A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Nothing deceptive about it. It's a challenge question to atheists/evolutionists as they claim to be the vanguard, the mantle of authority when it comes to scientific matters.

That's not true at all. Scientists are the authorities of science, not atheists or "evolutionists". This question can't be answered by anybody because nobody really knows if something without a cause exists, we don't know about other dimensions or the cause of the big bang. It does seem like some element of it has to be eternal at some point. Perhaps not infinite, but not restricted to our perception of time. If time only exists within our big bang bubble as scientists postulate, then everything outside of it (if anything exists outside of it) would technically be eternal.

And who are these "Scientists" that are the "gate keepers" of this "great (scientific) knowledge"? Are they not atheists and evolutionists?

In fact, you can't name one prominent religious scientists recognized by the scientific community as an authority in science.

As to the question - you mean the scientific community is stumped?

But what does logic tell us?

What does the word infinity imply if not boundless?

logic.

a reply to: edmc^2

In fact, you can't name one prominent religious scientists recognized by the scientific community as an authority in science.

Here's a whole list of scientists who are/were religious.

SOURCE

Sir Robert Boyd (1922–2004): pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the "Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship" and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science.

Alberto Dou Mas de Xaxàs (1915–2009): Spanish/Catalan Jesuit priest and one of the foremost mathematicians of his country. He was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and a Professor of Mathematics at Universidad Complutense de Madrid and he was Rector of Universidad de Deusto from 1974 to 1977.

Mariano Artigas (1938–2006): He had doctorates in both physics and philosophy. He belonged to the European Association for the Study of Science and Theology and also received a grant from the Templeton Foundation for his work in the area of science and religion

J. Laurence Kulp (1921–2006): Plymouth Brethren member who led major studies on the effects of nuclear fallout and acid rain. He was a prominent advocate in American Scientific Affiliation circles in favor of an Old Earth and against flood geology.

And that's just a few from the 21st century alone.

a reply to: edmc^2

Are you really playing that game?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Are you really playing that game?

en.wikipedia.org...

Great minds

a reply to: edmc^2

You mean like Dr. Francis Collins, world reknowned geneticist, former head of the Human Genome Project and devout Christian who supports the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because it's what the evidence supports? Sorry, but your premise is as flat and convoluted as the OP. There are many Christians working in the Biological and Earth sciences so no, science isn't corrupted and controlled by heathen atheists and to insist that such is the case without a single citation to support it is ludicrous but apparently par for the course with Christian apologists on ATS these days. Smoke mirrors and theatrics but no evidence.

Science is just a method by which a person can search for answers. It doesn't inherently create or attract atheists. Many scientists are very active in using good objective science to see if there actually is some logical, hard evidence out there for what could be defined as "God."

Issac Newton, maybe the smartest mathematician who ever lived, spent most of his life combing through the Bible and observing natural phenomena to pin down the existence and nature of God.

He failed. But he tried.

a reply to: edmc^2

Yes.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: edmc^2

You mean like Dr. Francis Collins, world reknowned geneticist, former head of the Human Genome Project and devout Christian who supports the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because it's what the evidence supports? Sorry, but your premise is as flat and convoluted as the OP. There are many Christians working in the Biological and Earth sciences so no, science isn't corrupted and controlled by heathen atheists and to insist that such is the case without a single citation to support it is ludicrous but apparently par for the course with Christian apologists on ATS these days. Smoke mirrors and theatrics but no evidence.

You mean when they start proposing or teaching Biblical Creation they are accepted as equals amongst atheist scientists alike. Or are they recognized only in their specialized fields and as long as it complies with the evolution theory?

Like you said:

Christian who supports the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because it's what the evidence supports?

So name me one that teaches the opposite and is ACCEPTED and RECOGNIZED as equal.

a reply to: edmc^2

You seem to be mistaken in believing the "only Christians" are creationists. I think you will find neighbour, that these people are a minority. One can be religious (Which apparently means Christian to you?) and not a creationist. Darwin was a fricking Christian, yet he postulated the first model for evolution.

Speaking as a Scientist (we've done this dance, I am, and I am religions (just not Abrahamic) move along ).

Scientists are always (ALWAYS) specialists in their fields. That is what they are recongnized for. You don't see Steven Hawkings being published as a Bioinformaticist, or Pharmaceutical Chemist, just like you would not find me published as a Cosmologist, Astronomer, or Physicist.

None the less a Scientist (in that they work in science, be it academic or industry) is someone trained in the methods of science.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Science is just a method by which a person can search for answers. It doesn't inherently create or attract atheists. Many scientists are very active in using good objective science to see if there actually is some logical, hard evidence out there for what could be defined as "God."

Issac Newton, maybe the smartest mathematician who ever lived, spent most of his life combing through the Bible and observing natural phenomena to pin down the existence and nature of God.

He failed. But he tried.

To the contrary, he succeeded. He was able to pattern and formulate his findings by the things he observed in nature. By
To quote one publication of Newton's biography:

Newton bound religion and science in many ways, believing that whatever knowledge of God was revealed in ``the Book of Nature'' was harmonious with what was unfolded in ``the Book of Scripture.'' Newton thought that science had nothing to say about the dogmatic content of religion, and that Scripture was not to be quoted in a Royal Society communication (Manuel, 1974, p. 48), but these were small separations compared with his faith that God's work was behind both ``Books.''

web.media.mit.edu...

Many of his writings are actually about the Bible.

Of course, to the unbeliever, it's all nonsense. Considered a delusional man with a great mind.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

You seem to be mistaken in believing the "only Christians" are creationists. I think you will find neighbour, that these people are a minority. One can be religious (Which apparently means Christian to you?) and not a creationist. Darwin was a fricking Christian, yet he postulated the first model for evolution.

Speaking as a Scientist (we've done this dance, I am, and I am religions (just not Abrahamic) move along ).

Scientists are always (ALWAYS) specialists in their fields. That is what they are recongnized for. You don't see Steven Hawkings being published as a Bioinformaticist, or Pharmaceutical Chemist, just like you would not find me published as a Cosmologist, Astronomer, or Physicist.

None the less a Scientist (in that they work in science, be it academic or industry) is someone trained in the methods of science.

Unfortunately, to become an accepted peer in the scientific community, one MUST agree to the principle that one cannot promote any teaching (be it a Christian or not) UNLESS it supports the evolutionary theory. That's the fact.

To quote Peter Vlar:

Christian who supports the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because it's what the evidence supports?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: edmc^2

You mean like Dr. Francis Collins, world reknowned geneticist, former head of the Human Genome Project and devout Christian who supports the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because it's what the evidence supports? Sorry, but your premise is as flat and convoluted as the OP. There are many Christians working in the Biological and Earth sciences so no, science isn't corrupted and controlled by heathen atheists and to insist that such is the case without a single citation to support it is ludicrous but apparently par for the course with Christian apologists on ATS these days. Smoke mirrors and theatrics but no evidence.

You mean when they start proposing or teaching Biblical Creation they are accepted as equals amongst atheist scientists alike.

Are you able to show me some testable and repeatable and independently confirmed citations and published papers that you believe support creation as is put forth in Hebrew Theology?

You do realize that there are about 5 billion people on Earth who aren't Christians right? And many of them have their own creation mythos? And also have degrees and work in various scientific disciplines? So in the context you are proposing, everyone who doesn't believe in "biblical creation" is somehow an atheist so your entire argument is hult upon the shell of a straw man with nothing to actually support it because anyone who doesn't support you're minority view is automatically an atheist. That's pretty convenient for you!

Or are they recognized only in their specialized fields and as long as it complies with the evolution theory?

They are recognized within their fields as lon as they follow the scientific method and show others how they got their results. That doesn't happen with so called "creation scientists" who in most cases are putting forth arguments that not only aren't actually supported by the scientific method, but aren't even in their area of expertise. When a geologist writes an article on cellular biology, it's a joke. I don't care if they've got a graduate degree after their name, if they're lecturing or proposing things beyond the scope of their purview they are not qualified to discuss the subject matter. It really is that simple.

Like you said:

Christian who supports the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because it's what the evidence supports?

So name me one that teaches the opposite and is ACCEPTED and RECOGNIZED as equal.

Name me one who is writing about something related to the field they actually have a degree within, has published their work supporting "biblical creation" and where their data and work has been shown to be independently reproduced and verified. To be recognized as "equal" in your mind, they have to follow the scientific method, do the actual work under the SM and then show everyone their work and explain how they obtained ones that heir results so that others may attempt to reproduce them and not just use their title/position/degree etc... as smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the fact that they're talking out of their ass and don't actually have the credentials let alone the data to support their hypothetical notions. You're so busy creating this false paradigm of atheist scientists bullying the good honest Christians that you haven't supported your position with anything by hyperbolic conjecture.

Here's your chance to put t all up and shut me down, let's see the citations and not the obfuscation method
acting you're putting forth in place of actual facts.

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. Sometimes they say the question doesn't make sense. Some say we don't know the answer. But some protest that it's a leading question. But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?

Of course.. that everything has a cause. what doesnt have a cause does not exist, is what i'm telling you.


it's really funny you used that wording in the OP and this thread is like 30 pages long, gee louie

originally posted by: Wedni

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. Sometimes they say the question doesn't make sense. Some say we don't know the answer. But some protest that it's a leading question. But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?

Of course.. that everything has a cause. what doesnt have a cause does not exist, is what i'm telling you.

it's really funny you used that wording in the OP and this thread is like 30 pages long, gee louie

Yeah, I wish we can stay on topic but if I don't answer the tangential questions, I get accused of ignoring them or have no answer to provide. Hence 30 pages.

Edit:

Maybe I should move this discussion to new thread.

a reply to: edmc^2

I do not think you understand how science works. Again one does not have to be a creationist to be a Christian. Evolution has been proven as an accepted scientific theory (that is a specific use of the words, that you well know means its pretty much bang on) for a long time now.

Again as a Religious Scientist, I say you are speaking out of an orifice different than that which evolution/the gods have us to use for verbal communication.

You are creating a straw man argument!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

I do not think you understand how science works. Again one does not have to be a creationist to be a Christian. Evolution has been proven as an accepted scientific theory (that is a specific use of the words, that you well know means its pretty much bang on) for a long time now.

Again as a Religious Scientist, I say you are speaking out of an orifice different than that which evolution/the gods have us to use for verbal communication.

You are creating a straw man argument!

So in other words, you're a "Christian Evolutionist".

Not meant to offend but isn't that an oxymoron?

Christian Evolutionists / Scientist.

edit:
As for science or the scientific methodology - sure I understand science and its TRUE methodology.

a reply to: edmc^2

bless you always

originally posted by: Wedni
a reply to: edmc^2

bless you always

Thank you.

a reply to: edmc^2

I am not a Christian. We've had this discusion before. I am one of those billions of other people, who do not follow Christianity. Nor any of the other Abrahmic faiths. I am a proud Ildiachas and Págánacht. My religion expects me to gain inspiration (Imbas) from the evidence. Not from a book that has been edited by men for centuries.

Now onto your points neighbour.

(a) Evolutionist is not a thing. One does not pick and choose scientific theories. Do you see Gravitationalists? Thermodynamicists? NO, like evolution these theories show the most evidence to being the truth, QED they are accepted. It may thus be shown, if you are a Scientist (its a job) you accept the theory. If you have a problem with it, it is because you find a problem with the evidence. In the end it is the evidence that the scientist follows. Thus any scientist who has a problem with how the evidence, is free to interpret it in another manner, and allow peers to discuss it.

Those who have worked in the sciences live with this, it works.

(b) It is not an Oxymoron. A Christian is not beholden to discount evolution. Please show where in the bible it says such a thing. Oh and don't confuse the start of everything, with how creatures change over time. That would show you are lacking the depth and warmth ...wait sorry wrong label for you

(c) You need to show you understand science before you can question it

Here is how you come across to the rest of us (the interpretive dance at 2.32 onwards)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

I am not a Christian. We've had this discusion before. I am one of those billions of other people, who do not follow Christianity. Nor any of the other Abrahmic faiths. I am a proud Ildiachas and Págánacht. My religion expects me to gain inspiration (Imbas) from the evidence. Not from a book that has been edited by men for centuries.

Now onto your points neighbour.

(a) Evolutionist is not a thing. One does not pick and choose scientific theories. Do you see Gravitationalists? Thermodynamicists? NO, like evolution these theories show the most evidence to being the truth, QED they are accepted. It may thus be shown, if you are a Scientist (its a job) you accept the theory. If you have a problem with it, it is because you find a problem with the evidence. In the end it is the evidence that the scientist follows. Thus any scientist who has a problem with how the evidence, is free to interpret it in another manner, and allow peers to discuss it.

Those who have worked in the sciences live with this, it works.

(b) It is not an Oxymoron. A Christian is not beholden to discount evolution. Please show where in the bible it says such a thing. Oh and don't confuse the start of everything, with how creatures change over time. That would show you are lacking the depth and warmth ...wait sorry wrong label for you

(c) You need to show you understand science before you can question it

Here is how you come across to the rest of us

(the interpretive dance at 2.32 onwards)

oh yeah, now I remember. You're a Celt. It's a fascinating topic (CR) but unfortunately, it's another topic.

As for evolutionists - it's for simplicity as it clearly refers to a person who is a proponent of the biological evolution theory.

I'd like to discuss it here but will further derail the thread.

Maybe I'll include it (along with the other questions) in the new thread as this one is more than 30p now.

BTW - that was a funny vid. Thanks, neighbour.