Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
The credit is yours, if you like. But it cuts both ways in case of a relapse.
Really?
Why. Space ant time are linked. Since "space" started with the Big Bang, so did time. (Hey! all you cosmologists out there be kind, I know this is a really lame way of putting this :-))
Since the universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light, and since we do not have the technology to reach or exceed that speed, space is indeed the barrier.
In 1996, using the Hubble, a measurement of 68 to 78 km/sec/Mpc is what was indicated. Remember the speed of light in a vaccuum is 299,792,458 meters per second.
ROFL!
The problem is that this is your strawman. We have yet to nail down the problem of proton decay, which, if it proves to a verifiable significant factor, might mean that all matter in the universe will decay in the next 20-50 trillion years. Of course, scientists have proposed other alternatives, but you probably wouldn't recognize them.
Such a dialogue is rarely as satisfying as reading the originals and coming to your own understanding. Why don't I simply suggest that you read Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", particularly part IX, and Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?
Did I forget to respond to this idiocy? If so, ...
First, let's mutually agree that your personal incredulity does not constitute an argument on the origin on the universe. Second, let's agree that we do not know everything there is to know about the nature of the universe or it's physical laws.
Now, let's see your conclusive argument refuting the possibility of the a continuous creation-destruction cycle of universes.
I whet my appetite on the _Prolegomena_ and got food poisoning. It was a quagmire of restatements that left me no appetite for the full Critique. Do you think I'm missing anything?
Why. Space ant time are linked. Since "space" started with the Big Bang, so did time. (Hey! all you cosmologists out there be kind, I know this is a really lame way of putting this :-))
I really don't care to discuss this again, especially on the same thread. Think about it. Ask yourself what the word "before" assumes.
ME: Answer the question of how matter could be eternal.
YOU: The problem is that this is your strawman. We have yet to nail down the problem of proton decay, which, if it proves to a verifiable significant factor, might mean that all matter in the universe will decay in the next 20-50 trillion years. Of course, scientists have proposed other alternatives, but you probably wouldn't recognize them.
What was my question? Why is matter eternal (as beavus asserts).
What was your answer? Matter may not be eternal.
Well then, if matter is not eternal, explain its origin.
Thirteen hours have elapsed and not one of you have been able to answer the question!
I thought you Darwinists wanted people to think for themselves. Think for yourself! This is a debate between two world views. Referring me to books is as useful as posting links instead of answering. I can refer you to books that refute Hume and Kant. To what end?
Certain philosophers have attempted to answer certain stubborn questions about reality. As on a test, only correct answers count.
I don't recall anyone hanging their hat on random mutations as the be-all and end-all of evolutionary mechanisms.
It's the only mechanism I've ever heard of for Darwinian evolution. Do you have an example of an evolutionist scenario which did not involve mutations?
No, but I was referring to "random mutations," which I would infer to be replication errors. I think viral-induced mutations are probably more important than replication errors. The human genome seems to be gunked up with ancient viral and bacterial genes.
They don't offer evidence of design, design is their fallback position.
No they declare that it's irreducibly complex. That means that if you take away one part, the whole thing can't function.
Well, that's Behe's claim, but irreducibility doesn't mean the complexity couldn't have evolved. It just means you don't know what the immediate precursor looked like. There may have been more parts, not fewer.
It's extremely difficult to see how the flagellum could have been the result of random mutations.
I agree, and I'm not qualified to explain how it might have happened. However, since you can't prove a negative, it boils do to opinion as to whether it could have happened or not.
You don't think God is outside of science?
He is outside of science, but the evidence of design isn't.
Behe's evidence for design is that "it couldn't have evolved." That doesn't do it for me. Your mileage may vary. :)
Alright bunghole, under risk of being led into another of your unilateral "dialogues", I'll repeat what I've said before. If matter began with the big bang, then it has always existed (up to the present). Your attempts to ask what came before, or what created, or what caused it, are all contradictions in that they assert (in the form of a question) a time before (without) time.
This is something you claim to understand but obviously do not.
With that, I'm done waiting for an answer that will never come. Good Night.
You should know better than to devote so much time to so many bags of atoms that are happy to exchange six millennia of widespread common sense for a century and half of "new science." But then, I've made the same mistake.
Nope. I am citing your failure to quote, name, cite, or give any examples from evolutionist writeres in your attempted refutations as evidence supporting my statement that no evolutionist writer has ever even tried to explain ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN FACTS how reptilian egg-laying transformed itself into mammalian live bearing. Quite a different thing.
If they exist and you have read them, why did you not use them in this discussion??????????? -me-
Because I can deal with most of your silliness without leaving my chair
Nope. Insults and excuses prove nothing except that you are trying to cover up your inability to refute my statements with ad-hominems and rhetoric. You are not fooling me. You are not fooling anyone else. You are just fooling yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.