It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The selection is you watching it waiting for something that isn't nonsense. The problem is there is never anything to select. So it is a very valid argument for the fact random processes do not create usable valid information.
Originally posted by LasheicIn biological evolution, there is no pre-set "Goal" as in these videos. There is only adaptation to the environment, which can take many differing and divergent forms.
Originally posted by JPhish
Is the G*d of the Gaps argument even valid when addressing theologians in modern times? ;scratches head; For the most part, I don’t think so.
[edit on 7/9/2008 by JPhish]
I think I'm talking to the likes of whammy, some musically-orientated engineering graduate who thinks using specious arguments from probability to suggest the inability of natural processes to account for the universe enables a gap to shove his pet puppy.
There are fulfilled Bible prophecies,
The eye witness accounts of the resurrection and miracles.
The rise of the Christian church in spite of overwhelming persecution.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
God is a pet puppy now? If you were dyslexic you'd hate "dog" too.
The Gap is all in your own misunderstanding. You have a reasoning gap because you bury your head in the sand.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Eyemagistus
Creation is a fact. Since in the 1960s Edwin Hubble found the red shift in the stars. Now the residue heat radiation of the big bang creation event has also been detected. The finite nature of the universe is a given among all serious scientists. It's only New Age dreaming atheists that deny the reality of creation.
[edit on 7/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]
Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bigwhammy
You are awfully persickety when it comes to the fuzzy, archaic languages of Biblical apologetics, but every last one of you creationists is incapable of understanding the plain, modern English definitions of the most basic scientific terms every high school graduate should understand, like: theory; evolution; Big Bang; species; entropy; method; fossilization; evidence; proof; and a great many more, which only demonstrates a concerted willful ignorance on your part. I see no signs of any critical thinking skills on mundane topics that don't require rationalizing supernatural mumbo-jumbo.
But, hey, that doesn't stop them, or you, from believing you understand more about science that scientists!
The Bible is totally irrelevant to science. Get over it.
You expect me to think you actually know anything about astrophysics?
The person who first proposed what later became known as the "Big Bang," was Georges Lemaitre. He was a Jesuit priest and had the integrity to give even the pope a hard time for trying to use it to justify the Biblical creation story. But not you. Oh no. You know better!
Edwin Hubble did absolutely nothing in the 1960's. He died in 1953. Hubble's Law concerning red shift distances was formulated in 1929. It was Penzias and Wilson who measured the residual background microwave radiation confirming the Big Bang model in the 1960's and were awarded a Nobel Prize for it in 1978. You don't need an obscure antiquities scholar to know that.
The "Big Bang," is an unfortunate misnomer that happened to stick in the popular media. It does not describe the actual model very well at all.
FYI, the Big Bang is still vulnerable.
The Ekpyrotic model is what is gaining momentum lately.
We have to wait for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to be installed in the ISS and complete it's survey before we know more.
Stop pretending to understand science unless you are willing to change what you believe, in light of the best available evidence. You can't, so stop pretending.
Tell you what. You quit thinking you can understand science, and I'll quit thinking I can understand the Bible.
[edit on 3-7-2008 by Eyemagistus]
Originally posted by Damien_Hell
I don't get it, how does the big bang being true support religion more then Atheism?? Last time I check us Atheists believed in the big bang and theists believed in their farfetched creation ideas. Big bang does not equal universe, life and planets made in 7 days
EDIT: The funny thing is he says creation is a scientific fact (doesn't matter if he's talking about creationism or just the big bang), and yet nobody who has the power to actually declare it a scientific fact would agree with him. This is just a dumb kid who goes up to his mom "CANDY IS GOOD FOR YOU! ITS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" This is wishful thinking no more
[edit on 9-7-2008 by Damien_Hell]