Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

a reply to: Phantom423

I may be wrong...except an expanding universe only eludes to a point of origin...

All of the universe is expanding except that which is traveling inward due to black holes...

Therefore it is logical to assume the universe is not infinite as everything including black holes and stars have begginigs and endings...

yes black hole are believed to cease to exist...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You should give this a view. It's talking about all the things we've been talking about here. The something from nothing idea and the whole of cosmology as well. It's about an hour but I really think you'd like it and it will answer many of your question. If not answer them completely at least help in what you're talking about.

a reply to: mOjOm

here is an answer from someone else...

carm.org...

8)

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

here is an answer from someone else...

carm.org...

8)

Well, the problem is that your link is from a guy who admits he's not a cosmologist and also not as smart as Krauss. So basically he's just some guy with little to no knowledge of the subject he's talking about. He just wants to complain about something that he hasn't taken the time to understand yet.

My video is of Krauss himself talking about this very subject. Why on earth would you rather take the opinion of a less educated person about a subject that he doesn't even know about instead of the actual guy who does know what he's talking about first hand??? FFS, at least then you can make up your own mind about the subject rather than have someone else make it up for you.

Plus, the guy in your link is completely wrong about what he's complaining about. He either doesn't understand any of it or is just lying on purpose. It's right here:

All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.

That quote right there is a flat out lie. Krauss explains this very clearly which this guy would know if he'd actually read up on it instead of just assuming he knows what he's talking about.

So, in short, NO, that link you provided isn't an answer at all. It is just some guy who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about misreporting what someone else who does know what he's talking about is saying.

The link I gave you is from Krauss himself. Get the info from the horses mouth for once.

**YOUR LINK IS TO A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST WEBSITE!! THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT COSMOLOGY!!

a reply to: mOjOm

Well in all reality they are both just opinions and nothing more...

What I illustrated was the fact because he is an atheist expressing his point of view and can not will not except a true beggining...

so nothing remains nothing and nothing more without creation...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

Well in all reality they are both just opinions and nothing more...

What I illustrated was the fact because he is an atheist expressing his point of view and can not will not except a true beggining...

so nothing remains nothing and nothing more without creation...

No. The reality is one of them is a Cosmologist talking about his research and scientific evidence behind Cosmology. The other is just some Christian Apologist who openly admits he doesn't know anything about the subject.

You've illustrated nothing but your choice to be ignorant of the subject material you're discussing. You are ignoring the very information that you're arguing against. Which means you don't even understand or know what it is your discussing. You're trying to debate the opposing side of an argument that you haven't even heard the argument the other side is giving.

You're trying to argue against the information Krauss is talking about, but you haven't even heard his side of it yet. You're taking the word of an apologist who's speaking for Krauss incorrectly and then giving you his opinion. Why not get the info first hand from Krauss himself??? Are you afraid of actually getting the correct information???

a reply to: mOjOm

I have already told you they are both only opinions...

You seem to believe he has proven the universe always existed...

this is not so...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

I have already told you they are both only opinions...

You seem to believe he has proven the universe always existed...

this is not so...

I don't give a rats ass what "you've told me". You aren't some kind of authority here. They aren't both opinions. One is an opinion. The other is scientific knowledge gathered from research, experiment and empirical data.

You seem to believe you know everything yet have researched nothing at all, can show evidence for nothing at all and just keep saying the same incorrect assumptions over and over. How would you know what Krauss has proven or not since you won't even listen to what he has to say???

How can you also possibly say he isn't correct either??? Where is your evidence to support what you have to say??? He's got his, where's yours???

a reply to: 5StarOracle

What Krauss demonstrates though is actually an educated guess and not an opinion. An educated guess is supported by empirical data which Krauss has in abundance. Your dissenting link is most certainly just an opinion. An opinion with no foundation in evidence at all. The dissenting opinion is so ignorant to the actual data that it's a gift to call it an opinion. You can have a dissenting opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the point which you are arguing against. It's beyond the realm of intellectual dishonesty and treading into the territory of blatant and self serving lies.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

I may be wrong...except an expanding universe only eludes to a point of origin...

All of the universe is expanding except that which is traveling inward due to black holes...

Therefore it is logical to assume the universe is not infinite as everything including black holes and stars have begginigs and endings...

yes black hole are believed to cease to exist...

I don't know where you get your physics information, but it's incorrect. The universe is expanding but we can't see beyond the speed of light so how big the universe actually is, is unknown. And it may be infinite. This doesn't point to, or suggest, a creator. That's illogical. It only says that it may be infinite. Even if it's not infinite, that doesn't mean someone created it.

You'll have to do better than that.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

I have already told you they are both only opinions...

You seem to believe he has proven the universe always existed...

this is not so...

What evidence do you have for that??? There's no definitive answer to whether the universe is finite or infinite. Please post links to the research that shows that the universe is finite.

a reply to: Phantom423

Please post links to the research that shows that the universe is finite.

They don't have much to do with the actual topic of this thread.

Certainly there is interesting discussion to be had about the origins of the Universe but it's irrelevant to the subject of biological evolution which is what my OP is about.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Well in all reality they are both just opinions and nothing more...

Except people's opinions and beliefs can be based on better or worse information or reasoning. You seem to be suggesting that a Christian apologist has the same knowledge base as an actual scientist and so their opinions are equal when it comes to anything and everything. But a scientist in a given field is always going to carry more authority than an amateur, especially a biased amateur like JP Holding who runs Carm.org and likes to use the transcendental argument. That isn't to say Krauss doesn't also have his biases but that he backs his opinion up with scientific knowledge, not apologetics or logical tricks.

Now that that's all been said I will politely ask you to please refrain from bringing up more off topic stuff about the origin of the cosmos, you've been doing it since page 1. If you want to have a discussion on the topic start your own thread or perhaps private message the people who are discussing this with you. I understand that they have replied to you but if you simply send them a private message it will stop the thread from being derailed into a discussion of cosmology and the arguments for God's existence.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs
I never said ever that evolution does not take place...

So despite your asking for proof in the last post, you agree that man descended from apelike ancestors and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. I guess I completely misunderstood your position. So you agree with evolution. Gotcha.

I have said creation allows for evolution...

And provided no evidence or reason to suggest this.

You can't just make things up and put your own spin on it unless you can prove to me something can evolve from nothing...

Therefore Creation predates any and all evolution...

Could you please give me a citation of where evolution says nothing evolved into something. You are simply guessing based on your religious beliefs. If abiogenesis is what started the first life, then creation never happened. Evolution is definitely not reliant on creation or abiogenesis. It is reliant on genetic mutations and natural selection, which is slam dunk proven in science.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Hi, sorry to interrupt the cosmology debate, just wantd to say: nice OP S&F.

As European i don't fell like i should add something more, because it is super ironical (and therefor super funny) that the leading nation of the western world is infected by this illogical believe.
That's the true conspiracy, how can you guys be leading in major parts of the modern research and at the same time have so many people denying it out of sheer middle-age-ish, uninformed blind faith?

The question to me would be if not many of your so called priests are actually agents planting misinformation to end the leading role in science?
No Russian (f.e.) is in the year 2015 so stupid to believe in creationism and that humans had pet dinosaurs, or that their bomes are planted evidences to support some luciferian theory out of hell.

Maybe after all it is nothing more than arrogance, because the crown of creation turns out to be just an ape?

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

I appreciate your point and will stay on topic. As a scientist, I look at evidence and ask for evidence because evidence is all we have to determine what's real and what is fantasy or fraud. I believe Ken Ham, the guru of Creationism, is an outright fraud. He's a junk bond salesman who's skimming the cream off his followers donation by donation.

sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com...

www.dailykos.com...

I think the fundamental question in your OP is why people believe in Creationism. My answer: because it's easy. You don't have to think. You don't have to read. You don't have to do any hard work. You swear allegiance to a false god who leads you around by the nose in any direction he wants.

Ham makes them feel that they know more than the average bear. He's gone to great lengths to implement a culture where "his science" looks legitimate because it's based on the Bible. His so-called scientists don't accumulate data. They only criticize real science as some sort of conspiracy. More importantly, he trains his followers to simply ignore hard evidence - as you can see from the various posts on this board. A few of us here are constantly posting hard evidence, data published in highly regarded journals, articles written by some of the best scientists on the planet. But do they read them? Hell no. That would be dangerous. It would upset the applecart of dogma that keeps them in lockstep with people like Ham.

Evolution is a Creationist's favorite topic even though evolution requires some understanding of chemistry, physics, cosmology, molecular biology, genetics and physiology. I say "even though" because I've never encountered one who had even the most basic understanding of the hard sciences. And that works in their favor. Out of sight, out of mind. I've offered to debate several hard core Creationists on this board over at the debate forum - with official rules and oversight. No takers. Are you surprised??

As for Christians in general, most normal people understand that science is objective in its methods and is a process of discovery. Religion is about faith. Science is about facts. Religion and science can get along just fine together as long as everyone understands that the end games are very different.

a reply to: Phantom423

That would be dangerous. It would upset the applecart of dogma that keeps them in lockstep with people like Ham.

Indeed. It's exactly how I was when I was a creationist, never actually allowing the idea that evolution might be true to enter my mind and constantly reassured by those around me and the biased sources I frequented that I was on the righteous side that didn't just have the facts but had, more importantly, God and God's "Word". I regularly skimmed over or outright ignored evidence when it was given to me and it seems that most creationists today are still guilty of this.

Religion and science can get along just fine together as long as everyone understands that the end games are very different.

While I consider myself firmly anti-religion I definitely agree that the two can co-exist side by side. It's sort of like Biblical scholar and historian Bart Ehrman often says, the Bible is of theological spiritual significance, it does not need to be treated like a history book or a science text. If people want to have a personal religious conviction AND support science more power to them!

a reply to: Peeple

Thank you for your kind words and your European perspective, I'm glad that this kind of anti-science fundamentalism doesn't have a place over there!

Maybe after all it is nothing more than arrogance, because the crown of creation turns out to be just an ape?

I think its natural for human beings to want to believe they are special and we are constantly told this in society and in movies. You're not just another face in the crowd, you are "the one" one of the "elect" one of the "chosen" and, in Christianity, you can directly communicate with and have a relationship with the creator of the entire Cosmos.

So when some are presented with the idea that they are an animal that evolved naturally they reject it because they've spent their entire lives believing they were God's specially created beautiful creation cradled in the hands of God. The Bible says that mankind are more than the angels but less than God, so Christianity presents the idea that God created us to be close to him and to be the next best thing next to him. People don't like to think that they evolved and that it wasn't a directly magical event.

But as many have already said those people often don't want to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of evolution, they can't find a way to hold both and if they could there wouldn't be much of a problem. I for one find evolution magical, in the sense of the word meaning that it's amazing, that it's awe-inspiring to think of all the species that have struggled and lived and evolved to lead to the amazing interactive interconnected interrelated living world we have today.

People who look too hard for the reality of magic miss out on the magic of reality

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

This part of your OP is highly insightful and also, in my opinion, cautionary:

As a former creationist myself I am no stranger to this sort of smug attitude and at one point could have caught myself doing much the same thing, raising questions about evolution that were then answered but letting my eyes glaze over and not a drop of information get in when that information was provided only to preserve my ability to say, “Well that doesn't prove ANYTHING!”

Most of us, if we're honest, have adopted that mindset at some point. It doesn't have to be a 'Creationist' thing either, it applies just as well to the political forums, metaphysics, spirituality and the ancient and lost civs forums. Some people never change and others realise they're being dogmatic and try to relax.

That being said, I think your thread is one of the most accessible on ATS for offering examples of natural selection that anyone can understand. Now I'll butt out