Jump to content


Photo

Why The Earth Could Not Have Been Formed By Big Bang.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
30 replies to this topic

#21 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 05 December 2011 - 09:51 PM

one thing i forgot to add is that,
if water takes the perfect form of the glas it is poured in , does that mean water is "designed" or "made" to fit the glas?

That's not the best example, in fact, you are looking at it backwards. The glass was designed to hold the water.

#22 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 05 December 2011 - 09:55 PM

1) life as we know it, there is no evidence that there is no life in other solar systems. just as there is no evidence there is life, so its only an assumption.


By this logic, would stating that "there is no evidence that no god exists" be logical? This is the sort of logic you are using, yet atheists accuse theists of making these types of arguments all the time. You guys can't have your cake and eat it too. Point number one is the center point of the entire argument, all other points and comparisons to other planets and solar systems are not valid unless they have life as well.

#23 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:11 PM

That's not the best example, in fact, you are looking at it backwards. The glass was designed to hold the water.




1) a glass is designed to hold liquid, not water specifiaclly

2) i agree that's its not the best example, after some thinking: a better example would be a hollow stone and fill it with water, the water will also take the perfect form of that hollow stone, does that mean, that stone is designed to hold the water? does that mean water is designed or made to fit the stone?

#24 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 06 December 2011 - 05:04 AM

1) a glass is designed to hold liquid, not water specifiaclly


I think that both you and I know that this is grasping at straws! :P Many liquids share similar properties to water, particularly the property of being able to take the shape of its container.

2) i agree that's its not the best example, after some thinking: a better example would be a hollow stone and fill it with water, the water will also take the perfect form of that hollow stone, does that mean, that stone is designed to hold the water? does that mean water is designed or made to fit the stone?

This is a better example, now I actually get to make my point. First, I'd have to see the stone. I have seen stones that are carved by humans to hold water.

I'm surprised that you haven't used the puddle example yet. But let's go ahead and for the sake of argument, assume that you are talking about a normal rock that has not been altered in any way. In that case, the rock would not be designed. Here are the apparent premises of your argument:

1. A rock can hold water.

2. The rock is not designed.

3. Therefore, the Earth is not designed for life.

If I got your premises wrong feel free to show me what the premises for your argument are.

This argument simply doesn't follow. Just because water has properties that allow it to instantly take the shape of anything that contains it, and because there happens to be a container that can hold water without interference of design doesn't mean that it follows that the Earth is not designed. Atheists view the puddle argument as a powerful argument but it is really a non sequitur if you just sit down and think about it.

#25 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 06 December 2011 - 06:54 AM

I think that both you and I know that this is grasping at straws! :P Many liquids share similar properties to water, particularly the property of being able to take the shape of its container.

This is a better example, now I actually get to make my point. First, I'd have to see the stone. I have seen stones that are carved by humans to hold water.

I'm surprised that you haven't used the puddle example yet. But let's go ahead and for the sake of argument, assume that you are talking about a normal rock that has not been altered in any way. In that case, the rock would not be designed. Here are the apparent premises of your argument:

1. A rock can hold water.

2. The rock is not designed.

3. Therefore, the Earth is not designed for life.

If I got your premises wrong feel free to show me what the premises for your argument are.

This argument simply doesn't follow. Just because water has properties that allow it to instantly take the shape of anything that contains it, and because there happens to be a container that can hold water without interference of design doesn't mean that it follows that the Earth is not designed. Atheists view the puddle argument as a powerful argument but it is really a non sequitur if you just sit down and think about it.


you are clearly misrepresentating my post, and you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

i just wanted to demonstrate that if something appears to be a perfect fit, that that doesn't necessarily mean there is design behind it.

the demonstration was at first a flawed example, which i later have corrected. that demonstration is in no way an argument for anything (as you claim)

#26 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 06 December 2011 - 03:12 PM

you are clearly misrepresentating my post, and you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

I stated that if the premises of the argument that I summarized for you is wrong, to post the correct premises. Please do not make false accusations. What are the premises of your argument, and how, from that argument, does it follow that the earth is not designed? Clearly you are attempting to argue that the earth is not designed in this thread so then, ff the "puddle argument" is not relevant to this thread, then why did you post it?

ANY knowledge claim, regardless of whether or not it is an affirmative claim requires a burden of proof. Arguing the Earth is not designed has a burden of proof, just as arguing that it is designed also carries a burden of proof. Asserting things such as "you can't prove a negative" are false. I can easily provide good reasons as to why dragons, invisible pink unicorns, and santa doesn't exist.

i just wanted to demonstrate that if something appears to be a perfect fit, that that doesn't necessarily mean there is design behind it.

There is nothing complicated at all about a rock and water in it. It isn't an object or lifeform that has many components that are critical for its ability to function. Rather, all it is is water taking the form of the container. Water falls on the ground and makes puddles all the time, there is no need for intelligence for this. If you sit and think about the argument for even just a minute you will come to realize that this is a bad argument, if you haven't already.

the demonstration was at first a flawed example, which i later have corrected. that demonstration is in no way an argument for anything (as you claim)

If I were you, I would of went straight the the puddle analogy. But it isn't so much your flawed examples that is the problem, but rather the argument itself. If one were to sit and think about the argument for even several minutes, the argument should easily be dismissed. Water is a substance that can take the shape of its container. There is really no logical way to tie this to the idea that life can somehow form on this planet without any guidance. The puddle argument is simply a bad argument.


I am going to have to ask again, if I have mischaracterized your argument as you claim, please post the premises of the argument, then tell me how the argument helps you to reach the conclusion that Earth is not designed. If your argument was not for arguing the contention that the earth is not designed, then why did you post it?

I appreciate you admitting that your first example wasn't a good one, but I do not appreciate that false accusations and trying to dodge answering to the claims you made. We do expect you to respond appropriately when your knowledge claims are criticized.

*Mod hat on*
And please, stop with the false accusations, if you keep that up you won't be here long. Thanks.

*mod hat off*

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:38 PM

1) life as we know it, there is no evidence that there is no life in other solar systems. just as there is no evidence there is life, so its only an assumption.


That's not implied when supporters of life elsewhere talk about it. Only the positive light is shown on the subject and therefore assumptions look like fact.

2,3) Ozone is a direct effect of life, not a cause for life


Name one lifeform that can live being exposed to full intensity UV rays on a everyday bases?

4,5) other planets have moons and tidal effects aswell


There are planets with oceans? You are grasping here.

7) almost every planet has a magnetic force. take for example the magnetic field of Jupiter, 1000 times bigger than the one of earth, so big that, if we could see it, it would span half the sky


The magnetic field has to be a certain strength according to it's size. Mars for example has a weak magnetic field which allows the upper layers of it's existing atmosphere to be slowly strip away and lost into space.

8)there is water on other planets/moons for example the moon Europa


Did a probe land on Europa and take a sample to prove water? Or is this being "assumed" from a picture of what looked like water? Example: Mars has what looks like ice. But when you do research about the mars atmosphere you realize that it's not ice but frozen Co2 which looks like ice. Why could there not be H2O ice on mars? The atmosphere is over 95% Co2 which means there is not enough hydrogen to combine with oxygen to create enough moisture to freeze and make actual ice from H2O. How do you make water and ice without the 2 molecules of hydrogen? Yet NASA claims oceans of water existed on mars when the atmosphere leaves zero evidence for such an existence of water on mars. How do you remove only hydrogen from the atmosphere of a planet as to leave no evidence that there was ever water on mars. The gasses from water evaporating just don't disappear which means there was never water on mars.

If you have evidence to prove me wrong on what I just posted you are welcome to show us.

9, 11) a bigger planet with faster rotation would give same light/darkness


So you understand that there is intelligent math involved?

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:44 PM

i just wanted to demonstrate that if something appears to be a perfect fit, that that doesn't necessarily mean there is design behind it.


So odds and math get replaced by random chance? It's funny that if I use the same logic you just used to deny design I could say: Just because the fossil record seems to be a perfect fit for evolution it does not necessarily mean evolution was behind it.

Why would not such logic fit for both sides of the issue unless one side wants to apply it because of bias?

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:04 AM




I'm not saying all stars have their own habitable zones and that all planets in habitable zones have life. I'm just saying that there is a possibility of other planets like ours in a habitable zone which means there is a chance of life.



If you go back and re-read my post, you'll soon realize that I at no time said that you claimed "all stars have their own habitable zones and that all planets in habitable zones have life". And why you would claim such is beyond me.

Further, you do realize that you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your "initial" assertion (" Other stars have their own habitable zones"). Therefore you are proceeding completely on faith…. Blind faith at that…



I take it that you have yet to find evidence to substantiate your "initial" assertion then?

#30 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 08 December 2011 - 04:27 PM

That's not implied when supporters of life elsewhere talk about it. Only the positive light is shown on the subject and therefore assumptions look like fact.



indeed





2,3) Ozone is a direct effect of life, not a cause for life


Name one lifeform that can live being exposed to full intensity UV rays on a everyday bases?

you are changing the subject from ozone to UV: a strawman again. i didn't mention UV anywhere. the UV filtration is just a side-effect from the ozone-layer, and the ozone-layer is just a side-effect from life.

but to answer your question: deepsea organisms can perfectly live without an ozone-layer around the planet


4,5) other planets have moons and tidal effects aswell
There are planets with oceans? You are grasping here.



as you probably have noticed i said planets with moons have tidal effects. i did not say oceans in this quote: again a strawman, again you are changing the subject.
but again, to answer your question: The moon europe has oceans, about 10km thick.
the moon IO has such a strong tidal effect from Jupiter, the moon gets heated up and the result is that there are massive vulcanoes (due to compression of the core thanks to the tidal effects)

Did a probe land on Europa and take a sample to prove water? Or is this being "assumed" from a picture of what looked like water? Example: Mars has what looks like ice. But when you do research about the mars atmosphere you realize that it's not ice but frozen Co2 which looks like ice. Why could there not be H2O ice on mars? The atmosphere is over 95% Co2 which means there is not enough hydrogen to combine with oxygen to create enough moisture to freeze and make actual ice from H2O. How do you make water and ice without the 2 molecules of hydrogen? Yet NASA claims oceans of water existed on mars when the atmosphere leaves zero evidence for such an existence of water on mars. How do you remove only hydrogen from the atmosphere of a planet as to leave no evidence that there was ever water on mars. The gasses from water evaporating just don't disappear which means there was never water on mars.


again a strawman. i did not ever mention Mars at all.

and to answer your question: see book: Jupiter the planet, sattlelites and magnetosphere: chapter 18:
the study of craters form clear evidence : the largest impact structures are surrounded by concentric rings and are filled with relatively flat, fresh ice;
(like a stone thrown in water (or any liquid for that matter) form concentric rings)
and strong evidence from from magnetic readings by NASA's Galileo spacecraft, and resonance.



So you understand that there is intelligent math involved?


no


ps. this will be my last post on this forum. when i signed up i as hoping to find creationists who are debating honestly, to my regret this isn't such a forum. i get warnings for things i dont do ('preaching evolution' for example, warnings for 'defusing questions' ; when i said those were irrelevant, the person i debated against even confirmed they were irrelevant, but i still got that warning... those who can comprehed do! )

and yet, when i point out fallacies, i get 'warnings' aswell. it is clear some mods/admins don't want to debate honestly with people who think otherwise, and are just looking for opportunities to ban those who don't agree. i'll just make it easier for them, i won't come back.


take care,
and good luck in life, whatever you believe.

#31 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 December 2011 - 04:41 PM

and yet, when i point out fallacies, i get 'warnings' aswell. it is clear some mods/admins don't want to debate honestly with people who think otherwise, and are just looking for opportunities to ban those who don't agree. i'll just make it easier for them, i won't come back.


take care,
and good luck in life, whatever you believe.

It doesn't help your case when you yourself use dishonest debating tactics and constantly accuse the other side of misrepresenting your argument or making irrelevant comments. I don't know whether you don't understand the arguments used against you or if you are unfamiliar with the logical fallacies that you accuse others of using. In any case, good luck to you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users