OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Consult a dictionary for the definition of "antidisestablishmentarian".

The current Archbishop of Cantebury favors disestablishment.

How is that "a term of art", whatever that means?

--

Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

Well, DOH!

--

Oh, I don't care about changing Tim's mind, I only do it so that the people on the fence recognize that Tim is an idiot. That's not too hard to do at all.

No, a hypothesis is a concept that explains observations and is set up for testing. Since ID, and religion in general, is not testable, it cannot be a hypothesis. Creationism on the other hand, the forerunner of ID, was a completely failed hypothesis. It was tested, it failed.

Shhhh! You know it won't last! :)

Sure there is. I'd be happy to whack you in the head with a tack hammer until you admit that I exist. You and I have tangible effects on the world around us, this "God" delusion doesn't. If you can convince God to hit me with a tack hammer, I'll accept he's real.

It doesn't much matter whether we're in the Matrix or not, we can only study the world around us whether it's real or digital. Theorizing invisible puppet-masters is ludicrous until we have evidence to back it up.

Given the ability to make a coherent argument, most people do resort to violence to make others see things their way. Game, set, and match ...

"evidence" is all relative to your starting points.

More of that tightly reasoned "logical thought" you're so proud of, I see ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:

I'm currently reading that book! So far it is a good read.

It was tested? How? How do you set up experiments to test for the existence, motivation and methods of an Invisible Sky Designer?

First you have to define your terms. Define "creationism" then we can talk about tests.

Just a thought here. Could you cut it with the "Timmy" stuff? It doesn't bolster your argument and makes you look like a giant ass.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're basically saying that anyone who believes in a god is an irrational idiot who doesn't comprehend science? Does that sum up your position? I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, so feel free to clarify your position. You'll have to forgive me for having thread fatigue, so I haven't read every single post to have figured out your exact position on that question.

todd

No not at all. I never called anyone an "idiot" nor was that implied. The "looking down" on "believers" was said tongue-in-cheek, do to thread fatigue :^)

No. Not even close. If you want to get more of an understanding of my position read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

I also encourage you to read about "The God of the Gaps" (google is your pal here).

I don't have the energy to re-hash my position. Feel free to re-read the thread when you have more time and energy.

-This is my last post here in this thread.

Looks like Huckleberry is just a flash in the pan anyway. Distant 3rd in New Hampsire.

Thus, your position for the origin of the universe has not and cannot solve that primary problem: first cause. Therefore, your position is also reduced to the same position as any other religion. At least religion recognizes that a cause must have been present for an effect to occur. As others have pointed out, this is a totally consistent position because the theological position is that God is eternal having no beginning nor end, thus not needing a cause to exist or come into existence.

You can dress up all the esoteric math you want, the fact of the matter is that if you have nothing, and do nothing, it doesn't matter how long that nothing sets there, nothing will happen. If one postulates that something must happen without a cause, then one of the fundamental tenets of science and logic has just been suspended. But, that is the primary element of the Big Bang theory of modern cosmology that essentially states: nothing + nothing + lots of time = everything.

Wrong. I encourage you to read about Hawkings "Vacuum Fluctuations". This from a NASA website:

More here on Vacuum Fluctuations from Hawking: Taken from :

"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) "

Negated above.

Big bang doesn't state that nothing + nothing ... It states that the universe is expanding PERIOD. Based on the theory, if everything is expanding, we must assume that it was once all together (non-expanded). The question becomes "where did all that stuff come from that eventually expanded?" God?

Enter: The Conservation of Mass-Energy (See Hawking above)

The above should not have read (See Hawking above). The quotes I gave were not Hawking's, but Hawking's theory taken from two websites.

Here is another great site on Vaccum Fluctuations: