Creationists - Explain this please

reply to post by atlasastro


Hey, the religious are'nt the only ones to claim that stuff just poofed into existence. How is the big bang theory any different to stuff just poofing into existences.

The Big Bang theory doesn't postulate that the universe and everything within just *poofed* into existence. We just don't know what happened before the Big Bang. There's really no way we can tell at this time, so it's usually just glossed over as an unanswered question. However we have observed that the universe is expanding at a phenomenal rate. So if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. Go back far enough, and it becomes a singular point.

That's all, really.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Lasheic]

How do you believe everything around you, yourself, the entire universe, came to be? The Big Bang? Okay. What was before the Big Bang? Something, right? All of the universe packed into a "small" ball in cosmos terms. What created that small ball of energy just waiting to explode?

This is where the theory of evolution falls apart as a means to explain a universe without a creator. This is all the proof I will ever need, and it very much is proof. Something does not come from nothing. This is undebated, especially by science. Things do not just poof into existance all by themselves without any help from a higher power. Our tables, chairs, spaceships, even our own lives, do not come into existance without man and woman creating it.

Let's get real. There is one reason and one reason alone why people refuse to accept a higher power that created them. It's because they don't want to follow anyone's rules. They want complete freedom. No one in their right frame of mind, especially anybody who refuses to believe in God, a God, the God, Gods, whatever floats their boat, is going to tell anyone that they look at the universe knowing that science dictates that everything has a beginning and believe no one created it. They just don't talk about it, sweep it under the rug, and more or less start digging under the rug when on their death bed.

Frankly, a discussion with anyone who does this isn't worth anyone's time to debate. They know better but they will flat out deny the truth regardless. Some don't know any better because they've been brain washed that evolution is fact when in fact it is still nothing but theory, and a poor theory at that. A theory that uses chance and long periods of time. It should be as far fetched as there being a god(because you never see him, according to non believers) Let's use the most convenient thing in the universe to explain it, chance and time. Yet, evolution doesn't explain how life suddenly occurs from non living.. whatever.

It's just as bad as people wanting to believe the universe is eternal AND there's no god. It's the same thing, people want total freedom. Yet an eternal universe is logic to them while a God is not. /boggle

You know what, I just had my fill. Now I'm just angry. I get told I'm a whacko god believer by people who think it's acceptable that the universe magically appeared from nothing or that it's eternal. It's not worth my time to fool with and I wish I learned this 10 minutes ago and saved myself the trouble of typing this response.

Botiemaster:
Q: What created the Creator?
A: Circular reasoning!

Con-job:
I won't waste everyone's time going over the Dover ruling yet again. It pains me to see someone suffering from such a lack of critical thinking ability. If any of your points are valid, there would be grounds for appeal.

Anxiously awaiting appeal of the Dover case:
scienceblogs.com...

If the decision had gone the other way, your conclusion would have been that it was God's will. That is the lamest conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Now Christian conservative Republican judges are against you?
It is not surprising that the declining intelligence of the average American should be reflected in the increase in ID believers. It requires no mental ability whatever. Science is avoided because it is hard work.
The miracles of modern medicine and biochemistry are only possible because they are built upon the solid foundation of evolution.

The most recent heinous attempt to destroy science education came from the Christian fanatics in the Oklahoma State legislature. HB 2633 proposed to make it illegal for a public school teacher to give any student a lower grade for giving test answers based on religion!
This monstrosity passed both houses and only the veto of a sane governor prevented this from becoming law.

See any problems?
HB 2633 regarding public schools — VETO MESSAGE
Under current state and federal law, Oklahoma public school students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression. For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers’ expense.

www.gov.ok.gov...

Personally, I think the biggest problem with evolution is that its followers treat it as a religion. Whenever a creationist or skeptic asks a question or poses a hypothetical, they are automatically assumed to be attacking the evolutionist. Why? As far as I know, evolution is still considered a THEORY and not a law, which means it is supposed to be debated and put to the test in order to see if it holds water. The evolutionists would do themselves a favor and step back and look at their theory with a little less bias, and at the same time the creationists could be a little nicer. There is no agreement between the two ideas, no compromise, either evolution is wrong or it is right, and that is all there is to it. If they are wrong, then a lot of people are going to be in trouble because it means God created this place and He is in charge and we had better find out who He is and what He wants and do it. As far as the argument concerning the youtube video, could it be that all those common traits aren't inherited, they are just proof for a common designer? I mean an artist uses the same paint stokes when painting grass, why couldn't God when He created everything. As far as the geologic column, all of the fossils we find are fully formed, and I think that is a pretty good evidence for creation...... and as far as the older stuff on the bottom and younger stuff on the top; that makes logical sense over a long period of time, but if there was a worldwide flood, the bottom feeders and fish are going to be buried in the mud on the bottom before the land animals because they are already down there. Which means maybe life didn't come out of the sea, but instead the sea is where life died the fastest.
Here is another interesting little thought. In order to believe evolution, one must almost certainly believe in the big bang. It says along time ago, a singularity(in the greek thats a , um, dot) which contained all of the matter in the universe (remember matter is neither created or destroyed) was spinning very fast and exploded and flew apart and now here we are. Thats the short version. I want to know where the energy came to make that dot spin, where the matter came from, and how it was holding itself up, because that would be a really heavy, dense dot. So, anyway, all the dirt in the universe was spinning and it blew up and here I am? You are telling me "in the beginning Dirt" and I am saying "in the beginning God".....hmmm, who sounds a little out there now. Another strange point deals with the formation of the planet and how life started. The evolutionists say the surface of the earth was molten rock and lava and it rained on the ROCKS for millions of years till they cooled and seas formed. Remember the rocks, it will be important in a moment. So in these seas there is a broth of chemicals, a primordial soup if you will, and from this soup of chemicals compounds got together and one day the first single celled organism formed. I am arguing God created me, and the evolutionists argue I came from a rock......... Another "hmmmm" is in order. I think.

reply to post by Lasheic


Actually we've never observed any expansion nor do we have any proof of any said big bang.

i guess for athiests to understand where a religious person stands on creationism, the creationist would have to take a less abstract, less esoteric approach. so here it goes, the probability that some form of evolution exists is possible, this however does not in anyway constitute a victory for evelutionists which seem to be what they are after.
rather it produces a scenerio that both of us can learn from.
i guess for athiests it would be better to call God an advanced alien life form, some kind of hyper species that has power oops wrong word,,,sorry. technological ability, to egineer reality, or life or whatever.
evolution possible, not from one animal to another, but every animal after its own kind. thats biblical, and it supports evolutionary theory. everything began with a generalist design. evolution, possible once again, but rather than changes over millions of years more likely much faster try a dozen generations or so from one design to another.
i in saying this in no way deny the grand nature of my God, i know what i was told, and what i was told is a very old story and i think there may be more to it so i have an open mind. so iff i can have an open mind why not an athiest or an evolutionist? rather than throwing out sarcasm about a magic man living in the clouds try using some of the logic you pride your selves on. it is likely that what you call logic and enlightenment a higher species of life would call base instinct.
as a creationist i open my mind to things abstract in order to grasp complicated situations in a logical way.
i also believe that the way i view reality is not the rule by which the universe is measured, unfortunatly for athiests and evolutionists those same rules apply. our understanding of the world we live in not to mention the universe is elementry at best, let me be VERY clear here so there is no mistake. our ability to make informed judgments is bases entirely on knowledge gain through trial and error not on "theories" that sound good so we go with them. if that were the case we would still have dino's dragging thier tales in the dirt and callingthe void of space an ether.
they said in 1902 that humans physically can not travel over 70MPH or they would die, i still have that in writting in my old encylepdias of the time, they were wrong and at that time they were cirtian they had all the answers,. all im saying is time to grow up and stop attacking creationists for thier religion. im here trying to work with probability, all i ask is that athiests and evolutionists atleast try to do the same and open their minds, thats all.

Originally posted by Lasheic



The Big Bang theory doesn't postulate that the universe and everything within just *poofed* into existence. We just don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

Ummm......so everything just poofed into existence....as we don't know what caused it. Even with a singularity, who poofed the singularity into existence, who made the singularity go poof.

There's really no way we can tell at this time, so it's usually just glossed over as an unanswered question. However we have observed that the universe is expanding at a phenomenal rate. So if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. Go back far enough, and it becomes a singular point.

That's all, really.

No, that is not all. It answers nothing. That is my point. What is the difference, a big bang that goes poof, that we cannot attribute a cause to, and the Poster i replied to saying that G*D just poof's stuff magically into existence. Saying that we can track the Big Bang back to a singularity just tells me that there was One cause or source......not what that cause or source is.
What about primordial soup origins theory, how is that different to creationists claiming life just appeared. As it appears to me that Science is saying the very same thing.
While there is no denying that Evolution gives us the best explanation for life progressing and developing, its origins, and the origins of the matter it consists of seem to be similar on both sides of this arguement. ie...they just pooffed into existence.
On another note, i can't wait to see what happens if they prove the Higg's field theory at CERN. As i am sure both sides will have a field day dealing with the GOD particle( i know you scientists out there are cringing)....anyway...off topic.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


The big bang theory is not science.

The big bang theory is in fact another mechanism of creationists and the religious.

Physics directly refutes and contradicts this scenerio in stating that energy is eternal; neither created nor destroyed. Eternity is also not only a measure of time, but a measure of space, since space-time are one. Space had no beginning and will have no end. Time had no beginning and will have no end, and energy permeates and is space/time.

So are you saying that Eternity is measurable. I never knew that. So you are also saying that Eternity is the same as physical matter. Is this HR.

Tell CERN that physics refutes that senario. As i believe they just spent a cool 8 billion to see what happened just after the big bang...ummm....which isn't even science according to you. Another creationist conspiracy has even got hold of CERN now hey.
I have no doubt that physics refutes alot of things, but it also contradicts itself. I remember that it was physics who believed at one stage that it was impossible to be both a particle and a wave. If physic as you say states energy is eternal, neither created nor dstroyed.....what caused it to become matter, hang on.....we have to wait for CERN and that big speedy particle dogem derby non-science physic refuted thing they got going on over there.

Thought you might like this though....although you probably have read them or similar....interesting stuff.
redshift.vif.com...
www.intentblog.com... a blog but an interesting one.

reply to post by Lasheic



" Even the Pope agrees to this. "


I'm sorry, but any human who thinks he is flawless, especially that human, is not worthy of quoting in the affirmative.

This is where the theory of evolution falls apart as a means to explain a universe without a creator. ~ botiemaster

That is about as silly as saying that Newtonian Mechanics or General Relativity cannot possibly be true because it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Do you honestly not understand the difference between Biology and Cosmology?

There is one reason and one reason alone why people refuse to accept a higher power that created them. It's because they don't want to follow anyone's rules. They want complete freedom. ~ botiemaster

You mean to say that Logic and Reason are, in your mind, the same as lawless Anarchy. This apparently isn't the case as Europe and Japan have far more Atheists per capita than the United States, yet far lower crime rates.

Further, complete freedom is an illusion in a society. There will always be a rule of law, as it is the only way to grantee that what rights and freedoms we do have are protected. Sane people understand the rule of law, even if they don't follow the teachings of invisible and intangible sky faeries.

Frankly, a discussion with anyone who does this isn't worth anyone's time to debate. ~ botiemaster

So you plug your ears and chant bronze age scripture over and over again when faced with people who have different world views. Well, it's certainly a way to end a debate, I suppose.

I get told I'm a whacko god believer by people who think it's acceptable that the universe magically appeared from nothing or that it's eternal. It's not worth my time to fool with and I wish I learned this 10 minutes ago and saved myself the trouble of typing this response. ~ botiemaster

Boo hoo?

Personally, I think the biggest problem with evolution is that its followers treat it as a religion. ~ Anon

I wasn't aware that evolution had complex spiritual rituals, chanted mantra, had holy days, scripture, etc. Neither is it dogmatic or unwilling to change in the light of new evidence, because it's not asked to be believed entirely on faith alone and never questioned.

As far as I know, evolution is still considered a THEORY and not a law, which means it is supposed to be debated and put to the test in order to see if it holds water. ~ Anon

Theory doesn't mean the same in science as it does in general speech. In science, a theory is an explanation which is testable, conforms to all known evidence, and provides a basic understanding of the evidence. A law is more of a statement based on observation of a phenomena which is thought to be universally constant.

For instance, Gravity is both a theory and a law.

Definition and examples of Scientific Laws

So a "Theory" isn't just a guess or an idea. You can have all the theories on god you want, but science will NEVER have a God Theory because there is no evidence and no way to test.

There is no agreement between the two ideas, no compromise, either evolution is wrong or it is right, and that is all there is to it. ~ Anon

On the contrary. God is absolutely 100% compatible with science and evolution. For all intents and purposes, he doesn't appear to exist or affect the natural universe - so nothing we say on the workings of the natural universe has any affect on God. Creationism, also, is 100% compatible with Science - since we cannot truly say that God did not create the universe using what we know as natural systems, but we can strive to find out HOW he did it by using science.

Where Science and Religion clash, is when Religion makes statements about things they did not and could not have known about at the time of their inception and end up being proven wrong by demonstrable empirical physical evidence and reasoning.

So the question for the religious becomes, can you distinguish the difference between the doctrine and deity?

As far as the argument concerning the youtube video, could it be that all those common traits aren't inherited, they are just proof for a common designer? ~ Anon

No, not really

In order to believe evolution, one must almost certainly believe in the big bang. ~ Anon

No, you don't. It's perfectly doable to believe in a god which created the universe and, indeed, which may even have created the first spark of life - and then accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of that life. That's still wrong, but a bit more accurate that what most Creationists believe.

I want to know where the energy came to make that dot spin, where the matter came from, and how it was holding itself up, because that would be a really heavy, dense dot.

We don't know. Right now, it's impossible to see back to before the Big Bang since light, radiation, everything came from that expansion. Maybe we'll know in the future. *Shrug* This isn't evidence against the Big Bang, however, anymore than not knowing the origin of a balloon is proof that it cannot be deflated.

Further, it wouldn't anything to "hold it up" because there is no gravity in space. Indeed, there was no space or time before the Big Bang.

You are telling me "in the beginning Dirt" and I am saying "in the beginning God".....hmmm, who sounds a little out there now. ~ Anon

Logically, the Big Bang holds up better because we can prove the existence of "dirt". We cannot prove the existence of God.

I am arguing God created me, and the evolutionists argue I came from a rock ~ Anon

Evolution does not say you came from a rock. Never has. Life is chemistry. It still is chemistry. Does your body not contain Potassium? Calcium? Zinc? Do you not need to breath Oxygen which is converted to Carbon Dioxide?

Actually we've never observed any expansion nor do we have any proof of any said big bang. ~ LastOutfiniteVoiceEterna

History of the Big Bang

It was first postulated by Einstein as part of his Theory of Relativity. Einstein didn't like the idea though, and assumed a Cosmological Constant. After discoveries by Edwin Hubble on the expansion of the universe based on the doppler effect as it pertains to light (which is the same basic principle we use to discover planets around distant suns), Einstein recanted and called the Cosmological Constant his greatest blunder.

i guess for athiests it would be better to call God an advanced alien life form, some kind of hyper species that has power oops wrong word,,,sorry. technological ability, to egineer reality, or life or whatever. ~ snowen20


You don't understand. Uber Aliens, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Cosmic Unicorn, etc are all equally denied by Science because they have proof for a basis.

evolution possible, not from one animal to another, but every animal after its own kind. thats biblical, and it supports evolutionary theory.

No, it doesn't.

so i have an open mind. ~ snowen20

I'm sorry, but there is a huge difference between an "open mind" and a "Functioning Mind". You can open a mind and fill it with whatever you want. Lies, Facts, Propaganda, Biases, etc. A functioning mind is open to new ideas, but uses reason and intelligence to weed out what are lies, and what are truths.

It's like a window. You can open a window and it let all sorts of stuff in your house. Most people put down their screens though so the bugs don't come in.

our ability to make informed judgments is bases entirely on knowledge gain through trial and error not on "theories" that sound good so we go with them. ~ snowen20

/faceplam

That
Is
Not
How
Science
Works.

Scientific Method

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Lasheic]

they said in 1902 that humans physically can not travel over 70MPH or they would die, i still have that in writting in my old encylepdias of the time ~ snowen20

I don't recall scientists ever making that claim. It was a widely held belief, but then, widely held beliefs do not equal science. Even so, science is a self correcting process. It modifies as new evidence is acquired. The bible is not.

If your car was making a knocking noise and you took it to a mechanic, who would you trust? The mechanic who thinks it might be one Air Conditioner, but on further inspection finds out it's your valve cover... or the mechanic who says flat out it's because of your tire pressure and refuses to inspect the vehicle or change his opinion.

all im saying is time to grow up and stop attacking creationists for thier religion. ~ snowen20

Grow up? Might I remind you that it's not Scientists who are the ones reliving themselves in the fountain of knowledge which is humanity's sole lifeline out of the darkness of primitive ignorance.

Even with a singularity, who poofed the singularity into existence, who made the singularity go poof. ~ atlasastro

What makes you think it's a who and not a what?

We don't know what came before the Big Bang. Big Bang theory is a partial answer, yes, but a partial answer is better than no answer, or an outright false answer.

What is the difference, a big bang that goes poof, that we cannot attribute a cause to, and the Poster i replied to saying that G*D just poof's stuff magically into existence. ~ atlasastro

As it is now, it doesn't matter what you say did it. There is no solid evidence to support any supposition for what came before.

Again, a misunderstanding. Science does not just make stuff up. Because of that, there is no answer to this question. Yes, logic dictates that something must have come before the Big Bang to create it - but just because we don't know what it is, is no reason to craft baseless fables and stories which we have no way of proving one way or the other.

What about primordial soup origins theory, how is that different to creationists claiming life just appeared. ~ atlasastro

Life didn't "just appear". Read up on Abiogenesis. Nobody is claiming magic except for the creationists.

As it appears to me that Science is saying the very same thing. ~ atlasastro

Then you don't know enough about the subject.

On another note, i can't wait to see what happens if they prove the Higg's field theory at CERN. As i am sure both sides will have a field day dealing with the GOD particle( i know you scientists out there are cringing)....anyway...off topic. ~ atlasastro

You say that as if it's discovery has anything at all to do with validating or invalidating god.

Higgs Boson

Peter Higgs is himself an atheist, and disproves of this terminology due to it's misleading nature. Further, even were it to somehow validate the existence of a god - who's to say it would be the Christian god? The Hindu God? The Native American's Great Spirit? Who's to say it would be ANY of them, and then - how would you validate WHICH God it is?

I'm sorry, but any human who thinks he is flawless, especially that human, is not worthy of quoting in the affirmative. ~ toasted

I never said he was flawless. Nobody is flawless. What's your point?

Originally posted by atlasastro
So are you saying that Eternity is measurable.

The essence of eternity is immeasurable, though we can measure its varying forms such as solids and liquids, and differing matters which it comes in raltive to each other.

I never knew that. So you are also saying that Eternity is the same as physical matter.

Yes. That's what physics states. Energy is eternal.

Tell CERN that physics refutes that senario. As i believe they just spent a cool 8 billion to see what happened just after the big bang...ummm....which isn't even science according to you. Another creationist conspiracy has even got hold of CERN now hey.

I'd love to tell CERN that. It's a waste of time and money and they will not find what it is that they are looking for. Correct. It is not science, it is not logical, and it is not factual.

I have no doubt that physics refutes alot of things, but it also contradicts itself. I remember that it was physics who believed at one stage that it was impossible to be both a particle and a wave. If physic as you say states energy is eternal, neither created nor dstroyed.....what caused it to become matter

It has always been the way that it is. Science is an accumulation of knowledge, it tests and verifies its findings through expirement. Yes, physics has at times said contradicting statements. That's what science is about, the ability to test and upon results confirm the truth or fallacy of an argument through experiment, logical evaluation, mathematical impermeability, or coupled observational and tangible evidenced.

Thought you might like this though....although you probably have read them or similar....interesting stuff.
redshift.vif.com...
www.intentblog.com... a blog but an interesting one.

I'll get around to it shortly. I started replying before reading the link.

Ah ok, so redshifting and the big bang. Neutrinos and decaying photons.

I have to ask one question. Why would all converted photons into neutrinos only be gravitized toward the center of a galaxy? That is a big supposition and leap of ignorance.

As for redshifting. Well I wish I had a doppler telescope to actually see this myself. As far as it is holds up when subject to relativity, it doesn't make any sense. Galaxies are moving everywhere all the time. Some colliding with one another. Some moving away from us some moving toward us, and we are only moving in a direction relative to them. Why would we only see redshifting? Again, this sounds to me like "when and where convenient". Taking a small amount of evidence that applies to a particular few galaxies raltive to us and then biasly associating it with the goal in mind: the big bang.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Lasheic

Even with a singularity, who poofed the singularity into existence, who made the singularity go poof. ~ atlasastro

What makes you think it's a who and not a what?

Your only answer is another question. Atleast you did'nt make something up. Which is what we are talking about.

We don't know what came before the Big Bang. Big Bang theory is a partial answer, yes, but a partial answer is better than no answer, or an outright false answer.

What we have is a description, not a partial answer. The big bang describes how the universe came into being, not what or who caused it. Or why?

As it is now, it doesn't matter what you say did it. There is no solid evidence to support any supposition for what came before.

Then it also does not matter that others say that G*D did not cause it. As science cannot prove what caused the big bang or the Abiogenesis(spontaneous rehash) of life.

Again, a misunderstanding. Science does not just make stuff up. Because of that, there is no answer to this question. Yes, logic dictates that something must have come before the Big Bang to create it - but just because we don't know what it is, is no reason to craft baseless fables and stories which we have no way of proving one way or the other.

Science makes stuff up all the time. Look at the history of science. It has an idea, it is accepted...it becomes dogma....someone else comes along with a better idea....it is then accepted over the previous theory. This is the pattern of evolution in the thinking of scientific theory and reasoning. At the time all previous theories thought that had proof to support their theories. But i am ok with that as that is the nature of life and progress.

Life didn't "just appear". Read up on Abiogenesis. Nobody is claiming magic except for the creationists.

So if they give non life all of a sudden emerging as Life a fancy name it is science and therefore truth. OK. If religion does it, it is a fable and a story.
www.nwcreation.net...
ttp://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html
www.pandasthumb.org...
www.trueorigin.org...

The current state of abiogenesis is summarised by Klause Dose:

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

Klause Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998), 348.

ourworld.compuserve.com...

As it appears to me that Science is saying the very same thing. ~ atlasastro


On another note, i can't wait to see what happens if they prove the Higg's field theory at CERN. As i am sure both sides will have a field day dealing with the GOD particle( i know you scientists out there are cringing)....anyway...off topic. ~ atlasastro

You say that as if it's discovery has anything at all to do with validating or invalidating god.

No, you assume how i say it. You need to poof a sense of humour into existence as i said the above in jest.

Peter Higgs is himself an atheist, and disproves of this terminology due to it's misleading nature.

I know, which is why i threw in the god particle reference as i know it irks alot of scientists. See my comment on sense of humour for futher reference.

Further, even were it to somehow validate the existence of a god - who's to say it would be the Christian god? The Hindu God? The Native American's Great Spirit? Who's to say it would be ANY of them, and then - how would you validate WHICH God it is?

Save the lectures please. My comments are on what i believe are similar claims from both the science and religious camps. God poofed universe and life into existence, Science says there was a big bang, and then stuff, and then out of all the stuff life just suddenly emerged when it was eletrocuted while in a puddle. One group says stuff just happened, and then the other side says the same thing.....oh but hang on,abiogenesis is science, so its not a made up idea or theory that we can't really prove,but it is science. God is a made up Idea and a theory that we can't really prove....is he science too.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts. Cheers.



[edit on 15-6-2008 by atlasastro]

You are witnessing evolution of the human mind in reverse with the Creationism debacle. A classic failure to adapt to a new environment.
Centuries of diligent accumulation of scientific knowledge has allowed us to expand our awareness to such extreme micro and macro distances from direct experience that ordinary intuition and imagination no longer apply.

The Sputnik scare inspired a massive government program to teach science and math. After winning the space race and the cold war, science had become so complicated and difficult that lay people gave up making the effort to understand, turned anti-intellectual and allowed our school system to fail to require even basic science and math education.

Ignorant people are easier to manipulate politically. There are plenty of smarter people in other countries eager to take the better paying technical jobs. We still drag our whiney feet about using the metric system and rail against reason when hyperbolic growth curves tell us we must change before we create our own catastrophes.

As long as people can be convinced that the 12th Imam will soon be rising out of a well, or Jesus is coming back to fix everything, only madness can prevail. The goal of both belief systems is to actually create enough carnage and mayhem to force them to come back to destroy the other.

Apparently there are no objections to genetic engineering when it serves Biblical prophecies:
– "BECK: Does it concern you at all -- we only have 45 seconds. Does it concern you at all that the third temple is really ready? I mean, most of it is sitting in a warehouse. I mean, they got everything ready to go.

ROSENBERG: Architectural plans are done. The clothes for the priests are being, being sewn. All of the implements for the temple sacraments are being done.

BECK: And, the red heifer was -- is this true? That the red heifer, they have to make the ashes of blah, blah, blah, of a red heifer. Couldn`t find a red heifer, and now they`re just being born all over.

ROSENBERG: Well, they`re actually being genetically engineered right now, because you need an absolutely perfect one. One was born a few years ago called Melody. She turned out to have a few hairs that were flawed. And so they said that`s not the one. A perfect one has to be born and then, once that happens, it will be sacrificed and the temple will be ready to be built."
transcripts.cnn.com...

Do any of you Creationists even know who George Lemaitre was? Duh, the person who proposed the Big Bang theory, was really a Catholic priest! He even had the integrity to chastise the Pope for trying to use it to score political points!
en.wikipedia.org...

Another Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel, is the father of genetics! To believe in Biblical creationism, you must accept that we are descended from incest!
en.wikipedia.org...

There is still some doubt about the Big Bang Theory, although some question the reliability of the method used to measure background microwave radiation. It is still the best model the fits all the evidence.
www.space.com...

The ekpyrotic Universe is a product of string theory and M-Theory. It suggests that our universe began as a result of a collision of the branes of two pre-existing universes.

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer has been rescheduled to be installed in the ISS in 2010. It should give some idea of how much anti-matter is out there.

Science is in constant evolution. Religion is in perpetual rigor mortis. It has been humiliated by science at every turn for over a thousand years. They had their golden opportunity with the Dover trial and still failed to produce any evidence at all.
It is over.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Eyemagistus]

bah humbug, i didnt want to wade into this disscussion but many of the arguments on both sides of the coin ..... /me grrs

i originally came to ATS because i believed it to be a place where open minded people like myself also come, however the minds here can be just as closed as any Neo-con and thats rather sad.

can evolutionists difinitivley state there is no god or god didnt create the world and all that reside here?

can the creationists difinitivley state that god is the begining and the end of all life on earth?

i heard a quote once i cant remember who said it originally "Science is nothing but an organised system of ignorance" and that is very true.

looking at how geologists date rock and stratas, do these methods give us a true date or are they nothing more than useless proccesses created to validate so called scientists accepted theory?.

who is to say that just like nearly everything else scientists have tried to push on the population as "Solid Fact" some other variable or process wont be created to provide a more accurate form of dating.

Just because a scientist says something is true, doesnt always make it so.

Just because something is the accepted theory doesnt make it right.

maybe evolution is correct, maybe creationists are correct neither side can say with 100% certanty one way or the other but stating that something is catagorically correct just because science says so is a very closed minded and short view on the world.

believe nothing and question everything.

can evolutionists difinitivley state there is no god or god didnt create the world and all that reside here?

can the creationists difinitivley state that god is the begining and the end of all life on earth?

i heard a quote once i cant remember who said it originally "Science is nothing but an organised system of ignorance" and that is very true.

Please review the topics before jumping in and assuming that you are the one who knows it all.

Scientists, including evolutionists, have no opinion on the existence or non-existence of any alleged God. Many scientists, including many evolutionist, are indeed religious people who see no conflict. It is purely a personal choice that may not be coerced.
No one has ever produced any evidence that can be tested one way or the other for a "God." It requires the wholesale abandonment of reason and logic, which happens to be the very cornerstone of western civilization.

Science is an organized system of EVIDENCE, which can be tested. Key word being EVIDENCE. Whomever it is you can't remember quoting, needs to work on their definition of "ignorance." When you define everything as metaphysical "ignorance," then knowledge is a metaphysical impossibility.
It would help to familiarize yourself with the rules of logic, first formally established by Aristotle. It is the scientific METHOD, which has proven to be the most reliable enemy of ignorance.
en.wikipedia.org...

Creationists have no trouble asserting "God's will" for any absurdity whatever, but only the Christian God of the Bible. The main "theories," they so clearly do not understand, yet vehemently object to as atheistic, were actually originated by Christans!

Apparently it is now God's will that Intelligent Design lost, without grounds for appeal, in a public courtroom that still has people place their hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, "so help me God." (Irony intended.)

Creationism, aka "Intelligent Design," is nothing more than a political jihad to force evangelical Protestantism on the American public, to be taught in our public schools and inserted into all public policy.
Ever heard of the "Wedge Strategy?"
en.wikipedia.org...

I didn't think so.

reply to post by atlasastro


PLEASE try to understand the scientific method. Just give it a few minutes, read it over, and try to understand that it denies any dogma to survive in science. Any finding that is derrived through the scientific method is open to debate. You talk of "better" ideas being accepted over old ones, and that's true - only these new ideas are not called "better" because they suit the geopolitical climate of the time, but because their hypotheses and supporting evidence indicate they're on the right track.

Science is self-correcting. It's got us this far, and yet you seem to want to destroy it all because of one little part where it overlaps your bronze-age assumed knowledge, and you have massive emotional need for that bronze-age story to be true.

Terrible.

reply to post by dave420


So its ok to point out the flaws in one theory, but not another. Ok. Very scientific.
And if you are critical of science, you must be from the bronze age. But if science itself constatntly needs self correction why should people purely base sole explanation for the universe and life with its Method. All i am is saying is that I do not have to necessarily accept certain theories of science, as it is evident in the past they have been wrong until something better has come along. The concept of God for christians lies outside this problem, which is why we have these discussions.

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question Can science explain the creation of life and the universe.
Do Background Research Big Bang Theory + Abiogenesis( previously spontaneous generation)
Construct a Hypothesis science cannot answer these questions until better ideas come along or those bronze age folk are rescued by god appearing and confessing he did it and stashed heaps of bones and fossils in the dirt to test our faith....had to throw that in for a laugh.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment big bang can be traced back to a singularity but cannot attribute a cause, needs the Higgs boson to at least show how energy becomes matter(more question follow)...abiogenesis incomplete, experiments over 30 years have made little more than amino acids in dirty brown water.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion Science is not doing well, have to wait for it to correct itself or make a new idea up. Although, evolution without a doubt does give us the best explanation for the development of life on earth.
Communicate Your Results Jeezzz, how did they cope in the bronze age.

reply to post by atlasastro


I'm pointing out the flaws in the methodology that arrived at the conclusions both sides of this discussion claim as their evidence. One is rigorous, critical, self-correcting, repeatable, independently verifiable, logical. The other is none of those. THAT is my point. To treat creationism as a scientific theory is impossible, as it's based entirely on guesswork. The scientific theory of evolution is not complete, but the methodology that allows science to observe, measure, and understand evolution, IS complete, as has been complete for centuries.

My problem is not with the arguments of creationism, but the methods creationists use to arrive at their arguments. That is the real flaw of creationism/ID - they're not based on logic, reason, or critical thought. If someone can come up with an argument for creationism that stems from critical thought, then I'll be up for a debate. As it is, that's not happened, and no-one anywhere in the world who believes in creationism has managed to come up with anything other than pointing at the bible and saying "god did it".

That is my problem. To engage in a scientific debate with creationists is a slap in the face to reason, as evolution is pure science, and creationism is anything but.