Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
But it is fun to point them out and show why they are wrong!

The idea is to keep the debate organized and structured, but I agree with Shaky- this is not the proper venue for such a discussion. Go start a blog or hold the entire thing in PMs.

Originally posted by inimalist
wow, that's not thinking a lot of yourself...

I don't know about KMC debating forums, but its not uncommon in other debating forums.

The advantage of a 1v1 is that each person MUST respond to the other's arguments. There will be no dodging of questions etc (well you could, but to everyone reading, the loser would be obvious), and its all transparent.

Originally posted by ushomefree
To all members of the KMC-

It was just last night that I posted my last comment on this thread, and I am lost in the confusion of posts. I can't compete, ha ha! I was wondering if members of the KMC would allow myself to create a thread committed to debate over the validity of Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). I ask, however, that the debate remain between myself and ONE other member. Whoever that may be, we can discuss the specifics via "private messages." Talk amongst yourselves. And the folks in administration can govern the debate, deleting unauthorized comments or simply blocking relevant members, for example. It's just a thought, let me know what you think. Thanks!

I'd do it, but it kind of defeats the purpose of a public forum. Posts here are a clusterf*ck, but thats the point of the internets.

You can have 1-on-1 discussions within a thread. I've done it, even with peeps like Gav in this thread recently. This thread is just so large, it makes it hard. You have to dedicate your responses.

I do 1-on-0 debates all the time, but I normally loose them 😛

the only evidence i see against evolution is JIA himself.

Originally posted by Placidity
I don't know about KMC debating forums, but its not uncommon in other debating forums.

The advantage of a 1v1 is that each person MUST respond to the other's arguments. There will be no dodging of questions etc (well you could, but to everyone reading, the loser would be obvious), and its all transparent.

the loser is already obvious

I know about the advantage of 1 on 1 debating, my comment was regarding ushomefree's presumption that he would "represent" the anti-evolutionary side. I have read his posts before.

the only advantage of a 1 on 1 debate is that you can get someone with a loaded question...

but if is going to be based on facts and evidence creationism loses regardless the only defense is philosophical and the assumption that your religion is right..

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What actuated or caused the expansion?

Of space or the matter within it?...If it's the former and the theory the big crunch is applied then there is no way we can know because space could have been around for an infinite length of time...only the matter within it fluctuates inward and outward in a series of big bangs and big crunches going back an infinite length of time in an infinite cycle.

As for the matter itself...like any huge amount of matter being condensed into a small enough space creates the quantum fluctuations that allow the condensed matter to be released again. One thing we have yet to learn though is how dark matter affects the expansion of the matter within the universe...A typical explosion of matter starts by accelerating quickly and then slowing down...But we know from observations that the expansion of the matter within space is actually accelerating rather then decelerating.

We also know that all the matter in the universe that we can observe do not account for all the gravitational interations that can be observed.

Originally posted by jaden101
Of space or the matter within it?...If it's the former and the theory the big crunch is applied then there is no way we can know because space could have been around for an infinite length of time...only the matter within it fluctuates inward and outward in a series of big bangs and big crunches going back an infinite length of time in an infinite cycle.

So you don't know where the space came from? All things that exist in this material universe are subject to the law of cause and effect, so I don’t believe that the space could have been around for an infinite amount of time.

As for the matter itself...like any huge amount of matter being condensed into a small enough space creates the quantum fluctuations that allow the condensed matter to be released again. One thing we have yet to learn though is how dark matter affects the expansion of the matter within the universe...A typical explosion of matter starts by accelerating quickly and then slowing down...But we know from observations that the expansion of the matter within space is actually accelerating rather then decelerating.

We also know that all the matter in the universe that we can observe do not account for all the gravitational interations that can be observed.

You said, “…being condensed….” Well, what caused the condensing and the law as it were of quantum fluctuations? Again, all things that exist in this material universe are subject to the law of cause and effect.

Originally posted by Ordo
I'd do it, but it kind of defeats the purpose of a public forum. Posts here are a clusterf*ck, but thats the point of the internets.

You can have 1-on-1 discussions within a thread. I've done it, even with peeps like Gav in this thread recently. This thread is just so large, it makes it hard. You have to dedicate your responses.

Ushomefree's request would never be granted by the mods...though I can see where he is comming from, it isn't too hard to just answer one person's posts to you.

Also why do we need another thread for proving ID vs evolution...we have this one...(and Can you handle the truth for the spill over)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

So you don't know where the space came from? All things that exist in this material universe are subject to the law of cause and effect, so I don’t believe that the space could have been around for an infinite amount of time.

You said, “…being condensed….” Well, what caused the condensing and the law as it were of quantum fluctuations? Again, all things that exist in this material universe are subject to the law of cause and effect. [/B]

Cause and effect do not limit space-time. The relationship between cause and effect only seem to be sequential. If you really knew anything about causality, then you would know that cause and effect are simultaneous. It is only an illusion that creates the sense that cause leads to effect. In a different universe, it is possible for this illusion to work the other way.

How is space part of the material universe?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

So you don't know where the space came from? All things that exist in this material universe are subject to the law of cause and effect, so I don’t believe that the space could have been around for an infinite amount of time.

You said, “…being condensed….” Well, what caused the condensing and the law as it were of quantum fluctuations? Again, all things that exist in this material universe are subject to the law of cause and effect. [/B]

As i've already said...the matter within the universe is subject to the laws of physics....but space itself has no physicality...and thus isn't subject to laws like the speed of light...space has no mass, no gravity...nothing that can be affected by these laws of physics...so it's existence is possibly infinite in terms of time and distance.

What caused the condensing of the matter in the universe is the same that is causing moons to go around planets, planets to go around stars and galaxies to form....gravity...it'll eventually, according to the theory of the big crunch, cause all the galaxies to pull back to a single point...the matter is condensed to such an extent that the theories of general relativity no longer apply and quantum fluctuations in the matter cause the gravity to no longer be able to contain the matter and thus another big bang and another cycle of the matter within the universe.

Originally posted by jaden101
As i've already said...the matter within the universe is subject to the laws of physics....but space itself has no physicality...and thus isn't subject to laws like the speed of light...space has no mass, no gravity...nothing that can be affected by these laws of physics...so it's existence is possibly infinite in terms of time and distance.

Why is matter subject to the laws of physics? The law of the speed of light? Do not laws require a law-maker?

Is space eternal? Space just is? I believe space has a a maker because it exists.

What caused the condensing of the matter in the universe is the same that is causing moons to go around planets, planets to go around stars and galaxies to form....gravity...it'll eventually, according to the theory of the big crunch, cause all the galaxies to pull back to a single point...the matter is condensed to such an extent that the theories of general relativity no longer apply and quantum fluctuations in the matter cause the gravity to no longer be able to contain the matter and thus another big bang and another cycle of the matter within the universe.

So gravity just exists? It had no origin? It had no designer? It just is?

What is gravity's origin? Why does it function? Is it a spiritual phenomenon? At the quantum level gravity loses it’s fundamental power?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Why is matter subject to the laws of physics? The law of the speed of light? Do not laws require a law-maker?

So gravity just exists? It had no origin? It had no designer? It just is?

What is gravity's origin? Why does it function? Is it a spiritual phenomenon? At the quantum level gravity loses it’s fundamental power? [/B]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would that be any different then the thread that already exists?

In my mind, starting a new thread would be equivalent to hitting the reset button.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would you want it limited to two people?

That is just an "ideal" preference of mine. It's most simplistic. I'd be open to debate teams.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why not just find a new topic to debate on and let everyone enjoy?

I'm not trying to monopolize the KMC, ha ha! And, I know, your not making the implication. I'm simply trying to engage in a organized debate. And all are free to watch the debate unfold. There are (and will be) plenty of other threads to participate in. Just an honest response. And besides, KMC members could have a debate (over the debate) after the debate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I see happening is that some people take these topics way too seriously. I think you end up suffering because you are really trying to get your point across. I recommend you get a blog, and go for it. The truth is that I, and others like me, have heard what you are saying, but we simply disagree. Don't take that personally. There is nothing you can do to change my mind because I never hear anything knew from you, and others like you. That does not mean that I am closed minded, but if you come up with a truly novel idea, please let me know, I would love to hear it.

Okay bro.... If you and I should ever meet in person, the first round is on me, ha ha!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Why is matter subject to the laws of physics? The law of the speed of light? Do not laws require a law-maker?

Is space eternal? Space just is? I believe space has a a maker because it exists.

So gravity just exists? It had no origin? It had no designer? It just is?

What is gravity's origin? Why does it function? Is it a spiritual phenomenon? At the quantum level gravity loses it’s fundamental power? [/B]

No....laws don't require a law maker...they are constants...defined only b the nature of the matter they are composed of....and hence it is so with gravity...it is a result of mass...matter has mass...thus matter has gravity.

If your argument is space has to have a maker then who made the maker?...If your argument is that "God" is infinite in terms of time and space then surely space itself must be infinite as well otherwise God cannot be...and if space is infinite in time then it couldn't have had a creator because it's been around forever...

Unless you merely change your argument to God is only the creator of matter...then the onus is on you to prove that theory over than of the theory of the big bang for which there is abundant evidence.

Dr. Quantum: Flatland

YouTube video

Originally posted by jaden101
No....laws don't require a law maker...they are constants...defined only b the nature of the matter they are composed of....and hence it is so with gravity...it is a result of mass...matter has mass...thus matter has gravity.

If your argument is space has to have a maker then who made the maker?...If your argument is that "God" is infinite in terms of time and space then surely space itself must be infinite as well otherwise God cannot be...and if space is infinite in time then it couldn't have had a creator because it's been around forever...

Unless you merely change your argument to God is only the creator of matter...then the onus is on you to prove that theory over than of the theory of the big bang for which there is abundant evidence.

So nature is eternal? Nature exists apart from a Creator? Nothing in this material universe exists without a cause. Have you ignored the first law of thermodynamics?

No my premise is that the first law of thermodynamics refutes your explanations thus far concerning the origin of the universe.

God is not a theory nor can I prove Him empirically, if I could He would not be worthy of being God. But God is (i.e. exists), there is evidence of His wisdom and power through the things that are created.

"Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission during the 1997 PBS program, Universe:

“In this century (twentieth century), science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church’s ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning"

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH3A.htm

Originally posted by ushomefree
In my mind, starting a new thread would be equivalent to hitting the reset button.

That is just an "ideal" preference of mine. It's most simplistic. I'd be open to debate teams.

I'm not trying to monopolize the KMC, ha ha! And, I know, your not making the implication. I'm simply trying to engage in a organized debate. And all are free to watch the debate unfold. There are (and will be) plenty of other threads to participate in. Just an honest response. And besides, KMC members could have a debate (over the debate) after the debate.

Okay bro.... If you and I should ever meet in person, the first round is on me, ha ha!

I can't wait to see this (although it would be better if the two of you debated on Pay-per-view).