Did Obama jump the shark??

DILYSI Dave wrote: We don't have that frame of reference for the origins of the universe.

Yes we do. Now, this really is way more than I can possibly do off the top of my head, and this isn't the place to do it if I could. But yes, we have a lot of understanding about the origin of the universe. We can literally hear the echo of the big bang. Right now. Not in the past. Not in theory. Measurable right now. We can look into the distant past with telescopes and see an evolving universe that does indeed fit with our understanding of how it was created. Real time, right now observable facts.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: We don't have that frame of reference for the origins of the universe.

Yes we do. Now, this really is way more than I can possibly do off the top of my head, and this isn't the place to do it if I could. But yes, we have a lot of understanding about the origin of the universe. We can literally hear the echo of the big bang. Right now. Not in the past. Not in theory. Measurable right now. We can look into the distant past with telescopes and *see* an evolving universe that does indeed fit with our understanding of how it was created. Real time, right now observable facts.

And what before it? What caused it? How did all that stuff get there in the first place? Was the big bang "the" origin or just one of infinitely many bangs?

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Lol-The Big Bang Bang Bang!

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: Lol-The Big Bang Bang Bang!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfeHkRRcdWk

DILYSI Dave wrote: I know 100% that if I hit my thumb with a 3# sledge hammer it will hurt.

Okay, that's good!

So you know that is true. Now, you say, specifically, a "sledge hammer". Have you ever seen a railroad hammer? Huge piece of iron at the end of a long handle. Have you ever hit yourself with one of those? I'll assume no. But would it hurt? Do you know for sure that hitting yourself with a railroad hammer would hurt? Yeah, you do. And if someone told you it wouldn't but offered no concrete evidence as to why, you probably wouldn't be swayed. You would know they were wrong.

DILYSI Dave wrote: And what before it? What caused it? How did all that stuff get there in the first place? Was the big bang "the" origin or just one of infinitely many bangs?

Dunno. Didn't say I did. Maybe God did it. But I do know that's not Creationism. Not knowing everything isn't the same as not knowing anything.

Late. Tired. Bed.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: I know 100% that if I hit my thumb with a 3# sledge hammer it will hurt.

Okay, that's good! So you know that is true. Now, you say, specifically, a "sledge hammer". Have you ever seen a railroad hammer? Huge piece of iron at the end of a long handle. Have you ever hit yourself with one of those? I'll assume no. But would it hurt? Do you know for sure that hitting yourself with a railroad hammer would hurt? Yeah, you do. And if someone told you there it wouldn't but offered no concrete evidence as to why, you probably wouldn't be swayed. You would *know* they were wrong.

I would. I've got a pretty broad body of experience that says that I can hit my thumb with a whole slew of heavy things and get roughly the same result. I know that conservation of energy happens, so hitting my thumb with anything that has sufficient mass and velocity is gonna hurt, and I've observed that the higher the energy , the worse it hurts. So yeah, if they didn't have evidence that railroad hammers possess no mass, or that their aerodynamic properties are such that they cannot make contact at a velocity greater than zero, then I'd be pretty comfortable telling them they were full of E36 M3.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Maybe God did it. But I do know that's not Creationism.

Huh? Now I feel like we've moved from a cool discussion into a word game.

Agreed on Late. Tired. Bed. Thanks for the discussion. Perhaps we can pick it up tomorrow.

And thanks for taking me at my word. When people stop trying to prove each other wrong and try to truly understand each other, I think that makes for some rad learning time. I'm as guilty as the next guy of falling short and hitting the "gotcha!" button sometimes, but I try not to. It's hard in person, and even harder on the internet, but it's cool when the stars align.

y'all were going to bed just as I was heading out to watch Tron Legacy - now there's a creation story for you.

Datsun1500 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: you believe the odds of a teddy bear being the creator of the universe are something greater than zero.

Believing a teddy bear is the creator of the universe is odd, but believing some other "magical being" is the creator of the universe is not odd? Why is believing "God" is actually a teddy bear any more far fetched then believing "God" is something else?

Wait, God is a teddy bear?

oldsaw wrote: Stop taking yourself so seriously. You're getting played by an "old man" who is doing the same things as you do. It is fun to watch, though.

hardly... The man keeps trying the same attacks over and over again.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I think I can now say that I'm 100% sure that you are are the guy in your avatar. Don't try and argue with me, I'm 100% sure. End of story.
Seriously, how do you expect anyone here to consider you to have a lick of credibility when you just sit there and tell us all that we are wrong, and you can prove it, but you're too lazy to do it? Hey, my lawn mower has 1000hp. I can prove it, but I'm not going to tell you how. You should believe me anyway. Yeah right.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Not knowing everything isn't the same as not knowing anything.

And finally - there it is. At one time lightning, fire, and rainbows were all magic. The remote control would be a magic wand to any human not born in the last century. But we know how they work. Just because we do not have the exact nature of the beginning does not mean we don't have ANY ideas that are more probable than magic willed it to be so. In every case where magical beings were thought to be responsible but are not any longer there has been a natural cause uncovered by the work of science. If we are jumping to conclusions at all - isn't the more probable one that there is a natural explanation awaiting discovery?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Not knowing everything isn't the same as not knowing anything.

And finally - there it is. At one time lightning, fire, and rainbows were all magic. The remote control would be a magic wand to any human not born in the last century. But we know how they work. Just because we do not have the exact nature of the beginning does not mean we don't have ANY ideas that are more probable than magic willed it to be so. In every case where magical beings were thought to be responsible but are not any longer there has been a natural cause uncovered by the work of science. If we are jumping to conclusions at all - isn't the more probable one that there is a natural explanation awaiting discovery?

Yes. There are many things human beings don't yet understand. The idea that creationism is wrong is based only on what humans know, not what we don't know. And because of that, I cannot be 100% sure of it. I know what I believe, but I cannot be 100% sure I know anything as it relates to things beyond the comprehension of any human being.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: We don't have that frame of reference for the origins of the universe.

Yes we do. Now, this really is way more than I can possibly do off the top of my head, and this isn't the place to do it if I could. But yes, we have a lot of understanding about the origin of the universe. We can literally hear the echo of the big bang. Right now. Not in the past. Not in theory. Measurable right now. We can look into the distant past with telescopes and *see* an evolving universe that does indeed fit with our understanding of how it was created. Real time, right now observable facts.

And what before it? What caused it? How did all that stuff get there in the first place? Was the big bang "the" origin or just one of infinitely many bangs?

Right. Eventually you have to go back to a point where you have to "believe" something, not "know it". Who created God? What created the big bang or bangs? What was before anything you believe was the beginning of the Earth? Nobody can prove it, we have to believe it.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: I believe that someone who thinks that a teddy bear created the universe would be batE36 M3 crazy. I just am not willing to say I'm 100% certain he's wrong. I'm not sure how you get from that to "You do not believe anything can be known." That's a huge leap. Getting to "the sum total of human knowledge doesn't exist." is an even bigger one.

And, again, taking you at your word. This isn't an attack, but look what you said here. You can't know for sure that the guy who says the teddy bear did it is wrong. How is it any leap at all, then, to say nothing can be known? Tell you what- if I'm wrong about that- if you believe things can be known, then give me an example of something you know 100% to be true. We'll move forward from there.

I know one thing. No matter how big of a perch you put him on, Obama didn't create the Earth.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Not knowing everything isn't the same as not knowing anything.

And finally - there it is. At one time lightning, fire, and rainbows were all magic. The remote control would be a magic wand to any human not born in the last century. But we know how they work. Just because we do not have the exact nature of the beginning does not mean we don't have ANY ideas that are more probable than magic willed it to be so. In every case where magical beings were thought to be responsible but are not any longer there has been a natural cause uncovered by the work of science. If we are jumping to conclusions at all - isn't the more probable one that there is a natural explanation awaiting discovery?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but in case you didn't know, freely interchanging magic and God is pretty damn offensive to those who believe in God. Presumably to those who believe in magic as well. If you know this and are doing it anyway, so be it. In case you didn't, know that it does nothing to further the conversation.

Bobzilla wrote: Blind hatred and closed mindedness. It's not just redneck hicks anymore.

Why would anyone hate the blind? That seems mean to me.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Hmm, I guess I wasn't offended. I took the magic reference to be aimed at those who do not believe in God, not those that do. Isn't his point that many things that seem like magic turn out not to be? Maybe I interpreted it wrong?

bravenrace wrote: Yes. There are many things human beings don't yet understand. The idea that creationism is wrong is based only on what humans know, not what we don't know. And because of that, I cannot be 100% sure of it. I know what I believe, but I cannot be 100% sure I know anything as it relates to things beyond the comprehension of any human being.

People are welcome to believe anything, but, I think what others have been attempting to say is... when something has no evidence to its credit it does not require me to prove it wrong. The argument that it has credibility because I cannot say for certain it didn't happen that way is flawed. Imagine any other scenario than religion where it is possible to make outlandish, incredible claims without a single shred of physical evidence and be taken seriously. Like the saying goes... (paraphrased) When one person believes something totally ridiculous, we call him nuts. When a few do, we call it a cult. When lots do, we call it a religion.

The scientific explanations might not be 100% accurate at this time but they are based on a system that seeks truth based on results. There have been inaccuracies in the past but since it is always assumed to be incorrect until proven and tested for all possible cases - it grows more accurate thru constant disbelief. Default skepticism is the key. When we trust science there are plausible reasons to do so.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I said I was 100% sure that Creationism is wrong. And I am. And it can and has been proven. That's it.

Well, I certainly do admire the strength of your conviction. Heck, I'm not even 100% sure what color my underwear are.

I did a little reading in the wiki and I thought I'd pass this on. I found especially interesting the bit about the originator of the Big Bang Theory (and it is still just a theory) being a Catholic priest, and that the Pope endorsed the Big Bang Theory and said it was in accord with the concept of creationism.

Food for thought, eh?

Directly from the wiki, for what it's worth:
"The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications. In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[71] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[72] Pope Pius XII, declared at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation.[73]

Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.[74]"

Things that seem like magic are magic until they are explained, then they are no longer magic. It wasn't all that long ago (in the big scheme of things) that folks that we consider smart guys still to this day thought the sun was a god that rode his chariot across the sky every day. Turns out that was neither magic, nor god. It was just the sun.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: Hmm, I guess I wasn't offended. I took the magic reference to be aimed at those who do not believe in God, not those that do. Isn't his point that many things that seem like magic turn out not to be? Maybe I interpreted it wrong?

No. You interpreted it correctly. There are too many gods to list them all but they all require you suspend disbelief and just accept that some supernatural stuff happened that is attributed to the deity.

That to me is belief in magic. It is not intended to be offensive.

pinchvalve wrote: Why would anyone hate the blind? That seems mean to me.

I don't hate them but I have to say that I'm pretty damn annoyed by the sound they picked for traffic lights.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

bravenrace wrote: Yes. There are many things human beings don't yet understand. The idea that creationism is wrong is based only on what humans know, not what we don't know. And because of that, I cannot be 100% sure of it. I know what I believe, but I cannot be 100% sure I know anything as it relates to things beyond the comprehension of any human being.

People are welcome to believe anything, but, I think what others have been attempting to say is... when something has no evidence to its credit it does not require me to prove it wrong. The argument that it has credibility because I cannot say for certain it didn't happen that way is flawed. Imagine any other scenario than religion where it is possible to make outlandish, incredible claims without a single shred of physical evidence and be taken seriously. Like the saying goes... (paraphrased) When one person believes something totally ridiculous, we call him nuts. When a few do, we call it a cult. When lots do, we call it a religion. The scientific explanations might not be 100% accurate at this time but they are based on a system that seeks truth based on results. There have been inaccuracies in the past but since it is always assumed to be incorrect until proven and tested for all possible cases - it grows more accurate thru constant disbelief. Default skepticism is the key. When we trust science there are plausible reasons to do so.

It may seek truth, and I believe that at least in some cases it does, but when I see how many times over history that we as humans were wrong, coupled with the knowledge that if there is a God, that we as humans can't possibly comprehend his power, I see no reason to belive that humans can conclusively prove the origins of the Earth. And for me, the Bible is all the evidence I need to convince me. I don't know, but I believe that this evidence is much more convincing and accurate than anything human science as been able to come up with.