby?
  4. Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it. Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe. Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lennox and my responses. To all of you on here, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it. Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it. And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use. If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are. *** * Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator. * And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe. * And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg. * And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang. And I very much understand the physics. **You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.** *** And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering. * Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power? * Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism? You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant. Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power. Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know. *** Conclusion: Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day. That someone is John Lennox. Citing from wikipedia means nothing. Even if he is an atheist the argument is still sound.
  5. There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose: Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer: As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.” And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. **Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.**
  6. So if science is 'demonstrable', can you prove and test before me transpeciation/macroevolution?
  7. I'm so sorry for all of you people. I am praying for each one of you that the Lord would reveal His Truth to you. There is a God who created you and has an inifite love and joy beyond what we can imagine. I have that joy... Nothing would make me happier than for you to experience it too. I cannot prove the existence of God to you. I cannot prove Him to anyone. Only God Himself can prove Himself to you - that is how someone believes in His existence and trusts in Him. It is a basic fundamental idea - we haven't seen God, so we need faith to believe in Him. We haven't seen the creation of the universe, the stars, the galaxies, the back holes, and everything else - so we are using faith in scientific experimentation to believe what could have happened.
  8. Before I go because I have had enough with this. Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove. **** Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen? Can you claim something to be completely true even if you have no way of going back in time to see it happen? What does this require? - Faith. You have to possess faith to believe what you do about the universe - you cannot tell me with 100% certainty. Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence? And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of. AND TO YOU JAMEST, Of course, science claims that star formation takes longer than human lifetimes. But even though we are still observing them in different "phases" of formation, we haven't observed it directly from start to finish - again, faith and inferences being made. Mitosis has many different phases, yet we have fully observed the entire process from start to finish. Star formation, not really.
  9. We've actually tested the Big Bang?? They've created galaxies and nebulae inside of science laboratories? Has science allowed us to witness the creation of a star before our eyes? Has science allowed us to watch the formation of another galaxy? You're trying to claim absolute truth on something that occurred so far in the past. No one observed it, no one recorded it - so even if you conduct millions of experiments and attempt to try to figure it out - you have to admit we'll never know. We cannot know 100% - it requires a degree of "faith" to believe in that part of science.
  10. What do you mean? I can't bring myself to believe it came from nothing by pure chance. It's you who believes it came about by pure chance. Why would you believe everything came from a singularity that existed in a "nothingness" yet you can't believe that a supreme God was in full control and created all? What is the difference between the singularity and God to you people?
  11. Secular scientists need faith to believe how it began. Us creationists need faith to believe how it began. No one was there, so whether you believe in the Bible or the "Big Bang", it is impossible to know or prove. Both require faith - one is scientific faith and the other is spiritual faith. ********** Whether I believe in God or I believe in science, what's the difference? Both require FAITH - science helps to explain what COULD HAVE happened, but no one was around to witness such events. The Bible helps to explain what happened (to me, not to you of course) - but it also requires FAITH. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove. I cannot prove to you God is real just as you cannot prove to me the actual processes that led to the formation of the observable universe.
  12. I know all about your Big Bang theories, your evolutionary concepts, your philosophies how a God couldn't possibly exist, your statistics showing how everything came to be by pure chance, etc. And if the universe did not come about by pure chance - what did happen? Perhaps a better question would be 'who' did it? *********** I just choose to refuse to accept this information. I NEED FAITH. Faith is the only way I can believe it to be true. Nothing can change my worldview and my faith I have in Jesus Christ. The faith you possess to believe how processes like evolution and the Big Bang actually occurred matches the faith I have that my God created everything in existence. The faith you have to believe in the occurrence of the Big Bang and transpeciation is the same faith you have that the chair you're sitting in will hold you, that the building you're in will not collapse on you, that the planet you're on will not disintegrate. ********** Unless you can construct a time machine and go back to the "very beginning", your faith in scientific explanations will be no different from my faith in Biblical interpretations. So explain to me how you'll be 100% confident in the formation of the universe once you board a time machine and travel back to the beginning.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.