I'll throw a coal into this fire

[AOK Tiger]

Gecko,

umm, umm, umm *looks around nervously*

Don’t be too nervous.. its only an internet forum.. not Judgement day !

I'm sorry, I can't possibly reply to all of the things you all said...and I'm sorry, but I can't possibly prove God to you. Think about it from the perspective that God exists. If he does exist(i know he does, but i'm taking this at a neutral perspective), then he gave us the free will to choose or reject him. That is clear. Therefore, he wouldn't let us PROOVE he exists, because that would not be choosing him. It would be learning to be forced to choose him. Understand?

Nope that doesn’t make sense.

You have mentioned that you are a Christian. Then according to that religion your God has “proven” his existence over and over again in the past. He has appeared to an instructed MANY humans and sent his own son to die for our sins. If he could do SOOO much in the past a simple television appearance today does not seem to big an issue.

So, in all respects, its illogical that God could ever be proven.

To us these are just excuses to avoid the logical conclusion.. no proof.. no logic.. no existence.

Haha, about the comment about being a skeptic and the masturbation thing...I thought it was a sin before i was a full believer. But even when I was a skeptic, I considered myself a christian. Maybe that seems wierd.

Yep VERY weird.

If you thought masturbation was a “sin” then you where never a sceptic as I would label one. You must have had a lot of Chrisitan guilt etc laid on you. I am talking the real fundamental stuff here too.

Ok, I can't tell you that everything on that site is real, or that ghosts ghouls and goblins exist. All I can attest to, of the things I've looked into, are lucid dreams and auras.

Sure looney site may have one item of truth amongst the 30 items that are complete balderdash, but isn’t it prudent to assume that a site that is FULL of inanity is a poor resource to highlight as an evidence of your particular belief ?

I'm sorry, I really don't think I can prove these auras in the ways you guys are asking. With the whole wall...I can't imagine seeing through this wall, and about the plant thing...no how can I see auras from a long distance away!

Let me paraphrase.. “the auras I see are ONLY in my own head.. they do not actually exist in reality.. when tested in any meaningful way they cannot be spotted”

Haha, well, this whole thread went, well, exactly how I suspected it would. I can't prove to you that auras exist anymore than that my name is brian...lol.

NO totally incorrect. You can produce AMPLE evidence to show us your name is Brian (if you had to). Also having a name Brian is a completely logical, unmagical, normal thing.

 

[KelvinG]

...When I was about 13, I was addicted to the sick(at least from a christian perspective) habit of masturbation. No doubt, this is something that plagues most all men, especially at this age...

On behalf of proud masturbators everywhere, I demand an apology for calling our sacred hobby "sick."

 

[jmercer]

Brian,

Thank you for answering my question - I really appreciate it, especially since you showed so much candor.

Many people here have made some positive remarks and given you some suggestions about your current belief status... I fully understand why you sought ways to validate your beliefs through the various avenues you've tried. After reading your post, I believe that there may be another reason for you joining us here and presenting your beliefs to us beyond what you stated - even if you're not ready to embrace it quite yet.

I suggest that you take your time, stay in the forums, and engage the people here with questions about your viewpoints, and how it may differ from theirs. Don't challenge them ; simply consider what they say and why they say it.

You may find the experience very rewarding.

 

[gecko]

ok ok...let me try to touch on a few things that have come about this time...

first off, to compare auras to occultist witchcraft is just wrong. "witchcraft" refers to "magick" which refers to things like communicating with demons, raising the dead, and shooting fireballs out of your fingers. So saying that there is some type of spiritual energy that connects human beings or what not seems totally different.

To the person with the tiger head avatar...I'm not exactly sure what to say. From here I can really take the stance that either a)those event are parabolic -or- b)times have changed. However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.

And finally, on the masturbation topic...clearly I have sparked some ridicule for my comments on it. Using the term "sick" was an opinion I guess...an opinion I clearly thought was shared by more people. *shrugs* I'm sorry if I offended anyone and I guarantee it wasn't my intention.

 

[gecko]

two more things I forgot:

About the evidence for creationism, it is mostly two fold. The first part is evidence against evolution. Amongst this evolution are the following things, which are obviously delved into more depth in my paper:

1. the big bang theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely. They say you can't get something from nothing, but in order for the universe to be created, SOMETHING has to come from nothing. Even if it is the smallest substance believable, something has to come.

2. This whole randomly springing up organism is kind of flawed. For this organism to spring up, all these amino acids have to form into proteins in nearly impossible fashions, and then you need dna to replicate the protein. However, there is no dna, so where does one get the dna?

3. There is no fossils of transitional forms between mammals-sea mammals and birds-reptiles. And archaeoteryx is hardly evidence.

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed


These are just a few of the things included in this english paper...and I'm not possibly saying that creationism can be proven on a scientific basis. It can't.

The second part is to jmercer. I don't know exactly what you meant about a bigger calling here, but I am kind of enjoying it here and I'll try to stick around and peruse the place. However, if you want to convince me to be skeptical, I have to admit I'm pretty hard nosed in my beliefs, just like everyone else...

 

[gecko]

Since you admit that there's no proof that God exists, why believe in him at all?

Why not also avoid stepping on cracks? You wouldn't want to break your mother's back.

I didn't mean that I haven't found my own proof(my long testimony, or in other words my life lol), just that I can't prove it. I know people like a shut and closed case, a simple proof, an easy way out, but I can't provide this. And I mean, if I could, somebody smarter and more experienced than me would've done it long ago...

I guess you'll all probably jump on that with some sayings like "then why are you here?"...well, I don't know! Just felt like it I guess.

 

[IIRichard]

Having thought about this for awhile, I was about to post a reply to the effect that either this kid is who he says he is and we'd better treat an obviuosly troubled kid gently OR he's a troll and let's see what happens.

Based upon his continued replies, I'd vote for troll.

Sorry Kid. You did have a chance.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

ok ok...let me try to touch on a few things that have come about this time...

first off, to compare auras to occultist witchcraft is just wrong. "witchcraft" refers to "magick" which refers to things like communicating with demons, raising the dead, and shooting fireballs out of your fingers. So saying that there is some type of spiritual energy that connects human beings or what not seems totally different.

To the person with the tiger head avatar...I'm not exactly sure what to say. From here I can really take the stance that either a)those event are parabolic -or- b)times have changed. However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.

And finally, on the masturbation topic...clearly I have sparked some ridicule for my comments on it. Using the term "sick" was an opinion I guess...an opinion I clearly thought was shared by more people. *shrugs* I'm sorry if I offended anyone and I guarantee it wasn't my intention.

Welcome, you seem to be sincere from what I've read in your previous posts in this thread. I think it's important to keep being sincere and not act like a troll, especially on this forum, you can learn alot.
As for the auras question. If you are interested in some kind of experiment, you can refer to my post (ahem.. yes, a touch of narcissism on my part) in this thread as to an experiment set-up.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=52643

However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.

Why do you think that people would not love and respect god if he/she showed us proof of existence? Why would we love him/her any more on faith than on proof?

 

[Chocolate Chip]

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:
1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

Evidence please

Originally posted by gecko
2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

Evidence please

Originally posted by gecko
3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

Evidence please

Originally posted by gecko
4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

Evidence please

 

[delphi_ote]

On behalf of proud masturbators everywhere, I demand an apology for calling our sacred hobby "sick."

I stand beside you, brave friend. We mustn't stand for this persecution!

Ours is a time honored tradition of unsullied reputation.

Edit: Brian, we're just being funny. Don't worry.

 

[drkitten]

About the evidence for creationism, it is mostly two fold. The first part is evidence against evolution. Amongst this evolution are the following things, which are obviously delved into more depth in my paper:

1. the big bang theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely. They say you can't get something from nothing, but in order for the universe to be created, SOMETHING has to come from nothing. Even if it is the smallest substance believable, something has to come.

2. This whole randomly springing up organism is kind of flawed. For this organism to spring up, all these amino acids have to form into proteins in nearly impossible fashions, and then you need dna to replicate the protein. However, there is no dna, so where does one get the dna?

3. There is no fossils of transitional forms between mammals-sea mammals and birds-reptiles. And archaeoteryx is hardly evidence.

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

All of these have been dealt with pretty thoroughly on the talk.origins web site, to which I refer you. Brief summary -- all of the statements that you make are contradicted by firm scientific evidence, and most of them hinge on fundamental misunderstandings.

 

[delphi_ote]

Substitute "Creator" for "Big Bang" and we get "the creator theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely..."

"...in order for the universe to be created..." So assuming the universe is created, the big bang is unlikely? Isn't that going in a circle?

 

[Winny]

two more things I forgot:

About the evidence for creationism ... The first part is evidence against evolution. ... :

You might be interested to read through some of the FAQs at www.talkorigins.org

There are some great articles on transitional fossils and various young-earth proof fallacies.

Be careful about making absolute statements like these;

==============================

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

====================

In this forum you will be challenged on this sort of statement and asked to supply proof. You will struggle to do that, because all four points have been dealt with and discarded.

cheers

Winny

 

[gecko]

yeah...I was just trying to answer the question about what I had written my paper about that long ago...

I can try to look at the link sometime, although it sounds like I'll be in for quite the snore.

I didn't truly intend to try to be evolutionists at their own game, especially with my knowledge. Anyway, I guess this thread has pretty much died, so I"ll look around a bit if I can.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

yeah...I was just trying to answer the question about what I had written my paper about that long ago...

I can try to look at the link sometime, although it sounds like I'll be in for quite the snore.

I didn't truly intend to try to be evolutionists at their own game, especially with my knowledge. Anyway, I guess this thread has pretty much died, so I"ll look around a bit if I can.

Hi Brian,

Welcome to the forum.

One very important problem with your "evidence against evolution" is that it isn't against evolution.

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Evolution does not deal with:

1) The origins of the Universe

2) Origins of life

3) Age of the Earth (although it helps support the overwhelming evidence that the Earth and Universe are very very old)

Evolution in its broadest sense is absolute and indisputable FACT. We can see this broad evolution at work every day. I see it in my children.

What is THEORY in evolution is the exact mechanisms for change in species. We're still learning in this area and surprises still abound. Genetics have both re-affirmed the FACT of evolution and radically changed some of the THEORY.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Gecko,

1. the big bang theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely. They say you can't get something from nothing, but in order for the universe to be created, SOMETHING has to come from nothing. Even if it is the smallest substance believable, something has to come.

This always begs the obvious question.. Where did God come from ?.. You either have.. Universe springs from Nothing or.. Universe created and God springs from nothing.. doesn’t it seem you just add in an extra layer of unexplainable complexity ?

2. This whole randomly springing up organism is kind of flawed. For this organism to spring up, all these amino acids have to form into proteins in nearly impossible fashions, and then you need dna to replicate the protein. However, there is no dna, so where does one get the dna?

Yet everything EVER explained has had a natural beginning. Isn’t it just logical to firstly assume life had a natural beginning too ? Secondly most of these things the proteins, acids and self replicating molecules HAVE been shown to be able to arise naturally. Why throw in the complexity of an inexplicable being ?

3. There is no fossils of transitional forms between mammals-sea mammals and birds-reptiles. And archaeoteryx is hardly evidence.

You obviously haven’t seen much about Whale evolution and the fossils with residual “legs” etc. See this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

or

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/allabout/Evol.shtml

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

The rates of expansion and contraction of the Sun are assumed to be variable over time. You are extrapolating from a limited block of information. For example.. if you examined a human child from age 0-16 you would assume they would be 30 feet tall by the time they are 80 years old ?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

See above.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

I have no idea what you are talking about here

But I assume it falls into a similar category as the above creationist furphies!

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

In answer to all of the above you seem to be taking a completely flawed creationist line about extrapolation from limited and specific blocks of data. Each of these can be answered with simple Google searches.

I suggest every time you read a creationist argument go to www.talkorigins.org and find the complete debunking of it

We expect you to at least argue from information not ignorance.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:
1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

I dispute your statement .
from:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-7.html

The Sun is a yellow, G2 V main sequence dwarf. Yellow dwarfs live about 10 billion years (from zero-age main sequence to white dwarf formation), and our Sun is already about 5 billion years old.
We still have about 5 billion years left to go. Some other interesting facts about stars: http://www.seasky.org/cosmic/sky7a01.html

2.The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

This may shed a little more light on decay of the Earth's magnetic field.
From:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say. If the trend continues, the field may collapse altogether and then reverse. Compasses would point south instead of north.

From:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

Hundreds of years could pass before a flip-flopped field returned to where it was 780,000 years ago. But scientists at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union cautioned that scenario is an unlikely one.
"The chances are it will not," Bloxham said. "Reversals are a rare event."
Instead, the weakening, measured since 1845, could represent little more than an "excursion," or lull, which can last for hundreds of years, said John Tarduno of the University of Rochester.

3.The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

Not for billions of years.
From:http://www.seasky.org/cosmic/sky7a01.html

The main sequence is the point in a star's evolution during which it maintains a stable nuclear reaction. It is this stage during which a star will spend most of its life. Our Sun is a main sequence star. A main sequence star will experience only small fluctuations in luminosity and temperature. The amount of time a star spends in this phase depends on its mass. Large, massive stars will have a short main sequence stage while less massive stars will remain in main sequence much longer. Very massive stars will exhaust their fuel in only a few hundred million years. Smaller stars, like the Sun, will burn for several billion years during their main sequence stage. Very massive stars will become blue giants during their main sequence.

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

You are going to have to be more specific on this one. Too many minerals on the ocean's bed in relation to what?

These are just a few of the things included in this english paper...and I'm not possibly saying that creationism can be proven on a scientific basis. It can't.

If creationism can't be proven scientifically, than it has no basis in reality, wouldn't you agree? Science deals with proving whether a theory can be real or not. If you yourself admit that creationism can't be proven, then you have just admitted that creationism is not real.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

In this forum you will be challenged on this sort of statement and asked to supply proof.
Winny

BTW, Welcome to the board

 

[arthwollipot]

Given that arguing with creationists is sort of my hobby, I was going to jump in here and talk about gecko's so-called "evidence" for creationism. But I see that I'm too late.

I'll just post a link instead:

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? at Talk.Origins.

Don't panic, gecko. We only asked what evidence you used so that we could jump down your throat and show you how it wasn't true.

And I accept your statement that you do not now believe that these things actually consitute evidence for creationism. I am sure you see (now if not before) how incorrect they are.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Gecko-

There are opinions and there are facts.

You mentioned your opinion about masturbation and admit surprise to find most folk here do not share that opinion. (As I do not). For what it's worth, I congratulate you on your self discipline.
You have a perfect right to your opinion. but facts are something else. While I admire the lengths you went to in researching your English paper, the evidence you mention is factually dead wrong. I suspect this is due to your reliance on poor source data, most, I expect, from the internet.

Others have suggested various reliable books and sites, well worth reading. I won't burden you with more.

At sixteen, there is a vast amount you cannot know, or be expected to know, about the scientific data which underlies the general tenor of this website. Many people here are specialists with long experience in the fields you mentioned.
I advise you to take their advice. Many folk are sceptical, but few of them end up here. Few of the regular posters here reached their present philosophical views without long thought. Some are sixteen, some younger, many a lot older. Some are indeed religious, most not.

Before dismissing evolution in particular, learn to understand it first. It is not simple. If you think you understand it and it does not make sense, you may be right- but I find it more probable that you have not understood it.

As for cosmology- I listen to the folks who know.

As for gods- They have their business , perhaps. I have mine.

Thank you for posting your thoughts here. I hope you stick around.