# I have a question for those who hate creationism



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.


----------



## Zoom-boing

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhTSfOZUNLo]YouTube - &#x202a;The Big Bang Theory Theme Song-Barenaked Ladies&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Zoom-boing said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;The Big Bang Theory Theme Song-Barenaked Ladies&#x202c;&rlm;



So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?


----------



## Zoom-boing

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;The Big Bang Theory Theme Song-Barenaked Ladies&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?
Click to expand...


God created the big bang.


----------



## spectrumc01

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it.  Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway. 

Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism.  Your mind is made up and there is no changing it.  That is the problem with debates like this one.  All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.

The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools.  The church is the place to teach religion based creationism.  The home is the place to teach religion based creationism.  Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where did God come from?  What is on the other side of the Universe (or, how high is up)?  Frankly, why should we care?  

Would you P_P change your behavior if today we learned God does not exist?  Does your behavior reflect your fear of hell, or desire for heaven?  Would you surrender to hedonism if there were no God?  Covet your neighbors property or spouse?  Do you only obey the law for fear of the consequences?

If God exists, whose side is S/He on?


----------



## konradv

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.


----------



## konradv

This is a good example of why I don't believe in creationism/intelligent design. If there are 64 possible mRNA codons and 20 amino acids, why do some AAs have 6 codons and some only one? Seems to me that an intelligently designed sysytem would have three for each AA and 2 each for stop and start.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Zoom-boing said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;The Big Bang Theory Theme Song-Barenaked Ladies&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
Click to expand...


Hey thats creationism.......i want to know where the big bang came from


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

konradv said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
Click to expand...


Well I think life evolved on earth and i've seen proof of life forms evolving so Im not getting into that part but im really curious as to where the big bang came from.

How does science prove that the big bang happened?
How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?


----------



## FuelRod

What are evolutionists afraid of?
Objective subjects need more than one point of view studied.  It's called education.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Wry Catcher said:


> Where did God come from?  What is on the other side of the Universe (or, how high is up)?  Frankly, why should we care?
> 
> Would you P_P change your behavior if today we learned God does not exist?  Does your behavior reflect your fear of hell, or desire for heaven?  Would you surrender to hedonism if there were no God?  Covet your neighbors property or spouse?  Do you only obey the law for fear of the consequences?
> 
> If God exists, whose side is S/He on?



I dont know the answers to your questions.  

I do know you totally ignored what I was asking in the first post.

If you want to post here please dont try and change the subject.

Now I'll be nice and try and give some response to the various questions you asked even though you did not do the same for my simple question.  

I dont know where "God" originated from and I dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell.  I believe in Karma and a higher power than ourselves exisiting.  

that should answer all your questions....now please try to adress mine or stay out of the thread, thanks.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

How does someone _hate_ creationism?


----------



## Toro

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



The absence of a good explanation for the origins of the universe does not make creationism true.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?  What is on the other side of the Universe (or, how high is up)?  Frankly, why should we care?
> 
> Would you P_P change your behavior if today we learned God does not exist?  Does your behavior reflect your fear of hell, or desire for heaven?  Would you surrender to hedonism if there were no God?  Covet your neighbors property or spouse?  Do you only obey the law for fear of the consequences?
> 
> If God exists, whose side is S/He on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know the answers to your questions.
> 
> I do know you totally ignored what I was asking in the first post.
> 
> If you want to post here please dont try and change the subject.
> 
> Now I'll be nice and try and give some response to the various questions you asked even though you did not do the same for my simple question.
> 
> I dont know where "God" originated from and I dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell.  I believe in Karma and a higher power than ourselves exisiting.
> 
> that should answer all your questions....now please try to adress mine or stay out of the thread, thanks.
Click to expand...


I apologize if you feel my response was a red herring, it was not meant to be.  I simply pointed out my opinion and why I'm agnostic.  

For your reading pleasure:

Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein

Einstein touches on your question in many of these quotes.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think life evolved on earth and i've seen proof of life forms evolving so Im not getting into that part but im really curious as to where the big bang came from.
> 
> *How does science prove that the big bang happened?*
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
Click to expand...

Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.

WMAP Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang

*Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *

*Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. 

The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example. 



 Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

iamwhatiseem said:


> How does someone _hate_ creationism?



Just my judgement of many peoples reactions to the idea of creationism on this forum.  They do seem to hate the idea and sometimes even those that believe it.

Would you like to participate by trying to discuss the subject matter of the topic?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Toro said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absence of a good explanation for the origins of the universe does not make creationism true.
Click to expand...


Who said that?  I know I didn't and this is my thread.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Wry Catcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?  What is on the other side of the Universe (or, how high is up)?  Frankly, why should we care?
> 
> Would you P_P change your behavior if today we learned God does not exist?  Does your behavior reflect your fear of hell, or desire for heaven?  Would you surrender to hedonism if there were no God?  Covet your neighbors property or spouse?  Do you only obey the law for fear of the consequences?
> 
> If God exists, whose side is S/He on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know the answers to your questions.
> 
> I do know you totally ignored what I was asking in the first post.
> 
> If you want to post here please dont try and change the subject.
> 
> Now I'll be nice and try and give some response to the various questions you asked even though you did not do the same for my simple question.
> 
> I dont know where "God" originated from and I dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell.  I believe in Karma and a higher power than ourselves exisiting.
> 
> that should answer all your questions....now please try to adress mine or stay out of the thread, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize if you feel my response was a red herring, it was not meant to be.  I simply pointed out my opinion and why I'm agnostic.
> 
> For your reading pleasure:
> 
> Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein
> 
> Einstein touches on your question in many of these quotes.
Click to expand...


Ugh, c'mon man those quotes can be used for many things and aren't specific about the big bang.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think life evolved on earth and i've seen proof of life forms evolving so Im not getting into that part but im really curious as to where the big bang came from.
> 
> *How does science prove that the big bang happened?*
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.
Click to expand...


Ok so the theory is based off of faith that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.   

My issue is im not sure how we know this.  how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?

I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.

This annoys me, its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.

I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.


----------



## Toro

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think life evolved on earth and i've seen proof of life forms evolving so Im not getting into that part but im really curious as to where the big bang came from.
> 
> *How does science prove that the big bang happened?*
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so the theory is based off of faith that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.
> 
> My issue is im not sure how we know this.  how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?
> 
> I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.
> 
> This annoys me, its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.
> 
> I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


We don't know how the Big Bang theory happened. We can prove, however, that the universe is expanding. 

We also know that the universe is older than the earth, which invalidates the explanation of the origins of the universe in Genesis.


----------



## Toro

Oh and it is not the same as Creationism because The Big Bang Theory builds on existing knowledge of the universe. Creationism does no such thing. It is based solely on faith.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Toro said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so the theory is based off of faith that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.
> 
> My issue is im not sure how we know this.  how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?
> 
> I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.
> 
> This annoys me, its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.
> 
> I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know how the Big Bang theory happened. We can prove, however, that the universe is expanding.
> 
> We also know that the universe is older than the earth, which invalidates the explanation of the origins of the universe in Genesis.
Click to expand...


Im not trying to prove that the bible is right. Im just trying to understand why people get mad at bible people for having faith in something they cant prove when the same people usually have faith in something they can't prove too...the big bang.

It feels hypocritical to me and i'd like something to make it better.


----------



## poet

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



I believe God brought it into being...but not as it's described in Genesis.


----------



## konradv

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does someone _hate_ creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my judgement of many peoples reactions to the idea of creationism on this forum.  They do seem to hate the idea and sometimes even those that believe it.
> 
> Would you like to participate by trying to discuss the subject matter of the topic?
Click to expand...


My question regarding your post is, if you ask about creationism in the title, why did you change the subject to the Big Bang?  They're two completely different questions.


----------



## Sheldon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Im not trying to prove that the bible is right. Im just trying to understand why people get mad at bible people for having faith in something they cant prove when the same people usually have faith in something they can't prove too...the big bang.
> 
> It feels hypocritical to me and i'd like something to make it better.



It's degrees of faith. Believing your neighbor's wife is cheating on him while he's at work because you can clearly hear fucking sounds when he's not there is not the same brand of belief in a bearded fat man squeezing down a chimney.

My guess is that for the atheists on here who actually waste time arguing with theists about this stuff, it's frustrating when you present scientific evidence, stuff that has been observed, studied, tested, repeated, and then accepted as a theory by the people who do this for a career... and then have that immediately dismissed by someone who thinks a two thousand year old book has an equal weight of evidence in argument. It doesn't. Which is why I think it's pretty much pointless to argue the BBT or evolution with people who have already rejected it and are unwilling to be persuaded by the strength of an argument.


----------



## JohnA

Why do creationists insist on claiming cus science cant prove the big bang theory ( or any other theory0 then creation  must be true 
 the failure to prove beyond a reasonablE  doubt one theory 
 DOESNT MAKE THE  OTHER TRUE 

 one is based on  knowledge and physical evidence  more of which  is being learnt every day 

the other  is just based on faith 
after years of research  theologists  have never found any evidence of a god  past  present or future 
 just some words in a book 
cant believe  all you read


----------



## Sheldon

Sheldon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not trying to prove that the bible is right. Im just trying to understand why people get mad at bible people for having faith in something they cant prove when the same people usually have faith in something they can't prove too...the big bang.
> 
> It feels hypocritical to me and i'd like something to make it better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's degrees of faith. Believing your neighbor's wife is cheating on him while he's at work because you can clearly hear fucking sounds when he's not there is not the same brand of belief in a bearded fat man squeezing down a chimney.
> 
> My guess is that for the atheists on here who actually waste time arguing with theists about this stuff, it's frustrating when you present scientific evidence, stuff that has been observed, studied, tested, repeated, and then accepted as a theory by the people who do this for a career... and then have that immediately dismissed by someone who thinks a two thousand year old book has an equal weight of evidence in argument. It doesn't. Which is why I think it's pretty much pointless to argue the BBT or evolution with people who have already rejected it and are unwilling to be persuaded by the strength of an argument.
Click to expand...


You know I really should have gone with... believing the Bruins will win the Cup requires a different degree of faith than believing the Nucks will win the Cup. One is way more substantiated than the other.


----------



## WorldWatcher

>


Origin of the Big Bang


>>>>


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

poet said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God brought it into being...but not as it's described in Genesis.
Click to expand...


you've peaked my curiosity.

Please elaborate on that idea you have.  Im very very interested in your idea


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

konradv said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does someone _hate_ creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my judgement of many peoples reactions to the idea of creationism on this forum.  They do seem to hate the idea and sometimes even those that believe it.
> 
> Would you like to participate by trying to discuss the subject matter of the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question regarding your post is, if you ask about creationism in the title, why did you change the subject to the Big Bang?  They're two completely different questions.
Click to expand...


I was watching the science channel (again) and they were talking about the big bang theory and when I was watching the way they were describing things I had a lightbulb go off in my head that basically said "Wow these guys have as much faith in this as creationists do in creation stories, thats messed up I want to talk about it"

Thats how creationists got in my title...but in hindsight you are right, the thread's intent would be better served by a different title.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

JohnA said:


> Why do creationists insist on claiming cus science cant prove the big bang theory ( or any other theory0 then creation  must be true
> the failure to prove beyond a reasonablE  doubt one theory
> DOESNT MAKE THE  OTHER TRUE
> 
> one is based on  knowledge and physical evidence  more of which  is being learnt every day
> 
> the other  is just based on faith
> after years of research  theologists  have never found any evidence of a god  past  present or future
> just some words in a book
> cant believe  all you read



Thats not what is going on here, read through all my posts in this thread.  I just want to talk about something that struck my mind last night is all.....dont assume things about how i think or believe, just ask me instead i dont mind answering.


----------



## Luissa

Why do creationist hate evolution? They don't think God was smart enough to come up with evolution?


----------



## 007

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Well I think life evolved on earth and i've seen proof of life forms evolving* so Im not getting into that part but im really curious as to where the big bang came from.
> 
> How does science prove that the big bang happened?
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
Click to expand...


This is where science is trying to pass off "adaptation" for "evolution."

One can ask the very same question you're asking of "where did the big bang come from" as to "where did life on earth come from?" Earth was an extremely hot, molten blob floating around in space with no atmosphere, water or anything, and completely devoid of any kind of life. How did life get here when life couldn't have survived the earth's formative years?


----------



## Douger

2 guys, Hymie and Harry, were sitting at a bar up on planet Shitferbrains and said. Hey ! Lets build a universe with a planet that will sustain life forms and give ownership of it to our families.
Then they got some mud and made a blond headed blue eyed Jewish kid name Adam (atom), took a rib out, made a genetic match with a hole, instead of a pole, and told him to go fuck himself !
 The gave birth to two little inbred Jewish kids named Cain and Abel (way before the stable). The one was such a greedy prick he killed his own brother.
The End ( literally)


----------



## PixieStix

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey thats creationism.......i want to know where the big bang came from
Click to expand...


God said..."Let there be a bang" AKA "light", and there was a bang 

I imagine that if an electrician wanted to make a bang while hooking up some electricity, it could potentially make a loud bang


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think life evolved on earth and i've seen proof of life forms evolving so Im not getting into that part but im really curious as to where the big bang came from.
> 
> *How does science prove that the big bang happened?*
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ok so the theory is based off of faith* that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.
> 
> My issue is im not sure how we know this. * how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense* then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?
> 
> I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.
> 
> *This annoys me,* its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.
> 
> I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

What annoys me is you spoon feed Creationists exactly what they ask for and they pretend it was never provided to them and call the MEASURED evidence "FAITH." Obviously you are only interested in calling science "faith" and no amount of measured evidence will persuade you otherwise.
Thank you.


----------



## rdean

Wry Catcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?  What is on the other side of the Universe (or, how high is up)?  Frankly, why should we care?
> 
> Would you P_P change your behavior if today we learned God does not exist?  Does your behavior reflect your fear of hell, or desire for heaven?  Would you surrender to hedonism if there were no God?  Covet your neighbors property or spouse?  Do you only obey the law for fear of the consequences?
> 
> If God exists, whose side is S/He on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know the answers to your questions.
> 
> I do know you totally ignored what I was asking in the first post.
> 
> If you want to post here please dont try and change the subject.
> 
> Now I'll be nice and try and give some response to the various questions you asked even though you did not do the same for my simple question.
> 
> I dont know where "God" originated from and I dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell.  I believe in Karma and a higher power than ourselves exisiting.
> 
> that should answer all your questions....now please try to adress mine or stay out of the thread, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize if you feel my response was a red herring, it was not meant to be.  I simply pointed out my opinion and why I'm agnostic.
> 
> For your reading pleasure:
> 
> Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein
> 
> Einstein touches on your question in many of these quotes.
Click to expand...


You missed a quote, in fact, you missed an entire letter.  This might clear a few things up:

As such, it reveals some of his thinking on religion. He states in the letter, for example, *The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. *And, although from a Jewish background, he writes, *For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. *

Einstein letter fetches record amount at auction - physicsworld.com


----------



## peach174

Well that is the problem people have with science. They find something and then teach it as absolute fact until other wise proven to not be correct.
For years text books in schools taught that no life could exist far down into the earth.
They have now found a worm 2 miles down that lives there.
http://www.twincities.com/ci_18187364?nclick_check=1
They do the same thing with space. They are theories and are not proven facts.
Dismissing God and creation as myth. No proof one way or the other yet.
And those that don't believe in God as just stories.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> Why do creationist hate evolution? They don't think God was smart enough to come up with evolution?



Maybe they think evolution was part of god plan for life?  I dunno.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Pale Rider said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally separate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Well I think life evolved on earth and I've seen proof of life forms evolving* so I'm not getting into that part but I'm really curious as to where the big bang came from.
> 
> How does science prove that the big bang happened?
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where science is trying to pass off "adaptation" for "evolution."
> 
> One can ask the very same question you're asking of "where did the big bang come from" as to "where did life on earth come from?" Earth was an extremely hot, molten blob floating around in space with no atmosphere, water or anything, and completely devoid of any kind of life. How did life get here when life couldn't have survived the earth's formative years?
Click to expand...


I don't think adaptation and evolution are mutually exclusive...in fact I think they are inseparably connected.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ok so the theory is based off of faith* that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.
> 
> My issue is im not sure how we know this. * how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense* then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?
> 
> I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.
> 
> *This annoys me,* its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.
> 
> I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What annoys me is you spoon feed Creationists exactly what they ask for and they pretend it was never provided to them and call the MEASURED evidence "FAITH." Obviously you are only interested in calling science "faith" and no amount of measured evidence will persuade you otherwise.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


But there is no measured evidence provided to me as to how the superhot, superdense mass came into existence in the first place.  

Im just interested in understanding why those who appear vitriolic towards people who believe in creationism dont have the same vitriol towards those who have faith that the origins of the big bang are what the theorists are assuming they are.

Both are operating on a faith in something we cant/have yet to prove.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

peach174 said:


> Well that is the problem people have with science. *They find something and then teach it as absolute fact until other wise proven to not be correct.*
> For years text books in schools taught that no life could exist far down into the earth.
> They have now found a worm 2 miles down that lives there.
> 'Worms from hell' found miles down in the Earth - TwinCities.com
> They do the same thing with space. They are theories and are not proven facts.
> Dismissing God and creation as myth. No proof one way or the other yet.
> And those that don't believe in God as just stories.



You just stated the issue im having and the issue that motivated this thread.  Doing what I made big in your quote is the same as having faith in something.  You believe it without solid, irrefutablel, proof because its seem correct or logical to you.  

The whole post is good actually......why are people so closed minded?


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How does science prove that the big bang happened?*
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's start with your first question since there is no point in answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the first place.*
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic  defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,  their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.* Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s, highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high  density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot  universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary  particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are  created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed  and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase  transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase  transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for  example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to  defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic  defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are  one type of defect.
Click to expand...




PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ok so the theory is based off of faith* that the universe once existed in a specific state...that state being very dense and hot.
> 
> My issue is im not sure how we know this. * how are scientists backing up the idea that the universe was once super hot and super dense* then exploded and evolved into what we have today from the explosion?
> 
> I see theories and assumptions on how it happened that remind me of many creationist religious peoples assumptions and theories that a god exists and created everything.
> 
> *This annoys me,* its like the bible thumpers and the big bangers are very similar in mindset. They both exhibit faith in something neither can prove and they both try to "Bash" the other as being ignorant or wrong.
> 
> I just want to know how the big bang actually happened with solid, scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> What annoys me is you spoon feed Creationists exactly what they ask for and they pretend it was never provided to them and call the MEASURED evidence "FAITH." Obviously you are only interested in calling science "faith" and no amount of measured evidence will persuade you otherwise.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there is no measured evidence provided to me as to how the superhot, superdense mass came into existence in the first place.  *
> 
> Im just interested in understanding why those who appear vitriolic towards people who believe in creationism dont have the same vitriol towards those who have faith that the origins of the big bang are what the theorists are assuming they are.
> 
> Both are operating on a faith in something we cant/have yet to prove.
Click to expand...

You asked 2 questions and I said I would START with the first question because there is no point answering the second if you will not accept the measured facts that show that a Big bang took place. You have made it clear that you do not accept the MEASURED background microwave radiation as anything other than "FAITH." It is your FAITH that anything science can measure is just faith.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.  

that evidence shows that there may have been something but it doesnt show how it came to be.   

Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.


----------



## peach174

I have a problem with scientists who do not think that there is a God and only their answers are the only way and true. They dismiss believers as intellectually inferior.
I believe in the big bang theory. It goes right along with Genesis as do several other scientific theories.


----------



## edthecynic

peach174 said:


> Well that is the problem people have with science. They find something and then teach it as absolute fact until other wise proven to not be correct.
> *For years text books in schools taught that no life could exist far down into the earth.*
> They have now found a worm 2 miles down that lives there.
> 'Worms from hell' found miles down in the Earth - TwinCities.com
> They do the same thing with space. They are theories and are not proven facts.
> Dismissing God and creation as myth. No proof one way or the other yet.
> And those that don't believe in God as just stories.


I know of no such science "text book" that teaches that. A Creationist text book might. Would you please link to these text books?

Your own linked article admits that it was already known that bacteria lived below the surface using the energy from radioactive rocks to break apart the molecules they feed on. Your link simply reports that these worms are the most COMPLEX forms of life found deep in the Earth.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.
> 
> that evidence shows that *there may have been* something but it doesnt show how it came to be.
> 
> Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.


No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!


----------



## peach174

I'm talking about science text books that taught there was no complex life forms deep below the earths surface.
Organisms yes complex life no, until now.


----------



## geauxtohell

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" and that in no way defaults to "God did it".  

I am not an athiest, but I find the rhetoical game of hiding behind the fact that science can't explain every single facet of the natural as a de facto affirmation of a supernatural force to be asinine and intellectually dishonest.

On that note, explain the discrepancies between the biblical account of creationism and the well established scientific findings that the world is well over 6000 years old and a variety of other questions.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.
> 
> that evidence shows that *there may have been* something but it doesnt show how it came to be.
> 
> Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!
Click to expand...


thats simply not true ed.  Not true at all.

there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.

You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.  

Let me try out your technique:

Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.


----------



## geauxtohell

FuelRod said:


> What are evolutionists afraid of?
> Objective subjects need more than one point of view studied.  It's called education.



Feel free to try and fit religion into the standards of the scientific method.  You may succeed where others have failed.


----------



## ABikerSailor

First off, I believe like another poster on this thread does.  God said "let there be Light" and the Big Bang kicked off.  

Scientists have figured out (using the Doppler effect) where the origins of the Big Bang are, and it holds some of the oldest stars in the Universe.

Now, to explain the Big Bang........

Scientists have several theories on this.  One is called M theory (membrane) and they think that when 2 membranes collide (walls of other universes) a big bang is the result.

Then......there's bubble theory, which states our universe is only 1 of many in the multiverse.  They've theorized and mathematically, it is possible.

Now.  Where did the Big Bang come from?  Well......in the process of things dropping down a black hole, they tend to get spaghettified and torn apart, making really long strings in the process.

Nobody knows where they end up.

Who knows?  Maybe our Big Bang and subsequent universe came from a black hole in another universe eating a galaxy.

Or.........maybe our black hole is the center of another galaxy (like the center of the Milky Way is).


----------



## geauxtohell

ABikerSailor said:


> First off, I believe like another poster on this thread does.  God said "let there be Light" and the Big Bang kicked off.
> 
> Scientists have figured out (using the Doppler effect) where the origins of the Big Bang are, and it holds some of the oldest stars in the Universe.
> 
> Now, to explain the Big Bang........
> 
> Scientists have several theories on this.  One is called M theory (membrane) and they think that when 2 membranes collide (walls of other universes) a big bang is the result.
> 
> Then......there's bubble theory, which states our universe is only 1 of many in the multiverse.  They've theorized and mathematically, it is possible.
> 
> Now.  Where did the Big Bang come from?  Well......in the process of things dropping down a black hole, they tend to get spaghettified and torn apart, making really long strings in the process.
> 
> Nobody knows where they end up.
> 
> Who knows?  Maybe our Big Bang and subsequent universe came from a black hole in another universe eating a galaxy.
> 
> Or.........maybe our black hole is the center of another galaxy (like the center of the Milky Way is).



What the theocrats don't get about the scientific venture is that it's expected to not have all the answers.  It doesn't impeach a solid theory to have holes in it.  You just keep studying and filling in the holes.

They don't understand because they view everything through faith based lenses where there is an infallable creator who can not be questioned or doubted.

Sad, really.


----------



## peach174

Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell


----------



## eots

it seems simple to me you cant create something out of nothing...there is no beginning and no end..these are the concepts of mortals


----------



## geauxtohell

peach174 said:


> Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell



I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.


----------



## peach174

geauxtohell said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.
> 
> The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.
Click to expand...


OK I agree with that, but most regular Christians accept adaptation not evolution.


----------



## geauxtohell

peach174 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians question God all the time. We may not like the answers but we do ask questions and we do have doubts, geauxtohell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.
> 
> The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I agree with that, but most regular Christians accept adaptation not evolution.
Click to expand...


Great.  As long as they keep their non-scientific wild-eyed theories out of the science curriculum, I am cool with people believing whatever.


----------



## peach174

geauxtohell said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.
> 
> The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I agree with that, but most regular Christians accept adaptation not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  As long as they keep their non-scientific wild-eyed theories out of the science curriculum, I am cool with people believing whatever.
Click to expand...


Fits right in with what I said at the top of this page.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.
> 
> that evidence shows that *there may have been* something but it doesnt show how it came to be.
> 
> Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats simply not true ed.  Not true at all.
> 
> there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
> 
> You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
> 
> Let me try out your technique:
> 
> Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
Click to expand...

Again you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.
Your first question was how does science know that a Big Bang happened.
When you admit that it does not take faith to know that a Big Bang happened, I'll move on to question 2, but not before.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

geauxtohell said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" and that in no way defaults to "God did it".
> 
> I am not an athiest, but I find the rhetoical game of hiding behind the fact that science can't explain every single facet of the natural as a de facto affirmation of a supernatural force to be asinine and intellectually dishonest.
> 
> On that note, explain the discrepancies between the biblical account of creationism and the well established scientific findings that the world is well over 6000 years old and a variety of other questions.
Click to expand...


I agree as I actually dont know myself .  And i also agree that not knowing doesnt mean "god did it"

Im not a creationist either.  Your making false assumptions about me in the response which is fine, you don't know me and i didn't state what my views are.  

All I am doing in this thread is pointing to the similarity between those who believe god created everything, without empiracle proof to those who believe it was all created by "the big bang" without any proof as to how the big bang came to happen.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

ABikerSailor said:


> First off, I believe like another poster on this thread does.  God said "let there be Light" and the Big Bang kicked off.
> 
> Scientists have figured out (using the Doppler effect) where the origins of the Big Bang are, and it holds some of the oldest stars in the Universe.
> 
> Now, to explain the Big Bang........
> 
> Scientists have several theories on this.  One is called M theory (membrane) and they think that when 2 membranes collide (walls of other universes) a big bang is the result.
> 
> Then......there's bubble theory, which states our universe is only 1 of many in the multiverse.  They've theorized and mathematically, it is possible.
> 
> Now.  Where did the Big Bang come from?  Well......in the process of things dropping down a black hole, they tend to get spaghettified and torn apart, making really long strings in the process.
> 
> Nobody knows where they end up.
> 
> Who knows?  Maybe our Big Bang and subsequent universe came from a black hole in another universe eating a galaxy.
> 
> Or.........maybe our black hole is the center of another galaxy (like the center of the Milky Way is).


I've heard all those different theres on the science channel and through reading and in my college classes on astronomy years ago.

I like thinking about this stuff its always fun to let your mind explore the possibilites.  

Like you said "who knows".  those who claim to know are just bullshitting you regardless if the say it was all from god or all from other forces we have yet to explain.

EDIT: I do have a "theory" as to how matter could get so dense and hot as to cause a big bang.  It has to do with the last thing you said about a massive black hole at the center of the galaxy....eventually it sucks everything in.....and as it does it gets denser and hotter and then BOOM.    But its just a theory, just like creationism and the big bang I can't prove it.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats simply not true ed.  Not true at all.
> 
> there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
> 
> You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
> 
> Let me try out your technique:
> 
> Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.
> Your first question was how does science know that a Big Bang happened.
> When you admit that it does not take faith to know that a Big Bang happened, I'll move on to question 2, but not before.
Click to expand...

o

No my first question was "how did the universe come into being".   Then I heard "the big bang" then i asked  "how did the big bang come to pass" and thats where you went off the rails on me.

Once again your projecting things onto me that I don't think and behaviors onto me that I'm not doing.  

If you dont want to talk about it just go away.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats simply not true ed.  Not true at all.
> 
> there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
> 
> You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
> 
> Let me try out your technique:
> 
> Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.
> Your first question was how does science know that a Big Bang happened.
> When you admit that it does not take faith to know that a Big Bang happened, I'll move on to question 2, but not before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> o
> 
> No my first question was "how did the universe come into being".   Then I heard "the big bang" then i asked  "how did the big bang come to pass" and thats where you went off the rails on me.
> 
> *Once again your projecting things onto me that I don't think and behaviors onto me that I'm not doing.  *
> 
> If you dont want to talk about it just go away.
Click to expand...

Here, for the 3rd time, are the two questions you asked that I was replying to and my answer to the first.


edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How does science prove that the big bang happened?*
> How does science prove how the situation that caused the big bang to happen came to be?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with your first question since there is no point in  answering the second if you don't believe there was a Big Bang in the  first place.
> 
> WMAP Big Bang Theory
> 
> The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory  for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to  14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was  only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense  state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. *We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation* which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
> 
> Scientists discover possible cosmic defect, remnant from Big Bang
> 
> *Scientists from the Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA) and  the  University of Cambridge may have discovered an example of a cosmic   defect, a remnant from the Big Bang called a texture. If confirmed,   their discovery, reported today in Science, will provide dramatic new insight into how the universe evolved following the Big Bang. *
> 
> *Textures are defects in the structure of the vacuum left over from the  hot early universe.*  Professor Neil Turok of Cambridge's Department of  Applied Mathematics  and Theoretical Physics first showed how textures  form in the 1990s,  highlighting that some would survive from the Big  Bang and should be  visible in today's universe.* Textures can be observed  by the hot and cold spots they create in the cosmic microwave  background radiation *(CMB) which fills the universe and was released in  the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
> 
> The Big Bang theory proposes that the cosmos began in a very high   density, high temperature state, cooling as it expands. In the early hot   universe, physicists believe that the different types of elementary   particle (particles such as a quark from which larger particles are   created) behaved identically. As the universe cooled, the vacuum changed   and the symmetry between the particles was broken, in a phase   transition analogous to the freezing of water. During this kind of phase   transition, quarks become distinct from electrons and neutrinos, for   example.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as misalignments in the crystalline structure of ice lead to   defects, misalignments in the symmetry-breaking pattern form cosmic   defects. Textures, such as the one which may have been discovered, are   one type of defect.
Click to expand...


----------



## rdean

Magical Creation isn't about "life".  It's about "death".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...-people-to-believe-in-intelligent-design.html


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JohnA said:


> Why do creationists insist on claiming cus science cant prove the big bang theory.



I'm a creationist.  I don't have a problem with the big bang theory.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;The Big Bang Theory Theme Song-Barenaked Ladies&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
Click to expand...


the big bang theory and creation aren't mutually exclusive. but the 'creation' in 7 days, with humans being formed whole and adult was never meant to be taken literally.  and it certainly isn't science.


----------



## Woyzeck

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" and that in no way defaults to "God did it".
> 
> I am not an athiest, but I find the rhetoical game of hiding behind the fact that science can't explain every single facet of the natural as a de facto affirmation of a supernatural force to be asinine and intellectually dishonest.
> 
> On that note, explain the discrepancies between the biblical account of creationism and the well established scientific findings that the world is well over 6000 years old and a variety of other questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree as I actually dont know myself .  And i also agree that not knowing doesnt mean "god did it"
> 
> Im not a creationist either.  Your making false assumptions about me in the response which is fine, you don't know me and i didn't state what my views are.
> 
> All I am doing in this thread is pointing to the similarity between those who believe god created everything, without empiracle proof to those who believe it was all created by "the big bang" without any proof as to how the big bang came to happen.
Click to expand...


It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You _could _call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion. 

You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science _works_. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.

The thing is, that's why they are called scientific _theories_.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Woyzeck said:


> It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You _could _call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion.
> 
> You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science _works_. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.
> 
> The thing is, that's why they are called scientific _theories_.



Well, that's all fine and dandy, and in this instance you're talking about the Big Bang Theory, but here's the real truth with regard to contemporary theory in general, especially since Darwin.  Most of those doing science today presuppose by faith. . . .

While science's historical presupposition is not a _metaphysical naturalism_ (or an _ontological naturalism_), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.  &#8212;Michael David Rawlings, _Abiogenesis:  The Holy Grail of Atheism_​


----------



## Woyzeck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You _could _call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion.
> 
> You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science _works_. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.
> 
> The thing is, that's why they are called scientific _theories_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's all fine and dandy, and in this instance you're talking about the Big Bang Theory, but here's the real truth with regard to contemporary theory in general, especially since Darwin.  Most of those doing science today presuppose by faith. . . .
> 
> While science's historical presupposition is not a _metaphysical naturalism_ (or an _ontological naturalism_), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.  &#8212;Michael David Rawlings, _Abiogenesis:  The Holy Grail of Atheism_​
Click to expand...


Sorry what? I'm not sure what the point of your quote is, science rejects something that can't be tested via the scientific method and classifies it as being non-existent (I'm assuming the quote is implying the existence of God here) and this is a problem... how? 

And what does it have to do with my response to Pilgrim?


----------



## Immanuel

konradv said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
Click to expand...


Good post.  I suppose the only change I would make would be 

God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.

Immie


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Woyzeck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false similarity, however. Scientific theories are built upon past theories and knowledge, including those theories proven to be incorrect. You _could _call believing in the big bang theory faith, but that would be unfair to call it the same kind of faith a Christian, Muslim or other religious person has. The kind of faith a religious person has, is that they will continue believing in what they believe in despite what happens to them, or what others say about their religion.
> 
> You can't call scientist positing the big bang theory correct faith, because once evidence to the contrary arises, and the theory is disproved via the scientific method not all will keep believing in the big bang theory when presented with evidence to the contrary. That's how science _works_. Scientists could find evidence suggesting the universe was created by a giant sea turtle ejaculating or something, and if that theory held up against scientific experiments and evidence, then scientists would discard the big bang theory. If that's the same faith that religious folk have, its a shit kind of faith.
> 
> The thing is, that's why they are called scientific _theories_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's all fine and dandy, and in this instance you're talking about the Big Bang Theory, but here's the real truth with regard to contemporary theory in general, especially since Darwin.  Most of those doing science today presuppose by faith. . . .
> 
> While science's historical presupposition is not a _metaphysical naturalism_ (or an _ontological naturalism_), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.  &#8212;Michael David Rawlings, _Abiogenesis:  The Holy Grail of Atheism_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry what? I'm not sure what the point of your quote is, science rejects something that can't be tested via the scientific method and classifies it as being non-existent (I'm assuming the quote is implying the existence of God here) and this is a problem... how?
> 
> And what does it have to do with my response to Pilgrim?
Click to expand...


Yes.  I know.  That observation always throws the materialist/the hardline naturalist for a loop.  He can't seem to grasp the nature of his very own metaphysics.

Here's another quote for ya, also authored by me:

There is the _physicalism_ of _ontological_ or _metaphysical materialism_ (the context wherein the terms _materialism_ and _physicalism_ are used interchangeably) versus that of _methodological_ or _mechanistic naturalism_, i.e., _physicalism proper_. The latter merely limits itself to the investigation of the temporal plain or refers to the comprehensive essence of the temporal plain without presupposing the non-existence of immateriality, whatever that might entail or mean, or the non-existence of a supernatural plain.

The debate here goes to a difference of opinion that is subtle, but not trivial. Secularists and even most theists argue that science should be done as if nothing existed beyond nature or as if the temporal plain has always been inextricably bound to natural causality.

On the other hand, those who are skeptical about the various hypotheses of abiogenics and the claims of evolutionary theory, for example, regard the unqualified naturalist view to be dogmatically and presumptuously unscientific. Rather, science is to be conducted as if the temporal plain is ordinarily bound to natural causality while keeping an eye out for evidence that evinces other potentialities. The idea here is to safeguard the integrity of scientific discovery, lest it veer off course into the land of the humanities: the telling of tales about events and certain ontological potentialities beyond the scope of its methodology.​


----------



## Old Rocks

Immanuel said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good post.  I suppose the only change I would make would be
> 
> God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.


----------



## Dr Grump

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



I don't hate creationism, I just find it a fairy tale...

Do you believe in creationism?


----------



## hortysir

geauxtohell said:


> I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.
> 
> The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.


You're right.
Catholics just keep adding more pages until it fits their belief structure.


----------



## hortysir

I believe in The Big Bang Theory.

I know the Dude that struck the match!


----------



## Shogun

The logic of the OP is why people thought the earth was flat and the Earth revolved around the sun.  Ignorance of truth does not validate superstition.  Thankfully, science has evolved from this kind of stone age intellectualism.


----------



## Immanuel

Old Rocks said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to educate you.  In the first place the question of how the universe started is totally seperate from the creation question.  I believe at least one line of Genesis is true, "let there be light"(The Big Bang).  Creation of life on earth, however, is a different story.  That was accomplished by evolution utilizing the Laws of Chemistry and Physics laid down at the beginning.  God created the universe, but used evolution to create life, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.  I suppose the only change I would make would be
> 
> God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
Click to expand...


But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie


----------



## Shogun

Immanuel said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.  I suppose the only change I would make would be
> 
> God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by *more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.*
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens.  Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened.  Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening.  From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.


----------



## Foxfyre

I am technically a Creationist and advocate of Intelligent Design--which are not necessarily the same thing--and have long been on the record that neither are science and should not be taught as science.

I am also long on the record that no science teacher should ever tell a student that there is no such thing as Creationism or Intelligent Design.

I have no problem with a teacher telling students that Creatism and/or Intelligent Design are believed by many people in many cultures and both can answer questions that Evolution cannot.  However they are not science and will not be included in the science curriculum and won't be a satisfactory answer on any test.

I am long on the record that there is a lot of scientific support for Evolution and it must be included in the science curriculum.

I believe an honest science curriculum will also include the concept that Evolution cannot answer all questions and there is still more science to discover than what we already know.

And I resent being told by pointy heads and anti-religionists and fanatics and numbnuts that a person cannot be a Creationist and IDer AND an Evolutionist all at the same time.


----------



## edthecynic

hortysir said:


> I believe in The Big Bang Theory.
> 
> I know the Dude that struck the match!


So you know gravity. Big deal!


----------



## midcan5

A harder question is purpose?  The more we know the less we understand. 


"How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people - first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving."  Albert Einstein


----------



## konradv

hortysir said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.
> 
> The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> Catholics just keep adding more pages until it fits their belief structure.
Click to expand...


Whatever that's supposed to mean, it's THEIR book?!?!  THEY assembled it and Christ said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, so any additions were already OK'd by Jesus.


----------



## konradv

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!


----------



## Immanuel

Shogun said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by *more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.*
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens.  Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened.  Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening.  From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.
Click to expand...


Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.

There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.

Immie


----------



## peach174

DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
the Man's 50,000 years ago.
It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?  How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum


----------



## Toro

Immanuel said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.  I suppose the only change I would make would be
> 
> God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


What if that God is the Islamic God?

The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.


----------



## Foxfyre

konradv said:


> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!



And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?  How did it come to be here?  Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance?  Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.


----------



## konradv

peach174 said:


> DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
> The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
> And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
> The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
> the Man's 50,000 years ago.
> It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
> Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
> Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.
> 
> Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum



If we were designed intelligently, of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids, why do some have six codons and some only one?  Wouldn't a "designer" have made it three each with two each for 'on' and 'off'?


----------



## konradv

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?  How did it come to be here?  Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance?  Due to some cosmic accident?
> 
> If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?
> 
> An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.
Click to expand...


Do you want to talk about creationism or the Big Bang?  I have no problem with saying God created the Big Bang and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics which flowed from it, but life itself was not directly created, rather it was the result of those laws.


----------



## konradv

peach174 said:


> DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
> The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
> And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
> The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
> the Man's 50,000 years ago.
> It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
> Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
> Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.
> 
> Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum



Trouble is, The Flood has never been postulated to have happened 50,000 years ago by anyone I've read.  It seems someone's trying to pull a fast one here!!!!


----------



## konradv

Immanuel said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.  I suppose the only change I would make would be
> 
> God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


It's not all random luck.  Don't forget that you've got the Laws of Chemistry and Physics working, too.  If you're looking for a plan or "design", THAT'S where it is.


----------



## Immanuel

Toro said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if that God is the Islamic God?
> 
> The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.
Click to expand...


What if he is?  Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.  

I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith.  Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me.  This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

konradv said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
> The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
> And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
> The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
> the Man's 50,000 years ago.
> It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
> Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
> Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.
> 
> Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, The Flood has never been postulated to have happened 50,000 years ago by anyone I've read.  It seems someone's trying to pull a fast one here!!!!
Click to expand...


The ancients had no clear record of eons of time as we pretend we do now.  They made time fit their stories rather than fit stories into any concept of real time.  And they could write only from their own experience.  If there really was a Noah and his family, being in a flood from which no land was visible would certainly look as if the whole Earth was flooded.  

From what I've read, almost all ancient cultures have a flood story in their lore.  Why would that be if there had been no period or periods of massive flooding on Earth?  And to the ancients of each of those cultures, they would see it as cataclysmic and universal as they had no other perspetive from which to work.

To take the ancient stories literally and omit the symbolism and story telling within them is pure folly.   To dismiss them as if there is no foundation is equally short sighted.


----------



## edthecynic

Immanuel said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by *more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.*
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens.  Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened.  Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening.  From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.
> 
> There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Of course your "odds" are based on many false assumptions, the most obvious being that chemical reactions happen over the whole globe only one at a time in series. Or to put it in the lightning strike terms, one specific person being struck in one specific place has very high odds against it, but any person being struck anywhere in the world brings the odds down quite considerably.


----------



## edthecynic

peach174 said:


> DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
> The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
> And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
> *The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
> the Man's 50,000 years ago.*
> It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
> Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
> Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.
> 
> Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum


With Eve living 150,000 years BEFORE Adam, the odds are they didn't hook up! 

Not only that but the bible says Adam existed BEFORE Eve!


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?  How did it come to be here?*  Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance?  Due to some cosmic accident?
> 
> If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?
> 
> An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall telling you the answer to those questions in another thread, so i can't believe you still don't know the answer. Obviously your mind is closed to the known facts.

The universe is ENERGY in some form, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is the proven First Law of Thermodynamics you referenced when you said "nothing comes from nothing." The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, you probably have a surge protector on your electrical equipment rated in "Joules" named after him in honor of this great achievement. You can repeat his experiment yourself to confirm it for yourself, therefore no faith is needed to what the substance of the universe IS.


----------



## Toro

Immanuel said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if that God is the Islamic God?
> 
> The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if he is?  Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.
> 
> I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith.  Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me.  This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


My point is that the attack on Evolution does not generally come from scientists. It comes from religious people. Why?  Because it challenges their belief system on the origins of the universe, and implicitly, their belief in God as explained by their religion. This does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily correct, and most scientists know this. Instead, Evolution as a theory on the origins of man is one that best fits our understanding of the world around us through the scientific method. If a better explanation comes along, Science will abandon Evolution. 

But (most) Creationists aren't interested in discovering the origins of the universe. They are interested in promoting their religion. Their agenda is to tear down the edifice of Evolution so that their explanation is the only one remaining by default. 

I, like everyone else, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. And perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang, I don't know. But if He did, it is highly likely that God is something very different than the one described in the Christian bible, or any of the holy books for that matter.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?



And yet you don't find it hard to believe that some supreme being that has always existed (from where?) went "poof" and everything was set in motion? hhhhmmmmm


----------



## hortysir

konradv said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "theocrats", not "Christians".  There is a difference.
> 
> The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> Catholics just keep adding more pages until it fits their belief structure.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever that's supposed to mean, it's THEIR book?!?!  THEY assembled it and Christ said _*whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven*_, so any additions were already OK'd by Jesus.
Click to expand...

psst......
HE wasn't talking about a book, numbskull.


Binding and loosing, which Jesus brings up twice in the book of Matthew, refers to saved souls that His disciples/followers gather in His name.

If you're gonna quote the Bible out of context, get it right.
I promise I won't try and decipher DNA sequences. 

And, speaking of, I'm sure you've noticed that twice now your incoherent babble about "64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids" has been ignored.
If you're a biophysicist or geneticist, that's great for you. But the rest of us function better when our USMB posts are made in English.  

Is it your position that these groupings could only have happened randomly? That it couldn't have possibly been "made" that way intentionally?


----------



## Immanuel

edthecynic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens.  Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened.  Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening.  From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.
> 
> There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course your "odds" are based on many false assumptions, the most obvious being that chemical reactions happen over the whole globe only one at a time in series. Or to put it in the lightning strike terms, one specific person being struck in one specific place has very high odds against it, but any person being struck anywhere in the world brings the odds down quite considerably.
Click to expand...


Good Lord!  My odds?  Are you kidding?  I hope no one took those "odds" as being a serious laying of odds.  My initial number was something like One Hundred Billion.  I remember seeing someone's "odds" and they were astronomical.  I was just making a point.

Still there is zero evidence of Abiogenesis.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Toro said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if that God is the Islamic God?
> 
> The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if he is?  Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.
> 
> I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith.  Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me.  This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that the attack on Evolution does not generally come from scientists. It comes from religious people. Why?  Because it challenges their belief system on the origins of the universe, and implicitly, their belief in God as explained by their religion. This does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily correct, and most scientists know this. Instead, Evolution as a theory on the origins of man is one that best fits our understanding of the world around us through the scientific method. If a better explanation comes along, Science will abandon Evolution.
> 
> But (most) Creationists aren't interested in discovering the origins of the universe. They are interested in promoting their religion. Their agenda is to tear down the edifice of Evolution so that their explanation is the only one remaining by default.
> 
> I, like everyone else, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. And perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang, I don't know. But if He did, it is highly likely that God is something very different than the one described in the Christian bible, or any of the holy books for that matter.
Click to expand...


I think you should consult your other evolutionist friends.  Because whenever I have this discussion with them, they scream at me that Abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution and I pretty much agree with them.

As a Creationist myself, I have no desire to "tear down" the scientific theory of Evolution.  My personal belief is that science generally works to improve our knowledge and brings us closer to the truth.  I generally take a literal reading of the Bible, but I also realize that it has been translated from other languages.  Even though I believe God created all things and gave the information to Moses to put in the Book of Genesis, I believe that our understanding of God's message has been corrupted.  It is not God that is wrong, but us.

Personally I would love to discover the origins of the universe.  I am fascinated by the "Big Bang Theory".  Evolution is intriguing.  What always bothers me is evolutionists who pretend that they know everything even how life was formed.

Immie


----------



## mike beev

The only thing I hate about creationism is someone trying to put it (a religious dogma) into a science book.  Also, the general disbelief in the natural sciences in preference to a literal Biblical interpretation of what and how the First Cause created in a bit scary.  

If we were made in God's image, that would imply an ability to learn from the book of nature as well as the book of scripture.


----------



## Flopper

spectrumc01 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it.  Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway.
> 
> Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism.  Your mind is made up and there is no changing it.  That is the problem with debates like this one.  All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.
> 
> The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools.  The church is the place to teach religion based creationism.  The home is the place to teach religion based creationism.  Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.
Click to expand...

The mind of the fanatic cannot be changed but that doesn't mean that you cannot instill doubt, which is the bain of the religious fanatic and the spark that drives scientific discovery.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> Why do creationist hate evolution? They don't think God was smart enough to come up with evolution?





Exactly


----------



## Flopper

The bible has some wonderful rules for living our lives and interacting with one another, however it's a piss poor scientific text.  Why anyone would try to use it as such is just plain dumb.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dr Grump said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate creationism, I just find it a fairy tale...
> 
> Do you believe in creationism?
Click to expand...


Honestly I dont know how all this got here.  Im not a very religious guy, that is to say I so believe in a power greater than us but I dont follow any religions as a result of that belief.

I mean it could be true that some superbeing created everything or maybe it just happened due to infinate random occurances, i have no clue.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Shogun said:


> The logic of the OP is why people thought the earth was flat and the Earth revolved around the sun.  Ignorance of truth does not validate superstition.  Thankfully, science has evolved from this kind of stone age intellectualism.



so questioning things is how we stay ignorant?  Interesting idea


----------



## manifold

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



Don't know.

But I do know that Creationism isn't science.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

konradv said:


> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!



Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.  

Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.  

For example the origin of the universe.  We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.

Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?  How did it come to be here?  Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance?  Due to some cosmic accident?
> 
> If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?
> 
> An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Flopper said:


> The bible has some wonderful rules for living our lives and interacting with one another, however it's a piss poor scientific text.  Why anyone would try to use it as such is just plain dumb.



who was talking about using the bible as a science book? I might have skimmed that post.


----------



## Foxfyre

konradv said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?  How did it come to be here?  Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance?  Due to some cosmic accident?
> 
> If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?
> 
> An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to talk about creationism or the Big Bang?  I have no problem with saying God created the Big Bang and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics which flowed from it, but life itself was not directly created, rather it was the result of those laws.
Click to expand...


I just now saw this post and thought it deserved a response.

For me there needs be no quarrel between the 'big bang' and Creationism.  The Big Bang is of course the most popular and most generally accepted theory we have for the origins of the universe as we know it, but that theory cannot answer the question of what existed before the Big Bang or where the stuff of the universe came from in the first place.  And the science of next week or the next decade or the next century may show us that we have to rethink it all.  Yet again.

But even if the Big Bang theory we have turns out to be the right concept, there is still room for a 'Creator' to put the right material and conditions together and light the fuse so to speak.

And if there is a Creator "God", that Creator would also be the author of science and the laws that govern it

And if Spinoza's god is the correct concept, the universe itself becomes an enormous cosmic 'brain' or intelligence that guides and forms itself into what we now see and experience.

Bottom line, I think humankind has so far been blessed with a tiny fraction of all there is to know and we're all going to be surprised at how wrong we are about a lot of things now.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet does nothing come from nothing?  Where did the substance of the universe come from?  How did it come to be here?  Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance?  Due to some cosmic accident?
> 
> If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?
> 
> An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to talk about creationism or the Big Bang?  I have no problem with saying God created the Big Bang and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics which flowed from it, but life itself was not directly created, rather it was the result of those laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just now saw this post and thought it deserved a response.
> 
> For me there needs be no quarrel between the 'big bang' and Creationism.  The Big Bang is of course the most popular and most generally accepted theory we have for the origins of the universe as we know it, but that theory *cannot answer the question of what existed before the Big Bang or where the stuff of the universe came from in the first place*.  And the science of next week or the next decade or the next century may show us that we have to rethink it all.  Yet again.
> 
> But even if the Big Bang theory we have turns out to be the right concept, there is still room for a 'Creator' to put the right material and conditions together and light the fuse so to speak.
> 
> And if there is a Creator "God", that Creator would also be the author of science and the laws that govern it
> 
> And if Spinoza's god is the correct concept, the universe itself becomes an enormous cosmic 'brain' or intelligence that guides and forms itself into what we now see and experience.
> 
> Bottom line, I think humankind has so far been blessed with a tiny fraction of all there is to know and we're all going to be surprised at how wrong we are about a lot of things now.
Click to expand...

Oh come on now!!!
That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
Get it?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate.  We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.


----------



## manifold

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate.  We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.



Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## manifold

I don't hate creationism.  I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty, convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

manifold said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate.  We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...


Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  definition 2b

Pot meet kettle, lol.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

manifold said:


> I don't hate creationism.  I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty, convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based.



thats legit, im just talking about those who believe, without any doubt, that it was all from the big bang telling those who believe, without any doubt, that it was God that they are dumb for believing it is God.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

manifold said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  definition 2b
> 
> Pot meet kettle, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posting the definition of faith doesn't make you any less wrong (or disingenuous).
> 
> True story
Click to expand...


But it does prove your statement was total bullshit.  

True story    (remember imitation is the highest form of flattery)


----------



## manifold

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate.  We have to have FAITH in *educated guesses and extrapolations from observations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  definition 2b
Click to expand...


Definition 2b: firm belief in something for which there is *no proof* 

Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.

Here, put some of this on your crow and it won't taste so bad:


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

manifold said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  definition 2b
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition 2b: firm belief in something for which there is *no proof*
> 
> Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.
> 
> Here, put some of this on your crow and it won't taste so bad:
Click to expand...


educated guesses yes but no actual proof.  

Its simple really, so simple I know even you understand where im coming from


----------



## manifold

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> educated guesses yes but no actual proof.





Do you even realize how ignorant that statement is?  Do you not know why said guess is qualified with the adjective 'educated'?

It sure as shit isn't because there is no proof.  If there is no proof, it's actually an UNeducated guess.


Now you're up to a double helping of crow.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Immanuel

manifold said:


> I don't hate creationism.  I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty,* convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based*.



In your very own words you are claiming creationism is scientific.  

And I, as a person who believes that God created life won't even make that claim.  Scientific Inquiry?  WTF?  

Immie


----------



## manifold

Immanuel said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate creationism.  I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty,* convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your very own words you are claiming creationism is scientific.
> 
> And I, as a person who believes that God created life won't even make that claim.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Actually, my words claim the exact opposite.

But thanks for reading my post.


----------



## Immanuel

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate.  We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  definition 2b
> 
> Pot meet kettle, lol.
Click to expand...


Let me give you the ultimate word, from the Lord's mouth itself, what faith is:

Hebrews 11:1



> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.



Immie


----------



## Immanuel

manifold said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate creationism.  I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty,* convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your very own words you are claiming creationism is scientific.
> 
> And I, as a person who believes that God created life won't even make that claim.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my words claim the exact opposite.
> 
> But thanks for reading my post.
Click to expand...


You're welcome. But, you should know that I do quite often.

But the way I read your post is that you are stating that creationism is scientific inquiry.  But, I was up late last night and am not quite awake at the moment.  

Immie


----------



## manifold

Immanuel said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your very own words you are claiming creationism is scientific.
> 
> And I, as a person who believes that God created life won't even make that claim.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my words claim the exact opposite.
> 
> But thanks for reading my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome. But, you should know that I do quite often.
> 
> But the way I read your post is that you are stating that creationism is scientific inquiry.  But, I was up late last night and am not quite awake at the moment.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I believe you.  But you definitely read it wrong.  I went back and double checked.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate. * We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.*


The FLoT is not an "educated guess" as you well know. It was PROVEN with a REPEATABLE experiment by James Perscott Joule. Rather than "FAITH" one need only repeat the experiment yourself to confirm the fact for yourself. You actually cited the FLoT earlier in this thread when you stated absolutely that "nothing comes from nothing." Funny how the FLoT is proven when it suits your purposes and is "FAITH" when it doesn't!!!

If to Creationists repeatable experiments prove nothing, then one can simply pontificate anything!


----------



## Immanuel

manifold said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my words claim the exact opposite.
> 
> But thanks for reading my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome. But, you should know that I do quite often.
> 
> But the way I read your post is that you are stating that creationism is scientific inquiry.  But, I was up late last night and am not quite awake at the moment.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you.  But you definitely read it wrong.  I went back and double checked.
Click to expand...


Since you are not a politician, I will take your word for it.  You aren't are you?

Immie


----------



## manifold

Immanuel said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome. But, you should know that I do quite often.
> 
> But the way I read your post is that you are stating that creationism is scientific inquiry.  But, I was up late last night and am not quite awake at the moment.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you.  But you definitely read it wrong.  I went back and double checked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you are not a politician, I will take your word for it.  You aren't are you?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Everyone is a 'politician', and I'm no exception. 

But I'm certainly not a public 'servant', elected or otherwise.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

manifold said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> educated guesses yes but no actual proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize how ignorant that statement is?  Do you not know why said guess is qualified with the adjective 'educated'?
> 
> It sure as shit isn't because there is no proof.  If there is no proof, it's actually an UNeducated guess.
> 
> 
> Now you're up to a double helping of crow.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...


is it still a guess?  Ohhhhhh ok then  

so say i have a mutliple choice test and i know the answer is NOT a, c, or e....therefore I can make an educated guess that it is B or D.....what if i guessed wrong?  I guess then i was just HOPING my educated guess was right without knowing for sure .


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Immanuel said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary  definition 2b
> 
> Pot meet kettle, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me give you the ultimate word, from the Lord's mouth itself, what faith is:
> 
> Hebrews 11:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


LOL see both websters and the bible get it


----------



## Luissa

Faith is thinking the Bruins will win, when you don't see them winning.


----------



## Foxfyre

manifold said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> educated guesses yes but no actual proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize how ignorant that statement is?  Do you not know why said guess is qualified with the adjective 'educated'?
> 
> It sure as shit isn't because there is no proof.  If there is no proof, it's actually an UNeducated guess.
> 
> 
> Now you're up to a double helping of crow.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...


Faith by definition is in that which has not yet happened so "proof" is impossible.  But if you observe the sun rising in the east day after day, there is no 'proof' that it will happen again tomorrow, but your 'faith' that it will continue to do that is rational faith.  If manifold makes intelligent posts several times, it is rational to have 'faith' that your next post will also be intelligent.

Such are not uneducated guesses but are based on observation, repetition, logic, reason, and experience.   "No proof" does not make faith irrational, ignorant, or stupid.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> Faith is thinking the Bruins will win, when you don't see them winning.



No I can prove they will win using math.....but if they lose its just because, ummm, well..it had nothing to do with me having faith in the math I used


----------



## Foxfyre

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is thinking the Bruins will win, when you don't see them winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I can prove they will win using math.....but if they lose its just because, ummm, well..it had nothing to do with me having faith in the math I used
Click to expand...


Faith that the Bruins will win against a better team is rational only if there is some additional factor in the mix; i.e. the game has been 'fixed' or key players are sick or benched for whatever reason, etc.  Faith that the Bruins will win against a statistically much inferior team is rational faith.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is thinking the Bruins will win, when you don't see them winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I can prove they will win using math.....but if they lose its just because, ummm, well..it had nothing to do with me having faith in the math I used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith that the Bruins will win against a better team is rational only if there is some additional factor in the mix; i.e. the game has been 'fixed' or key players are sick or benched for whatever reason, etc.  Faith that the Bruins will win against a statistically much inferior team is rational faith.
Click to expand...


Well, I have it on *no* authority that according to Pastor Harold Camping (of 5/21/11 E.O.W. fame) the powers that be in Heaven are pulling for Boston.  So, consequently, I would not count my chickens before they hatched if I were you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I can prove they will win using math.....but if they lose its just because, ummm, well..it had nothing to do with me having faith in the math I used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith that the Bruins will win against a better team is rational only if there is some additional factor in the mix; i.e. the game has been 'fixed' or key players are sick or benched for whatever reason, etc.  Faith that the Bruins will win against a statistically much inferior team is rational faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I have it on *no* authority that according to Pastor Harold Camping (of 5/21/11 E.O.W. fame) the powers that be in Heaven are pulling for Boston.  So, consequently, I would not count my chickens before they hatched if I were you.
Click to expand...


I'm not a hockey fan at all.  Don't really understand all the nuances or even the rules of the game.  But I have every faith that the Bruins could beat ANY of our local hockey teams.   No faith that they could beat any other pro team as I don't know much about any of them and have no experience with that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.
> 
> Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.
> 
> For example the origin of the universe.  We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.
> 
> Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.
Click to expand...


And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang.  The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique *reference to The Big Bang itself*, "Let there be light"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.
> 
> Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.
> 
> For example the origin of the universe.  We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.
> 
> Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.


----------



## hortysir

edthecynic said:


> Oh come on now!!!
> That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
> Get it?


I don't. Honestly.
No trick, no trap....Please explain.
Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???


----------



## edthecynic

hortysir said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on now!!!
> That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. Honestly.
> No trick, no trap....Please explain.
> Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
> How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
> Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???
Click to expand...

No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion. 

And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.


----------



## hortysir

edthecynic said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on now!!!
> That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. Honestly.
> No trick, no trap....Please explain.
> Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
> How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
> Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.
> 
> And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.
Click to expand...

I like the last 2 sentences.  Thanks.

I just can't fathom how a ball of energy, the one that goes "bang", could exist outside of time and without any motion (since you said time only exists in terms of motion).
And since the universe is constantly expanding what energy is it drawing from to do so?

I'm sorry if these questions sound stupid. Not within my field of study.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on now!!!
> That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. Honestly.
> No trick, no trap....Please explain.
> Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
> How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
> Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.
> 
> And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.
Click to expand...


The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system.  You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.

And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive.  Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe.  Science is what is.  And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.


----------



## edthecynic

hortysir said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. Honestly.
> No trick, no trap....Please explain.
> Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
> How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
> Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.
> 
> And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like the last 2 sentences.  Thanks.
> 
> I just can't fathom how a ball of energy, the one that goes "bang", could exist outside of time and without any motion (since you said time only exists in terms of motion).
> And since the universe is constantly expanding what energy is it drawing from to do so?
> 
> I'm sorry if these questions sound stupid. Not within my field of study.
Click to expand...

They are not stupid questions. Let me tackle the second, first.

Our part of the universe, the part closest to the point of the Big Bang is expanding and slowing down. But the whole universe is not expanding or slowing down. While our equipment does not allow us to see the entire universe yet, we are able to see far enough out into space to measure that there are bodies in deep space that are accelerating.

To visualize this do not think of space as a straight line. When you look "out" into space, you are actually looking "around" the curve of space/time. 

Think of the universe as a spiraling vortex expanding outward as it spirals out from the singular point of the Big Bang. Try to visualize how a long streamer, with a flick of the wrist, will take an expanding vortex shape from the singular point where it connects to a stick. You may have seen gymnasts and cheerleaders do this. As the vortex expands outward and slows down it curves back over itself and after it reaches its widest point of expansion, it begins to contract and speed up curving back in on itself and accelerates toward the point of the Big Crunch. Viewed from above at its equator the universe looks like Feynman's sphere and viewed from the poles the universe looks like Hawking's conical warped space, with one expanding vortex at one pole and one contracting vortex at the other pole.

Now to equate this to time and motion in your first question, you need to visualize a ball tossed straight up into the air. As it rises it slows down and eventually reaches a point where it is no longer rising. There is one "singular" point where the ball for an instant is neither rising nor falling. This singularity is extremely unstable and in the next instant the ball begins falling and accelerating. This is like the singularity where the universe is neither expanding nor contracting at the moment before the Big Bang. For that one moment there is no motion and time does not exist.

That is about the best way I can explain it in layman's terms, and I hope it helps.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. Honestly.
> No trick, no trap....Please explain.
> Are you saying that time, itself, is a circle and not a line with a start point?
> How can you, so unequivocally, state it as fact?
> Energy is eternal? What kind of energy, because I can think of examples where energy is spent?? There can be energy without a source???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.
> 
> And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system.  You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.
> 
> And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive.  Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe.  Science is what is.  And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.
Click to expand...

The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be  valid because the laws are not derived from the  details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the  systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.

These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory  for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created  by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic  experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and  structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of  how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to  pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The  use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to  recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what  did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were  enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.

To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!


----------



## percysunshine

*"I have a question for those who hate creationism." *

Hate?

What a silly question.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. In physics time exists only in terms of motion.
> 
> And energy in all its forms always exists in the same total quantity. That's the FLoT. The sum total of all energy in all its forms can neither increase nor decrease, it can only change form. Energy therefore is a constant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system.  You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.
> 
> And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive.  Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe.  Science is what is.  And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be  valid because the laws are not derived from the  details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the  systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.
> 
> These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory  for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created  by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic  experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and  structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of  how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to  pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The  use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to  recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what  did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were  enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.
> 
> To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!
Click to expand...


Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system.  You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.
> 
> And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive.  Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe.  Science is what is.  And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.
> 
> 
> 
> The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be  valid because the laws are not derived from the  details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the  systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.
> 
> These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory  for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created  by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic  experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and  structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of  how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to  pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The  use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to  recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what  did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were  enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.
> 
> To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.
Click to expand...


Really. Do you think you can survive underwater without breathing? I think science and whole lot of drowned people have proved that.

Do you think you can jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet and survive? Science has proven this little thing called gravity.

Scientists and proven with certainly many, many things. Do the names Fleming, Curie and Isaac Newton mean anything to you?


----------



## elvis

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be  valid because the laws are not derived from the  details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the  systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.
> 
> These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory  for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created  by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic  experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and  structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of  how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to  pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The  use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to  recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what  did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were  enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.
> 
> To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really. Do you think you can survive underwater without breathing? I think science and whole lot of drowned people have proved that.
> 
> Do you think you can jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet and survive? Science has proven this little thing called gravity.
> 
> Scientists and proven with certainly many, many things. Do the names Fleming, Curie and Isaac Newton mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

scientists once believed the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that one's intelligence was directly related to the size of his head.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your unwavering faith in FLoT that you have made your god of all science is that you have no way to test it outside our own solar system.  You can suppose that the same rules and laws of chemistry and physics etc. will apply in another galaxy or in another part of the universe, but without any means to test that you have to operate on pure faith alone.
> 
> And to assume that energy has no beginning and no end is at the very least simplistic and naive.  Science doesn't come up with a theory that fits what we want to believe.  Science is what is.  And the science we have cannot yet tell us what existed or in what form before the 'big bang'.
> 
> 
> 
> The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be  valid because the laws are not derived from the  details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the  systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.
> 
> These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory  for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created  by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic  experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and  structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of  how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to  pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The  use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to  recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what  did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were  enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.
> 
> To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again my experience with scientists, *'proof' and 'certainty'* are very big words that* I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation*.
Click to expand...

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Laws of thermodynamics are considered to be  valid because the laws are not derived from the  details of the system being studied, but from the reaction of the  systems energy and matter transferring in response to change.
> 
> These laws of allow for scientists to test theories in the laboratory  for validity and then construct from those theories new systems created  by what was learned from the response. For example, thermodynamic  experimentation on the reaction of certain types of metals and  structures to the environment of space, done through an understanding of  how matter and energy would behave in space, allowed for scientists to  pursue the creation of materials that enabled us to explore space. The  use of thermodynamics meant that they could do so without having to  recreate the environment of space and test every idea within the environment of space to eliminate what  did not work. The equations, guided by the laws of thermodynamics, were  enough to allow the scientist to formulate working prototypes.
> 
> To assume that energy has no beginning and no end is a direct consequence of the proven FLoT. That may be a simple and obvious assumption, but it is far from naive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again my experience with scientists, *'proof' and 'certainty'* are very big words that* I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
> Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.
Click to expand...


We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.

To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.


----------



## hortysir

edthecynic said:


> < major snippage here >
> the moment before the Big Bang. For that one moment there is no motion and time does not exist.
> <snip>


Wow, dude!
Thanks for the time and "energy" it took to type all that.

The part I snipped was, truly, my only point of contention.
Using your tossed ball analogy, I can't help but ponder how we would describe what occurred prior to that "one moment".
Would it be a sort of 'negative time'? 
Does that make sense?
I mean, somehow, it had to arrive at that moment. Somehow the energy had to build to that banging point.


Hell, it's late and I'm almost through with Green Hornet. I'll check back tomorrow.

Singed,
Not-So-Closed-Minded Christian




I still say God did it


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again my experience with scientists, *'proof' and 'certainty'* are very big words that* I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation*.
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
> Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
Click to expand...

We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.


----------



## edthecynic

hortysir said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> < major snippage here >
> the moment before the Big Bang. For that one moment there is no motion and time does not exist.
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, dude!
> Thanks for the time and "energy" it took to type all that.
> 
> The part I snipped was, truly, my only point of contention.
> Using your tossed ball analogy, I can't help but ponder* how we would describe what occurred prior to that "one moment".*
> Would it be a sort of 'negative time'?
> Does that make sense?
> I mean, somehow, it had to arrive at that moment. *Somehow the energy had to build to that banging point.*
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't make it very clear. What leads up to the point before the Big Bang is generally called the "Big Crunch." The Big Crunch would be a universal black hole. Contrary to popular belief, falling into a black hole would not be fatal. Again, the universe not being linear, you don't fall straight in but you fall AROUND the curvature of the black hole. If you've ever watched something caught in the whirlpool vortex of an emptying bathtub, you would have observed that the object circles around the vortex going faster and faster as it goes deeper into the vortex.

The Big Crunch is the moment before and the Big Bang is moment after the singularity where the universe is neither expanding nor contracting.
I hope that helps.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
> Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
Click to expand...


I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.
> 
> Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.
> 
> For example the origin of the universe.  We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.
> 
> Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, more accurately, *that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.*
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
> 
> 
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.
Click to expand...

You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.

And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, more accurately, *that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.
> 
> And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.
Click to expand...


But God has not been part of my argument.  It was simply a statement of fact in rebuttal to you folks who insist on dragging God into it.  But even a tunnel visioned anti-religious fanatic has to admit that there is no science that can falsify God in any way or even cast question re His involvement.  Therefore my statement stands as 100% accurate.

And I haven't given you (whomever you include in 'us') credit for anything nor denied you credit for anything.  If you want to believe you've got it all figured out, well bless your little heart.  That must be a really comfortable place to be.

Me?  I prefer to go with science that keeps an open mind on ALL scientific concepts and allows for the possibility of new understandings and insights in everything.  And I respect science that admits that huge holes remain in the body of knowledge of the universe and all that is in it.  Such open mindedness allows us to move ever closer to the truth of all things however long and far that journey might be.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, more accurately, *that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.
> 
> And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But God has not been part of my argument.  It was simply a statement of fact in rebuttal to you folks who insist on dragging God into it.  But even a tunnel visioned anti-religious fanatic has to admit that there is no science that can falsify God in any way* or even cast question re His involvement.*  Therefore my statement stands as 100% accurate.
> 
> And I haven't given you (whomever you include in 'us') credit for anything nor denied you credit for anything.*  If you want to believe you've got it all figured out*, well bless your little heart.  That must be a really comfortable place to be.
> 
> Me?  I prefer to go with science that keeps an open mind on ALL scientific concepts and allows for the possibility of new understandings and insights in everything.  And *I respect science that admits that huge holes remain in the body of knowledge of the universe and all that is in it.*  Such open mindedness allows us to move ever closer to the truth of all things however long and far that journey might be.
Click to expand...

I never said I have it ALL figured out, I was merely pointing out that, contrary to the claims of others on this board, the FLoT is proven by a repeatable experiment and is not an article of faith!

Scientists, including myself, do admit that there are huge holes in our body of knowledge of the universe, but the FLoT is not one of them.

And regarding God, while it is true that science cannot falsify something that can't even be shown to exist, unlike energy which can be measured, that hardly means that science can't "cast question re his [or her] involvement." That is more close-minded than anything I've posted!!


----------



## konradv

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again my experience with scientists, *'proof' and 'certainty'* are very big words that* I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation*.
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
> Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
Click to expand...


To assume that scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth could be different elsewhere in the universe is magical, rather than scientific, thinking.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.
> 
> And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But God has not been part of my argument.  It was simply a statement of fact in rebuttal to you folks who insist on dragging God into it.  But even a tunnel visioned anti-religious fanatic has to admit that there is no science that can falsify God in any way* or even cast question re His involvement.*  Therefore my statement stands as 100% accurate.
> 
> And I haven't given you (whomever you include in 'us') credit for anything nor denied you credit for anything.*  If you want to believe you've got it all figured out*, well bless your little heart.  That must be a really comfortable place to be.
> 
> Me?  I prefer to go with science that keeps an open mind on ALL scientific concepts and allows for the possibility of new understandings and insights in everything.  And *I respect science that admits that huge holes remain in the body of knowledge of the universe and all that is in it.*  Such open mindedness allows us to move ever closer to the truth of all things however long and far that journey might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said I have it ALL figured out, I was merely pointing out that, contrary to the claims of others on this board, the FLoT is proven by a repeatable experiment and is not an article of faith!
> 
> Scientists, including myself, do admit that there are huge holes in our body of knowledge of the universe, but the FLoT is not one of them.
> 
> And regarding God, while it is true that science cannot falsify something that can't even be shown to exist, unlike energy which can be measured, that hardly means that science can't "cast question re his [or her] involvement." That is more close-minded than anything I've posted!!
Click to expand...


I also haven't at any time suggested that science can't question or even do research on God's (by whatever name) involvement.  But would you agree that it is close minded to unequivocably exclude God or any form of Intelligent Design as a possibility in the grand scheme of things?  The Lord knows that many Christians are scientists that never confuse religious belief with science but allow that both can be equally valid and even compliment each other.


----------



## ABikerSailor

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate.  We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.



I'll give you a hint..........the Hebrew language assigns a number to every letter of their alphabet, and Torah codes are based in numbers, as well as that thing the Hebrews do with numbers called Gumatria.

Physics outline the laws of the universe via mathematics.  If it's not mathematically viable as an equation, it isn't true.

No, you don't need faith to prove the answers are accurate.   You need math.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.
> 
> Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.
> 
> For example the origin of the universe.  We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.
> 
> Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
> Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and *sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy*, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
Click to expand...


Did you mean to say solar system here?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is thinking the Bruins will win, when you don't see them winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I can prove they will win using math.....but if they lose its just because, ummm, well..it had nothing to do with me having faith in the math I used
Click to expand...


I don't care who you are.  That's funny.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
> 
> 
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and *sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy*, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mean to say solar system here?
Click to expand...


I'm sure he'll post the pics from Alpha Centauri soon.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

manifold said:


> Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.



Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Montrovant said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
> 
> 
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and *sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy*, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mean to say solar system here?
Click to expand...


Shit........Voyager hasn't even gotten past the Ort Cloud yet.


----------



## konradv

M.D. Rawlings said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
Click to expand...


Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.


----------



## hortysir

konradv said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.
Click to expand...


There's fossil evidence of cross-specie evolution, like lizard-to-bird, etc...?????


----------



## ABikerSailor

hortysir said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's fossil evidence of cross-specie evolution, like lizard-to-bird, etc...?????
Click to expand...


Yep.  Pterodactyls and Archaeopterix fossils.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

konradv said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes.  But of course that deduction is predicated on the metaphysical presupositon of an absolute naturalism.


----------



## konradv

hortysir said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's fossil evidence of cross-specie evolution, like lizard-to-bird, etc...?????
Click to expand...


There's no such thing as cross-species evolution.  Each generation is of the same species, but over many, many generations of *divergence* a new species may be identified.  A cat won't change into a dog, but a common anscestor can be found.  The same with lizards and birds.  Birds may have evolved from the same family as T.Rex over the ages, but a modern lizard would not become a modern bird.


----------



## konradv

M.D. Rawlings said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  But of course that deduction is predicated on the metaphysical presupositon of an absolute naturalism.
Click to expand...


SO?  What's your point?  If "absolute naturalism" means life developed without design, then yes, presuppose away.  It still doesn't touch my reasons for believing in evolution unguided by anything but the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.  They may or may not have come from God, but that's a seperate question.


----------



## jillian

M.D. Rawlings said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too.  Man is not merely a creature of induction.  Right?
Click to expand...


interesting vocabulary for someone who is anti-intellectual and anti-science. do you think it somehow "proves" your belief system to do that? you know, sort of like calling "creationism" by the synonym "intelligent design".

just wondering.


----------



## Yoda

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.




Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :

A. Doesn't get it.
B. Refuses to get it
C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.

Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Yoda said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :
> 
> A. Doesn't get it.
> B. Refuses to get it
> C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.
> 
> Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.
Click to expand...


You should read past the first post...read what i've been replying with in the first several pages and you will understand my thread.

Im questioning those who hate creationists but have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.


----------



## konradv

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Yoda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :
> 
> A. Doesn't get it.
> B. Refuses to get it
> C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.
> 
> Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read past the first post...read what i've been replying with in the first several pages and you will understand my thread.
> 
> Im questioning those who hate creationists but have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.
Click to expand...


Faith is a loaded word and inappropriate in this context.  Belief in the Big Bang is based on observations of the universe.  You want to challenge the "faith", you need to challenge the data.


----------



## edthecynic

Montrovant said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes.  But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of.  Or even our solar system within the entire universe.  And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.
> 
> To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.
> 
> 
> 
> We've landed probes on Mars and *sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy*, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mean to say solar system here?
Click to expand...

Yes. The New Horizon probe is more than halfway to Pluto and it is collecting data from the Kuiper Belt.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

jillian said:


> _nteresting vocabulary for someone who is anti-intellectual and anti-science. do you think it somehow "proves" your belief system to do that? you know, sort of like calling "creationism" by the synonym "intelligent design".
> 
> just wondering._


_

Well, given that you clearly do not grasp the implications of my statement, you're charge that I'm "anti-intellectual" is a hoot, and given you're notion that metaphysical naturalism/Darwinian naturalism is the same thing as science itself, which is what you're unwittingly implying (another thing flying right over your head) . . .  well, 'nough said on that score.

Also, not that it will make any difference to a reactionary mind like yours, but creationism and ID theory are not the same thing.  Some of you don't realize how silly that is.  This slogan speak of yours, the rhetoric of politics, really, that of those who demagogue the dispute, is akin to the scientifically illiterate creationist arguing that if evolutionary theory is true, why are monkeys or apes or chimpanzees still around?  LOL!

You left the other thread early after making a similar drive-by insult, and so you missed the drubbing I gave your compatriots over the metaphysics of science and the nature of ID research.

See link:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/170193-the-lies-and-arrogance-of-evolutionists-6.html

Listen up, missy, you're flying nowhere near the altitude of my intellect and understanding of the metaphysics, the methodology and the theories of science.  In fact, your little plane has been grounded for some time due to grave malfunctions._


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

konradv said:


> SO?  What's your point?  If "absolute naturalism" means life developed without design, then yes, presuppose away.  It still doesn't touch my reasons for believing in evolution unguided by anything but the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.  They may or may not have come from God, but that's a separate question.



No.  Not exactly.  And you still don't get it because you weren't paying attention on the other thread.  The point is self-evident.  All you're really saying here is that because there is no designer of known life residing within the temporal plain/nothing beyond the temporal plain, evolutionary theory is necessarily true.  That's what's called circular reasoning.  That's what your "presupposing away" with.  

The laws of chemistry and physics, eh?  Well, it's certainly not based on your understanding of biochemistry:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...arrogance-of-evolutionists-8.html#post3738218


----------



## Yoda

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Yoda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :
> 
> A. Doesn't get it.
> B. Refuses to get it
> C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.
> 
> Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read past the first post...read what i've been replying with in the first several pages and you will understand my thread.
> 
> Im questioning those who hate creationists but have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.
Click to expand...


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't have faith in neither, in one hand you have a nice theory (but no longer prevalent) and on the other, I have a hard time believing some invisible, all knowing, all powerful being created everything. It just sounds like a fairy tale. BTW, Here's the theory that some scientist are looking at:  loop quantum gravity. Look it up, it's an intresting subject.


----------



## manifold

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Im questioning those who... have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.



And this is how many members?

My guess is zero.

And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I have to assume your belief is based solely on rock solid faith.  And what a sorry sorry thing in which to put one's faith.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## edthecynic

And now for a little entertainment. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o16D97dZ2Y]YouTube - &#x202a;Big Bang&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

manifold said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im questioning those who... have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how many members?
> 
> My guess is zero.
> 
> And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I have to assume your belief is based solely on rock solid faith.  And what a sorry sorry thing in which to put one's faith.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...


I guess i'll put myself back in context 



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Yoda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :
> 
> A. Doesn't get it.
> B. Refuses to get it
> C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.
> 
> Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read past the first post...read what i've been replying with in the first several pages and you will understand my thread.
> 
> Im questioning those who hate creationists but have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Focusing on the question in Pilgrim's restated context, the obvious answer is nobody knows.   We have no proof or evidence to go on and only the incredible mind we are blessed with to consider possibilities.

There are those who suppose that all the stuff of the universe has always been there as there could not possibly have been a Creator for it, and yet nobody has yet determined exactly what causes living cells to divide and living things to grow.  Does a 100-ft tree grown from a single seed remove as much stuff from the universe as it contributes?

There are those who say energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet who can say for certain that every living cell, each a unit of energy itself, takes as much energy from the universe as it contributes?  Can anybody say for certain that it does?.

There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random.  And they see no dichotomy in that.

And nobody has yet been able to explain through any science known to humankind how it is that our species is capable of caring about other species that it has never even seen or what love is or what makes something beautiful to behold or how there can be an end of space or time.

Way too many questions to answer the thesis of the thread.

A whole lot of possibilities though for those with open minds.


----------



## hortysir

Foxfyre said:


> There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random.  And they see no dichotomy in that.


I love that part and know exactly who it pertains to


----------



## Eranimus

very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.


----------



## Immanuel

Eranimus said:


> very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.



Although I believe that God created all things, I want to ask you what other ideas would you teach if you will not allow the teaching of Evolution.  As far as I know the Big Bang Theory is taught as being theory while Evolution is taught as fact.

But, if you are not going to teach Evolution what else are you going to teach?

One of the benefits of teaching Evolution is that it teaches the process of science.  It also helps to teach the process of life.  I, myself, am highly skeptical of the idea of "missing links" and dogs evolving into whales, but, I think it is evident that through time species do adapt/evolve.   

Until we have a better theory, I have no problem teaching evolution.  I don't want a teacher standing in front of the class telling kids they are stupid if they believe in God, but I have no problem with them teaching evolutionary science as we know it.

Immie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> Focusing on the question in Pilgrim's restated context, the obvious answer is nobody knows.   We have no proof or evidence to go on and only the incredible mind we are blessed with to consider possibilities.
> 
> There are those who suppose that all the stuff of the universe has always been there as there could not possibly have been a Creator for it, and yet nobody has yet determined exactly what causes living cells to divide and living things to grow.  Does a 100-ft tree grown from a single seed remove as much stuff from the universe as it contributes?
> 
> There are those who say energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet who can say for certain that every living cell, each a unit of energy itself, takes as much energy from the universe as it contributes?  Can anybody say for certain that it does?.
> 
> There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random.  And they see no dichotomy in that.
> 
> And nobody has yet been able to explain through any science known to humankind how it is that our species is capable of caring about other species that it has never even seen or what love is or what makes something beautiful to behold or how there can be an end of space or time.
> 
> Way too many questions to answer the thesis of the thread.
> 
> A whole lot of possibilities though for those with open minds.



So many questions for those with open minds indeed.

That was my whole point in creating this thread was to try and open a few minds that have been shut with either 100% faith in science or 100% faith in religion.  Not questioning things is bad for us all.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Focusing on the question in Pilgrim's restated context, the obvious answer is nobody knows.   We have no proof or evidence to go on and only the incredible mind we are blessed with to consider possibilities.
> 
> There are those who suppose that all the stuff of the universe has always been there as there could not possibly have been a Creator for it, and yet nobody has yet determined exactly what causes living cells to divide and living things to grow.  Does a 100-ft tree grown from a single seed remove as much stuff from the universe as it contributes?
> 
> There are those who say energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet who can say for certain that every living cell, each a unit of energy itself, takes as much energy from the universe as it contributes?*  Can anybody say for certain that it does?.*
> 
> There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random.  And they see no dichotomy in that.
> 
> And nobody has yet been able to explain through any science known to humankind how it is that our species is capable of caring about other species that it has never even seen or what love is or what makes something beautiful to behold or how there can be an end of space or time.
> 
> Way too many questions to answer the thesis of the thread.
> 
> A whole lot of possibilities though for those with open minds.


Anyone who has taken the time to repeat Joule's experiment can be certain. Only those who are too afraid to put the FLoT to the test are closed minded enough to doubt it.


----------



## rdean

Where did fossils come from?

Did God put bones in the ground do show us what creatures from other planets look like?

To give dogs something to chew on and dig up?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

rdean said:


> Where did fossils come from?
> 
> Did God put bones in the ground do show us what creatures from other planets look like?
> 
> To give dogs something to chew on and dig up?



Fossils came from dead animals and this is how they are formed

Bones got buried by debris over time thats how they got into the ground when animals died.

I dont think dogs like to chew on fossils, they prefer non-fossilized bones.


----------



## FA_Q2

You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of &#8216;I don&#8217;t know.&#8217;  You do not need to know the entire story to explore it&#8217;s outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.  


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.


----------



## Foxfyre

Eranimus said:


> very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.



I have no problem with schools teaching ANYTHING so long as it is not taught as dogma or something people should or must believe.  I have zero problem with a science teacher explaining that million/billions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and theories within these beliefs can answer questions that science cannot yet do.  Such honest teaching allows students to think, consider, and analyze what is reasonable and what is not.  It teaches them to think about how much larger the questions are than what the science we now have can answer.

I have no problem and would strongly encourage that same teacher to explain that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not science and won't be taught or considered as science.   And then I think the science teacher must teach all concepts of science that we now have which would include evolution.  The science teacher should also be teaching what we can learn from evolution and allow or even present questions that evolution cannot answer.

I think we have a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and we will never advance beyond the primitive science we have if we infer that the science we have is what there is and there is nothing more to learn about it.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of I dont know.  You do not need to know the entire story to explore its outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.



Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of I dont know.  You do not need to know the entire story to explore its outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
Click to expand...


I would have responded but you said what I was thinking Fox .


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of &#8216;I don&#8217;t know.&#8217;  You do not need to know the entire story to explore it&#8217;s outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even *the big bang requires faith that* *the* observable *expansion of the universe* has been expanding since the big bang and *will always continue to do so.*  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent science? Scientists are hardly in agreement as to whether the universe will expand forever or not. If you have even a casual relationship with the Big Bang, then undoubtedly you've heard of the "BIG CRUNCH." I've even mentioned it earlier in this very thread. So how you can be dishonest enough to make the highlighted statement is beyond me!

HowStuffWorks "How the Big Crunch Theory Works"

The universe is huge compared to a single planet, even a single galaxy,  and its timeline is much, much longer. Because of this, cosmologists  can't know with certainty how the universe began or how it will end.  They can, however, collect evidence, make educated guesses and establish  theories.

**One such theory, concerning the future of  the universe, is playfully known as the "big crunch." According to this  theory, the universe will one day stop expanding. Then, as gravity pulls  on the matter, the universe will begin to contract, falling inward  until it has collapsed back into a super-hot, super-dense singularity.*  If the theory holds true, the universe is like a giant soufflé. It  starts out small, then expands as it heats up. Eventually, however, the  soufflé cools and begins to collapse.

   Nobody likes a fallen soufflé, and we shouldn't like a universe that  behaves like one. It spells the doom of every galaxy, star and planet  that currently exists. Luckily, the big crunch is not a guarantee. * Cosmologists are currently engaged in a hot debate. One camp says the  soufflé will fall; the other camp says the soufflé will expand forever.*  It will be billions of years before we know for sure which camp is  right.


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of I dont know.  You do not need to know the entire story to explore its outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
Click to expand...


This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.


----------



## Foxfyre

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of I dont know.  You do not need to know the entire story to explore its outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.
Click to expand...


But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.
> 
> What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?
Click to expand...

If I had "misrepresented" your post, you would have explained where! You didn't, therefore I didn't.

And you refuse to see the difference between in reliability between a proven law and a theory! The Big Bang does not violate the proven FLoT and Creation does, therefore a person can have much more confidence in the Big Bang than in Creation.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.
> 
> What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I had "misrepresented" your post, you would have explained where! You didn't, therefore I didn't.
> 
> And you refuse to see the difference between in reliability between a proven law and a theory! The Big Bang does not violate the proven FLoT and Creation does, therefore a person can have much more confidence in the Big Bang than in Creation.
Click to expand...


Sorry ed but I have found it pretty frustrating to try to explain anything to you so I avoid that as much as possible.  No offense.  Your last ad hominem comment pretty well illustrates the reason why.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.
> 
> What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> If I had "misrepresented" your post, you would have explained where! You didn't, therefore I didn't.
> 
> And you refuse to see the difference between in reliability between a proven law and a theory! The Big Bang does not violate the proven FLoT and Creation does, therefore a person can have much more confidence in the Big Bang than in Creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry ed but I have found it pretty frustrating to try to explain anything to you so I avoid that as much as possible.  No offense.  Your last ad hominem comment pretty well illustrates the reason why.
Click to expand...

Baloney!


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.
> 
> What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?
Click to expand...


Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?


----------



## Foxfyre

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.
> 
> What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?
Click to expand...


What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid?  Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc.   But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation.  Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science.  To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.

I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well.  I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference.  So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.
> 
> What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid?  Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc.   But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation.  Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science.  To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.
> 
> I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.
Click to expand...


Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.


----------



## Foxfyre

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid?  Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc.   But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation.  Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science.  To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.
> 
> I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.
Click to expand...


The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?"  It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "

I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.

How did you take it?


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid?  Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc.   But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation.  Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science.  To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.
> 
> I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?"  It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "
> 
> I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.
> 
> How did you take it?
Click to expand...


Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.


----------



## Foxfyre

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?"  It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "
> 
> I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.
> 
> How did you take it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.
Click to expand...


Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility.  There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.

That's cool though.  I can find somethng else to do.


----------



## konradv

Foxfyre said:


> Eranimus said:
> 
> 
> 
> very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with schools teaching ANYTHING so long as it is not taught as dogma or something people should or must believe.  I have zero problem with a science teacher explaining that million/billions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and theories within these beliefs can answer questions that science cannot yet do.  Such honest teaching allows students to think, consider, and analyze what is reasonable and what is not.  It teaches them to think about how much larger the questions are than what the science we now have can answer.
> 
> *I have no problem and would strongly encourage that same teacher to explain that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not science and won't be taught or considered as science. *  And then I think the science teacher must teach all concepts of science that we now have which would include evolution.  The science teacher should also be teaching what we can learn from evolution and allow or even present questions that evolution cannot answer.
> 
> I think we have a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and we will never advance beyond the primitive science we have if we infer that the science we have is what there is and there is nothing more to learn about it.
Click to expand...


It may be "honest teaching", but belongs in a Social Studies class not a Biology class.  The part in BOLD seems particularly strange.  You're asking a science teacher to teach something you admit isn't science!!!


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?"  It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "
> 
> I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.
> 
> How did you take it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility.  There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.
> 
> That's cool though.  I can find somethng else to do.
Click to expand...


And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?


----------



## Foxfyre

konradv said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eranimus said:
> 
> 
> 
> very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with schools teaching ANYTHING so long as it is not taught as dogma or something people should or must believe.  I have zero problem with a science teacher explaining that million/billions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and theories within these beliefs can answer questions that science cannot yet do.  Such honest teaching allows students to think, consider, and analyze what is reasonable and what is not.  It teaches them to think about how much larger the questions are than what the science we now have can answer.
> 
> *I have no problem and would strongly encourage that same teacher to explain that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not science and won't be taught or considered as science. *  And then I think the science teacher must teach all concepts of science that we now have which would include evolution.  The science teacher should also be teaching what we can learn from evolution and allow or even present questions that evolution cannot answer.
> 
> I think we have a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and we will never advance beyond the primitive science we have if we infer that the science we have is what there is and there is nothing more to learn about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may be "honest teaching", but belongs in a Social Studies class not a Biology class.  The part in BOLD seems particularly strange.  You're asking a science teacher to teach something you admit isn't science!!!
Click to expand...


No, I'm asking a science teacher to be honest with his students about what science can and cannot answer even in theory.  My science teachers certainly did that when I was in school and it should be encouraged now as well.


----------



## Foxfyre

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility.  There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.
> 
> That's cool though.  I can find somethng else to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?
Click to expand...


I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each.  But that's just me.


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility.  There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.
> 
> That's cool though.  I can find somethng else to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each.  But that's just me.
Click to expand...


So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.


----------



## Foxfyre

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each.  But that's just me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe.  It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.

I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread.   He can correct me if I am wrong about that.


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of I dont know.  You do not need to know the entire story to explore its outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
Click to expand...

Wrong fox, and you know it is wrong.  No one anywhere ever stated that the big bang was the ONLY option.  It is just the best one that we currently have.  That requires ZERO faith.  Period.  You are trying to force the way you see things, with faith, on others that do not share that trait.  Please stop, it is annoying.


Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each.  But that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe.  It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.
> 
> I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread.   He can correct me if I am wrong about that.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe.  That is the center of the theory.  Before the big bang happened, as the theory goes, the universe and all the physical laws that it follows did not exist.  Therefore it is the beginning.  Anything before that is rather meaningless as time did not necessarily exist before the big bang though there are some theories that are based in string theory that try and define what made up the material that the big bang started with.  Those, however, are far beyond the scope of an internet board and my mathematical or scientific knowledge.  I cant begin to properly understand a fourth dimension let alone the many that string theory works with.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing one crucial point here plymco.  Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories.  There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists.  You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point.  We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it.  That requires no faith whatsoever.  We do not know where the big bang material came from.  That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of I dont know.  You do not need to know the entire story to explore its outcome.  Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith.  Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available.  They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.
> 
> As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole.  There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science.  It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.
> 
> 
> I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known.  I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong fox, and you know it is wrong.  No one anywhere ever stated that the big bang was the ONLY option.  It is just the best one that we currently have.  That requires ZERO faith.  Period.  You are trying to force the way you see things, with faith, on others that do not share that trait.  Please stop, it is annoying.
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe.  It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.
> 
> I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread.   He can correct me if I am wrong about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the contrary, the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe.  That is the center of the theory.  Before the big bang happened, as the theory goes, the universe and all the physical laws that it follows did not exist.  Therefore it is the beginning.  Anything before that is rather meaningless as time did not necessarily exist before the big bang though there are some theories that are based in string theory that try and define what made up the material that the big bang started with.  Those, however, are far beyond the scope of an internet board and my mathematical or scientific knowledge.  I cant begin to properly understand a fourth dimension let alone the many that string theory works with.
Click to expand...


No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.
> 
> In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  *From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is???? *



And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

I, for one, do not hate creationism, its clearly religion, not science, and should be treated as such. Its the disingenuous, partisan politicians who try to pass it off as science in violation of the Establishment Clause I have disdain for.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.
> 
> In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  *From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is???? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?
Click to expand...


I didn't bring up a super/supreme being.  So why did you?


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so.  We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.
> 
> The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time.  But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong fox, and you know it is wrong.  No one anywhere ever stated that the big bang was the ONLY option.  It is just the best one that we currently have.  That requires ZERO faith.  Period.  You are trying to force the way you see things, with faith, on others that do not share that trait.  Please stop, it is annoying.
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe.  It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.
> 
> I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread.   He can correct me if I am wrong about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the contrary, the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe.  That is the center of the theory.  Before the big bang happened, as the theory goes, the universe and all the physical laws that it follows did not exist.  Therefore it is the beginning.  Anything before that is rather meaningless as time did not necessarily exist before the big bang though there are some theories that are based in string theory that try and define what made up the material that the big bang started with.  Those, however, are far beyond the scope of an internet board and my mathematical or scientific knowledge.  I cant begin to properly understand a fourth dimension let alone the many that string theory works with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.
> 
> In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????
Click to expand...

I did not mean to say that your supposition was wrong.  What I meant was that you were wrong in your assertion that those who put stock in the big bang theory are doing so with faith as well as the assertion that anyone here is saying that is the only way it could have happened.  The big bang is the best so far.  Nothing is discounted but the evidence points to the current theory.  When that evidence changes, so too will the prominent theory.  

That explanation is quite scientific.  Like I said, you would need to understand current string theory in order for it to make sense and I lack the knowledge to make that even remotely clear.  Imagine if time did not exist.  In that setting, where things came from and where they are going are meaningless yet that is the vision that is currently being used.  Strings that are one dimensional causing all that we see and experience.  The overriding theory would be meaningless if not for the fact it can be proven mathematically AND makes accurate predictions of particles.  It may not be intuitive but neither is quantum mechanics and that seem to be well established.


----------



## Woyzeck

Foxfyre said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each.  But that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe.  It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.
> 
> I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread.   He can correct me if I am wrong about that.
Click to expand...


So that's a yes on the creationism bit? You're trying _super _hard to not say it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I, for one, do not hate creationism, its clearly religion, not science, and should be treated as such. Its the disingenuous, partisan politicians who try to pass it off as science in violation of the Establishment Clause I have disdain for.



Nah!  You reserve your disdain for the Free Exercise Clause as you impose your scientism on others.

We see ya clearly.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Woyzeck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each.  But that's just me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


That is odd, isn't it?  I've noticed that too.  However, the Big Bang Theory and ID are not incompatible, and for that matter, the former is not incompatible with creationism either.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Other ideas. . . .

Why God did not Create the Universe

Big Bang Abondoned


----------



## hortysir

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.
> 
> In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  *From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is???? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?
Click to expand...

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.


----------



## FA_Q2

_wrog thread_


----------



## Montrovant

hortysir said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.
> 
> In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  *From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is???? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.
> 
> Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.
> 
> In fact, come to think of it, *I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible* and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments.  I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible.  It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.


----------



## geauxtohell

FA_Q2 said:


> _wrog thread_



Better than facing the music in the on-topic threads.

Kind of like being an intellectual fugitive.


----------



## AllieBaba

Montrovant said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?
> 
> 
> 
> Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.
> 
> Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.
> 
> In fact, come to think of it, *I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible* and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.
Click to expand...

 
You skipped over the part that illustrates the arrogance of the anti-creationists...the ones that say that all those who believe in a Creator are stupid, ignorant, brain dead, so on and so forth. It's their primary argument for ...some other theory. No specific theory (they don't have one). Their theory is just that GOD DOESN'T EXIST and so people who think he created the universe are worthy of ridicule.


----------



## FA_Q2

AllieBaba said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.
> 
> Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.
> 
> In fact, come to think of it, *I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible* and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You skipped over the part that illustrates the arrogance of the anti-creationists...the ones that say that all those who believe in a Creator are stupid, ignorant, brain dead, so on and so forth. It's their primary argument for ...some other theory. No specific theory (they don't have one). Their theory is just that GOD DOESN'T EXIST and so people who think he created the universe are worthy of ridicule.
Click to expand...


But who is making those statements?  Mostly people like truth and dean

What is the point of framing an argument against the likes of those


----------



## Shogun

Immanuel said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.
> 
> Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by *more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.*
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens.  Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened.  Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening.  From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.
> 
> There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


oh well.. i'm glad you were able to claim as much without citing nary a single comparative statistic!


----------



## Old Rocks

hortysir said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong.  I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced.  Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed.  Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.
> 
> In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang?  Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with.  It just miraculously appeared?  *From nothing?  Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is???? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.
> 
> Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.
> 
> In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.
Click to expand...


LOL. Grew up in a very fundementalist family. Don't even try to tell that kind of BS.


----------



## Old Rocks

AllieBaba said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.
> 
> Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.
> 
> In fact, come to think of it, *I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible* and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You skipped over the part that illustrates the arrogance of the anti-creationists...the ones that say that all those who believe in a Creator are stupid, ignorant, brain dead, so on and so forth. It's their primary argument for ...some other theory. No specific theory (they don't have one). Their theory is just that GOD DOESN'T EXIST and so people who think he created the universe are worthy of ridicule.
Click to expand...


And there are a like number of creationists that state the same about those that cite the evidence for evolution that is all around us. From the genes within our cells to the rocks underneath our feet.

I don't pretend to know how the universe came to be. However, from the evidence that I see, evolution occurred, is occuring, and will continue to occur for as long as life exsts on this planet. And this fact looks to be completely independent of the existance, or lack thereof, of a Diety.


----------



## Shogun

Platypus Genome Explains Animal's Peculiar Features; Holds Clues To Evolution Of Mammals


----------



## techieny

Anybody have a good answer to what the object is depicted in the NASA SDO image of the sun 12/10?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Shogun said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens.  Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened.  Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening.  From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.
> 
> There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh well.. i'm glad you were able to claim as much without citing nary a single comparative statistic!
Click to expand...


i believe you once said its impossile to prove a negative..........or was it someone else


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

techieny said:


> Anybody have a good answer to what the object is depicted in the NASA SDO image of the sun 12/10?



mind re-posting the picture or a link?

i'll give you my 2 cents.


----------



## Foxfyre

The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there.  But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer.  People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains.  The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid.  But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.

And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution.  Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.

So who is the more open minded and objective here?

People of faith who embrace science?

Or those who embrace science but reject religion?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there.  But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer.  People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains.  The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid.  But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.
> 
> And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution.  Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.
> 
> So who is the more open minded and objective here?
> 
> People of faith who embrace science?
> 
> Or those who embrace science but reject religion?



if you were here i would hug you for understanding why this thread was created in the first place!

Thank you to everyone participating for providing the examples that led to this post by Fox.  She sees, through your posts, what I have been seeing through real life comments and posts made on this forum on the subject.


----------



## freedombecki

Foxfyre said:


> The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there.  But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer.  People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains.  The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid.  But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.
> 
> And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution.  Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.
> 
> So who is the more open minded and objective here?
> 
> People of faith who embrace science?
> 
> Or those who embrace science but reject religion?



I'm glad you brought that up, Foxfyre.

However, this thread was begun in the Sci-Tech area of the board, not the Religion area.

Not all Christian believers feel everything said in the Bible is cast in stone, but was written based on the universe as seen by learned men in a context of available knowledge. Back then, they couldn't see cells in animals and plants as we can today with an electron microscope. Also, ancient man was unable to carbon-date any given object with neither electronic nor digital equipment.

As a consequence, those who disregard a book of faith as one that could use a little improvement here and there are those who might put a Galileo in a small cell for a few months for saying the earth was not the center of the universe, until they could figure out what to do about his findings that seemed contrary to their canon law.

Other fundamentalists who chiseled out the seven-days theory of the creation of the earth were not aware that earth had already been around a few billion years before Adam was created, and others ignore that Adam was created in a world with other men in it until they read the second story of creation in Genesis. That should send a message to scholars that including two creation stories meant that scholars agreed to disagree by including _that other_ creation story.

The fact might be that people who love God may think the earth is older than ten thousand years, and that the Bible is the story of mankind's struggle to understand the world and the universe God made for us to explore in its infinite majesty, not quite completely known to us at present, any more than it was known to man at the dawning of his spirituality, particularly at the time he was able through the construction of an alphabet and numbers, to write down his then-present theories.

If we wrote into the book of Genesis a third creation story--one based on the Big Bang theory, three thousand years later, future scholars might be howling at that as well, and sure as the sun rises in the east, the knowledge of the status of the creation of the universe would most likely be met with some severe guffawing in the light of knowledge three thousand years after that, and so on.

A number of years passed before the Vatican completely exonerated a wrongfully-jailed Galileo. Galileo felt badly that his findings offended the powers of the church of his day, but he may not have realized that the Sun is not the center either, since it is hurling through space at a rapid pace also, heading who knows where, and when it gets to the next point where imminent impact seems likely, that object may have moved also, leaving human calculations incorrect.

That's a lot of speculation on my part, but if Christ hadn't said, "Knock, and the door shall be opened, seek and ye shall find," a truly rigid church would've gone down forever mistaken about who we are, how we got here exactly, and where we will be in a million years.

What is true today may very well be what is not true tomorrow, so why shoot each other off the face of the earth over things we just don't have a certain handle on?

Some people believe there is no proof God exists, yet some of us are certain he lives among us. We cannot see love, but we know a certain parent, relative, teacher, or even a sibling or friend loved us at one time, and we don'[t need certain proofs for those kinds of things. They're spiritual and affect us in a subjective way, not a scientific one, although one could make much of endorphins and hormones hastening our step and the cheerful muscles of our smile.

Scientific evidence comes when someone stuck to the scientific method religiously and came up with a theory that seems (subjectively) rock-solid. If it is proven mathematically and authenticated by numerous mathematicians, the theory seems even more so, like a truth. Sooner or later, someone else adds to that body of scientific evidence until another foundation allows a pillar of evidence to stand as part of the building. But do all things fall away as the Bible says? Where are the 7 wonders of the ancient world today?

Here are 9 lists of groups of men who acclaim "Wonders of the World:" LINK

9 lists, no replications?

Who's lyin'? 

The sundry theories of creationism?

Again: Who's lyin'?

The key is contextual. Looking at the physical world's creation and the spiritual world's creation are simply different subjective theories, so then is it God, the creator of math vs. math? I don't think so.

Spiritual laws have to do with how well we treat others.

Earthly laws are bound by different schools of thought--as today's Civil Engineers came up with an entirely different set of "Wonders of the World" than say, Oceanographers did.

Neither group of scientists is bad. They merely appreciate one set of theories that is in accordance with their discipline of learning and the tastes acquired therein.

Just sayin'.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.



Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.  

That being the case, God has no place being in science.


----------



## freedombecki

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
Click to expand...


Geaux, is there someone in the world that you like a lot or even love?

"Prove it." (I mean that in a nice way.)

I love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and he's there for me.

I can't prove my reality to you, but I respect many of the opinions you have, including the certain theory that God does not exist for you at this now place in the continuum of time.

Not only do I respect your beliefs and disbeliefs, but I like you for stating your opinion with courage of conviction, as unlike mine as it is.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
Click to expand...


did you read the entire post that fox made?

I believe, from your response, that you did not.  If you did then you missed what she was saying.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
Click to expand...


I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist.  There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this.  Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it  do seem to be anti-religionists.

If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.

Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created.  Some do.  I feel safe in saying that most don't.  I  can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way.  If their faith gives them comfort, power to them.   The God I know won't hold it against them either.

But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group.  And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole.  And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.

All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.


----------



## Shogun

We can't prove that gravity isn't the product of the tooth fairy buttfucking the Lucky Charms leprechaun either.  Does it make sense that we should ASSUME that it's possible just because someone has faith about it?

of course not.  Enter, science.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist.  There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this.  Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it  do seem to be anti-religionists.
> 
> If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.
> 
> Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created.  Some do.  I feel safe in saying that most don't.  I  can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way.  If their faith gives them comfort, power to them.   The God I know won't hold it against them either.
> 
> But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group.  And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole.  And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.
> 
> All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.
Click to expand...


I have a few things to say about this.

First, of course the religious will not say that because god cannot be proven he does not exist.  That's incredibly obvious.  I don't see what the point of stating it is.  Basically you've said, 'Those who believe in god won't deny his existence'.  (I am generalizing as almost every poster who I've seen express religious belief here has followed one of the Abrahamic religions, so I'm ignoring the small few who have different spiritual beliefs)

Next, whether or not Creationists or followers of ID embrace scientific theories has no impact on whether Creationism or ID should be taught in science classes.  That is the main argument that I have seen, that Creationism/ID are not science.

There have been plenty of posts by people saying either that evolution is false, or that it is halfway correct (the micro/macro evolution argument).  The argument for that seems to be that because we do not actually see the changes that are believed to occur over millions of years, they do not happen.  That sounds suspiciously like what you are complaining about people doing in regards to the existence of god.

Perhaps the Creationism/ID people have been more open minded in this thread.  That is not always a good thing, however.  When it comes to scientific study, there needs to be limits to being 'open minded'; it may be more open minded to consider god, but if that being's influence cannot be measured or falsified it is actually counter-productive to include it.

Finally, I am anti-religious.  I don't understand how so many can so strongly believe in the world's various religions.  In my eyes there are too many reasons not to believe in any particular religion.  However, being anti-religious does not mean denying any possibility of there being a god.

But why, if there is a god and it is a loving, merciful god, would eating chocolate be so bad for me?


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there.  But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.
> 
> Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer.  People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains.  The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid.  But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.
> 
> And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution.  Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.
> 
> So who is the more open minded and objective here?
> 
> People of faith who embrace science?
> 
> Or those who embrace science but reject religion?


I call BS on that.;  Mostly, the assertion is that ID is not science but rather it is religion and therefore does not belong in the schools.  

You say that evolutionists are being close minded by saying that god does not exist.  Theists are equally being close minded when they state that god exists as fact.  They are bein MORE close minded when they refuse to acknowledge that ID is faith and not religion and even MORE close minded when they refuse to even examine the evidence for evolution.

You say evolutionists are close minded because they say faith is invalid because it cannot answer questions while the faithful accept there are answers that are beyond our grasp.  This is patently false.  Evolutionists say that faith has no place in science, not that faith is wrong.  SEVERAL times it has been brought up that god may have, in fact, created us but that does not make it science.  As a matter of fact, it is the exact opposite.  The religious refuse to acknowledge evidence because they already have the answer to everything: God.  It is the scientist that is humble enough to accept that there are things that we do not know.  It is the faithful that demand certain theories be taught in absence of evidence because they already have all the answers in this book of theirs.

The people that want religion to invade the schools are NOT open minded.


----------



## peach174

It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war. 
Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room. 
Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.


----------



## konradv

peach174 said:


> It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
> What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
> This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
> The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
> Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
> At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
> Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
> We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
> Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
> Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
> Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.



As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class.  Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others.  We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

konradv said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
> What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
> This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
> The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
> Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
> At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
> Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
> We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
> Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
> Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
> Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class.  Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others.  We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...


They should mention it.   It should be presented as an alternative viewpoint that some people have and maybe spend one or two classes on it, then spend the other dozens of classes on the science aspect of where life comes from.

Its not wrong to educate children as to what some people believe so they can have a basic understanding of what some people think.   

After all both are theories and we are supposed to be teaching our children how to think, not what to think .


----------



## peach174

konradv said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
> What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
> This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
> The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
> Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
> At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
> Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
> We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
> Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
> Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
> Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class.  Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others.  We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...



A minority of Christians?
All Christian's Jew's and Muslims believe in the Creator. As well as many other religions.
Held hostage? You have the right to not believe. Listening to the word God is not being held hostage. It will not change your view.
Non believers should be happy that they live in this country where they have the right not to believe. Many countries force their religious teachings.
Listening to and forcing are two very different things.


----------



## konradv

peach174 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
> What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
> This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
> The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
> Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
> At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
> Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
> We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
> Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
> Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
> Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class.  Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others.  We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A minority of Christians?
> All Christian's Jew's and Muslims believe in the Creator. As well as many other religions.
> Held hostage? You have the right to not believe. Listening to the word God is not being held hostage. It will not change your view.
> Non believers should be happy that they live in this country where they have the right not to believe. Many countries force their religious teachings.
> Listening to and forcing are two very different things.
Click to expand...


Most Christians don't believe the Genesis story is fact.  Most mainline Christian denominations don't consider creationism to be a tenet of the faith.  That's totally seperate question from whether there's a Creator or not.  Children ARE being forced, if they have to listen to minority religious doctrine in a class that's supposed to be about science.  My parents wanted me to have a religious education, so they paid for me to have it.  The creationists, on the other hand, seem to want to feeload on the taxpayer!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

Yes the thread was started in the science section but I (apparently rightfuly so) saw the thesis as being the conflict between what science cannot address or answer and why Creationism/ID can be rational as one possibility for answers that science cannot answer.  An open mind allows for consideration of such a concept even as it is acknowledged that it is not science and should not be taught as science.

And an open mind leaves all unanswered quest8ions of science and religion as unanswered questions and not as reasons to dismiss either.

A competent science teacher does not pretend that all questions can be or will be answered scientifically or that concepts, theories, or possibilities outside of science should never be acknowledged.

A competent religion teacher does not pretend that the Bible contains every relevent question re the origins of the universe and why things are the way they are or that the study of science, including origins and evolution,  has no purpose or relevance for people of faith.


----------



## geauxtohell

freedombecki said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geaux, is there someone in the world that you like a lot or even love?
> 
> "Prove it." (I mean that in a nice way.)
> 
> I love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and he's there for me.
> 
> I can't prove my reality to you, but I respect many of the opinions you have, including the certain theory that God does not exist for you at this now place in the continuum of time.
> 
> Not only do I respect your beliefs and disbeliefs, but I like you for stating your opinion with courage of conviction, as unlike mine as it is.
Click to expand...


Again.  I think you guys are missing my point.

I have no problem with a person believing something on faith.  Nor would I ever attempt to interject myself with that.

I have a problem with people trying to interject faith into the scientific method which is a logical, man-made set of rules to keep science grounded in the natural world.  It's more of a procedural debate than a quantitative one.  I would  never presume that Science could disprove a diety.  That is fully outside of it's scope.  

Somethings belong in theology, some things belong in philosophy.  Only science belongs in science.

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection?  No.)

So again, I am not claiming that I.D. doesn't exist.  I am claiming that it is not a scientific theory.

This is exactly what the court in Dover found.  

Thanks for the kind words.  My interest is only in keeping the scientific method pure.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist.  They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist.  There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this.  Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it  do seem to be anti-religionists.
> 
> If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.
> 
> Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created.  Some do.  I feel safe in saying that most don't.  I  can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way.  If their faith gives them comfort, power to them.   The God I know won't hold it against them either.
> 
> But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group.  And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole.  And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.
> 
> All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.
Click to expand...


I see a major difference in creationism and ID.  Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules.  These rules mandate observability and falsifiability.  You can't falsify the existence of God.  Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories.  This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.

Rightfully so.  If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?  My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> That being the case, God has no place being in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist.  There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this.  Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it  do seem to be anti-religionists.
> 
> If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.
> 
> Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created.  Some do.  I feel safe in saying that most don't.  I  can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way.  If their faith gives them comfort, power to them.   The God I know won't hold it against them either.
> 
> But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group.  And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole.  And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.
> 
> All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see a major difference in creationism and ID.  Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules.  These rules mandate observability and falsifiability.  You can't falsify the existence of God.  Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories.  This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.
> 
> Rightfully so.  If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".
Click to expand...


And you seem to be incapable of the concepts that the thread author and I seem to be able to understand easily.  Or you inadvertently continue to miss the point I am making or you are intentionally blowing off the principles I see in this discussion.

Creationism IS a form of I.D. for instance.  But all IDers are not Creationists.  An open mind would acknowledge that this is an important part of and important to arguments being made.

Neither the thread author nor I have once suggested that God be introduced into scientific theories.  Each of us have clearly stated that Creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught as science.  It would be nice if the open minded here would acknowledge that instead of continuing to insinuate something different.

Prejudice and bigotry is a difficult thing though.  It does close the mind and makes it impossible to see many possibilities outside the narrow concepts dictated by the prejudice and bigotry.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist.  There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this.  Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it  do seem to be anti-religionists.
> 
> If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.
> 
> Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created.  Some do.  I feel safe in saying that most don't.  I  can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way.  If their faith gives them comfort, power to them.   The God I know won't hold it against them either.
> 
> But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group.  And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole.  And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.
> 
> All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a major difference in creationism and ID.  Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules.  These rules mandate observability and falsifiability.  You can't falsify the existence of God.  Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories.  This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.
> 
> Rightfully so.  If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you seem to be incapable of the concepts that the thread author and I seem to be able to understand easily.  Or you inadvertently continue to miss the point I am making or you are intentionally blowing off the principles I see in this discussion.
> 
> Creationism IS a form of I.D. for instance.  But all IDers are not Creationists.  An open mind would acknowledge that this is an important part of and important to arguments being made.
> 
> Neither the thread author nor I have once suggested that God be introduced into scientific theories.  Each of us have clearly stated that Creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught as science.  It would be nice if the open minded here would acknowledge that instead of continuing to insinuate something different.
> 
> Prejudice and bigotry is a difficult thing though.  It does close the mind and makes it impossible to see many possibilities outside the narrow concepts dictated by the prejudice and bigotry.
Click to expand...


I haven't really been following the "OP".  I have just been discussing a matter that I am passionate about:  keeping ID out of science.  If you don't think it belongs in science either, then I am probably not directing my comments in the right direction.

There are many posters who do think it belongs in science, so I'll continue to make my points.  

As I said, I have no problem with ID/Creationism as a personal belief.  I have a problem with sticking them in the scientific method.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see a major difference in creationism and ID.  Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.
> 
> However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules.  These rules mandate observability and falsifiability.  You can't falsify the existence of God.  Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories.  This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.
> 
> Rightfully so.  If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you seem to be incapable of the concepts that the thread author and I seem to be able to understand easily.  Or you inadvertently continue to miss the point I am making or you are intentionally blowing off the principles I see in this discussion.
> 
> Creationism IS a form of I.D. for instance.  But all IDers are not Creationists.  An open mind would acknowledge that this is an important part of and important to arguments being made.
> 
> Neither the thread author nor I have once suggested that God be introduced into scientific theories.  Each of us have clearly stated that Creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught as science.  It would be nice if the open minded here would acknowledge that instead of continuing to insinuate something different.
> 
> Prejudice and bigotry is a difficult thing though.  It does close the mind and makes it impossible to see many possibilities outside the narrow concepts dictated by the prejudice and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't really been following the "OP".  I have just been discussing a matter that I am passionate about:  keeping ID out of science.  If you don't think it belongs in science either, then I am probably not directing my comments in the right direction.
> 
> There are many posters who do think it belongs in science, so I'll continue to make my points.
> 
> As I said, I have no problem with ID/Creationism as a personal belief.  I have a problem with sticking them in the scientific method.
Click to expand...


You've been making an argument without knowing what the OP was?  How scientific is that?????    

There are a gazillion threads out there bashing God and Creationists and the efforts of a tiny few to include Creationism in science class or take evolution out of science class.  Those get most of the attention and frankly the food fights that invariably result are quite boring to me.

The entire opening post was this:



> I have a question for those who hate creationism
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



I have been doing my damndest to focus on that OP.

Most of the anti-religionists seem to have been doing their damndest to make this thead into just another food fight bashing God and Creationism.


----------



## 8537

Zoom-boing said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;The Big Bang Theory Theme Song-Barenaked Ladies&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
Click to expand...


I think it's the other way around - The big bang created God.  Go ahead, prove me wrong!


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you seem to be incapable of the concepts that the thread author and I seem to be able to understand easily.  Or you inadvertently continue to miss the point I am making or you are intentionally blowing off the principles I see in this discussion.
> 
> Creationism IS a form of I.D. for instance.  But all IDers are not Creationists.  An open mind would acknowledge that this is an important part of and important to arguments being made.
> 
> Neither the thread author nor I have once suggested that God be introduced into scientific theories.  Each of us have clearly stated that Creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught as science.  It would be nice if the open minded here would acknowledge that instead of continuing to insinuate something different.
> 
> Prejudice and bigotry is a difficult thing though.  It does close the mind and makes it impossible to see many possibilities outside the narrow concepts dictated by the prejudice and bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't really been following the "OP".  I have just been discussing a matter that I am passionate about:  keeping ID out of science.  If you don't think it belongs in science either, then I am probably not directing my comments in the right direction.
> 
> There are many posters who do think it belongs in science, so I'll continue to make my points.
> 
> As I said, I have no problem with ID/Creationism as a personal belief.  I have a problem with sticking them in the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been making an argument without knowing what the OP was?  How scientific is that?????
> 
> There are a gazillion threads out there bashing God and Creationists and the efforts of a tiny few to include Creationism in science class or take evolution out of science class.  Those get most of the attention and frankly the food fights that invariably result are quite boring to me.
> 
> The entire opening post was this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for those who hate creationism
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been doing my damndest to focus on that OP.
> 
> *Most of the anti-religionists seem to have been doing their damndest to make this thead into just another food fight bashing God and Creationism.*
Click to expand...


Where?  The thread turned to the subject of creationism and the classroom.  All that we have been saying is that it does not belong there.  I have not seen anyone minus the same boneheads bashing religious tenants.  The ones that have like truth always do so and are no longer responding here.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't really been following the "OP".  I have just been discussing a matter that I am passionate about:  keeping ID out of science.  If you don't think it belongs in science either, then I am probably not directing my comments in the right direction.
> 
> There are many posters who do think it belongs in science, so I'll continue to make my points.
> 
> As I said, I have no problem with ID/Creationism as a personal belief.  I have a problem with sticking them in the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been making an argument without knowing what the OP was?  How scientific is that?????
> 
> There are a gazillion threads out there bashing God and Creationists and the efforts of a tiny few to include Creationism in science class or take evolution out of science class.  Those get most of the attention and frankly the food fights that invariably result are quite boring to me.
> 
> The entire opening post was this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for those who hate creationism
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been doing my damndest to focus on that OP.
> 
> *Most of the anti-religionists seem to have been doing their damndest to make this thead into just another food fight bashing God and Creationism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?  The thread turned to the subject of creationism and the classroom.  All that we have been saying is that it does not belong there.  I have not seen anyone minus the same boneheads bashing religious tenants.  The ones that have like truth always do so and are no longer responding here.
Click to expand...


Perhaps 'bashing' is a bit strong for many or even most, but the topic is not creationism and the classroom.  I really wanted to discuss the OP because I think it is a great question for all who still have an open mind.  There are many threads to discuss whether creationism belongs in the classroom, science or otherwise.  I didn't want this thread to focus on that.  And it was not the creationists and/or IDers who kept putting it there.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

8537 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there was a big bang?   How did that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's the other way around - The big bang created God.  Go ahead, prove me wrong!
Click to expand...


i think both those options would be fun to explore!

what created the big bang? god.   what created god?

What created god? the big bang.   what created the big bang?

What created the big bang?  Not god.  Ok it wasn't god so what created the big bang, what is its origin?

ZOMG im a blathering religious idiot for asking questions


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been making an argument without knowing what the OP was?  How scientific is that?????
> 
> There are a gazillion threads out there bashing God and Creationists and the efforts of a tiny few to include Creationism in science class or take evolution out of science class.  Those get most of the attention and frankly the food fights that invariably result are quite boring to me.
> 
> The entire opening post was this:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been doing my damndest to focus on that OP.
> 
> *Most of the anti-religionists seem to have been doing their damndest to make this thead into just another food fight bashing God and Creationism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where?  The thread turned to the subject of creationism and the classroom.  All that we have been saying is that it does not belong there.  I have not seen anyone minus the same boneheads bashing religious tenants.  The ones that have like truth always do so and are no longer responding here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps 'bashing' is a bit strong for many or even most, but the topic is not creationism and the classroom.  I really wanted to discuss the OP because I think it is a great question for all who still have an open mind.  There are many threads to discuss whether creationism belongs in the classroom, science or otherwise.  I didn't want this thread to focus on that.  And it was not the creationists and/or IDers who kept putting it there.
Click to expand...


this thread is a discussion on the apparant close mindedness of many who aren't even willing to consider that maybe god is real and really made everything.  Or that maybe there is an intelligent lifeform, more intelligent than us, elsewhere in the universe that designed us.  

It is an attempt to get those, who are heavily dependant/rooted in science, to try and open their minds back up like scientists are supposed to do.

And to have some fun related discussions along the way.   

See my response prior to this one, all the questions without bashing either side?


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where?  The thread turned to the subject of creationism and the classroom.  All that we have been saying is that it does not belong there.  I have not seen anyone minus the same boneheads bashing religious tenants.  The ones that have like truth always do so and are no longer responding here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps 'bashing' is a bit strong for many or even most, but the topic is not creationism and the classroom.  I really wanted to discuss the OP because I think it is a great question for all who still have an open mind.  There are many threads to discuss whether creationism belongs in the classroom, science or otherwise.  I didn't want this thread to focus on that.  And it was not the creationists and/or IDers who kept putting it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this thread is a discussion on the apparant close mindedness of many who aren't even willing to consider that maybe god is real and really made everything.  Or that maybe *there is an intelligent lifeform, more intelligent than us, elsewhere in the universe that designed us.  *
> 
> It is an attempt to get those, who are heavily dependant/rooted in science, to try and open their minds back up like scientists are supposed to do.
> 
> And to have some fun related discussions along the way.
> 
> See my response prior to this one, all the questions without bashing either side?
Click to expand...

That life form would not be a God! God by definition is a spirit with no form, a non-thing.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the other way around - The big bang created God.  Go ahead, prove me wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think both those options would be fun to explore!
> 
> what created the big bang? god.   what created god?
> 
> What created god? the big bang.   *what created the big bang?*
> 
> What created the big bang?  Not god.  Ok it wasn't god so what created the big bang, what is its origin?
> 
> ZOMG im a blathering religious idiot for asking questions
Click to expand...

Many would argue, Gravity!
Gravity, like Energy, is something that can be measured so we know it is real, even if we can't as yet define it.


----------



## peach174

There is going to be an interesting program tomorrow night on the science channel about time and space.
It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Science is starting to look into more theories about time and space.
I think that the big bang theory seems the best of them.
But it is also intriguing about different dimensions. That there are more than 3,I find that very  intriguing too.
Perhaps this one would explain Heaven and Hell. Or perhaps ghosts and wandering spirits in a fourth dimension?
God could have started from any of these and brought creation through any of them.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps 'bashing' is a bit strong for many or even most, but the topic is not creationism and the classroom.  I really wanted to discuss the OP because I think it is a great question for all who still have an open mind.  There are many threads to discuss whether creationism belongs in the classroom, science or otherwise.  I didn't want this thread to focus on that.  And it was not the creationists and/or IDers who kept putting it there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this thread is a discussion on the apparant close mindedness of many who aren't even willing to consider that maybe god is real and really made everything.  Or that maybe *there is an intelligent lifeform, more intelligent than us, elsewhere in the universe that designed us.  *
> 
> It is an attempt to get those, who are heavily dependant/rooted in science, to try and open their minds back up like scientists are supposed to do.
> 
> And to have some fun related discussions along the way.
> 
> See my response prior to this one, all the questions without bashing either side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That life form would not be a God! God by definition is a spirit with no form, a non-thing.
Click to expand...


So who decides what the definition of GOD is?  Websters, Edthecynic, plymco_pilgrim, Obama, priests......who decides that?     

See by closing your mind off you couldn't even think up those questions before posting .


----------



## edthecynic

peach174 said:


> There is going to be an interesting program tomorrow night on the science channel about time and space.
> It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Science is starting to look into more theories about time and space.
> I think that the big bang theory seems the best of them.
> But it is also intriguing about different dimensions. *That there are more than 3*,I find that very  intriguing too.
> Perhaps this one would explain Heaven and Hell.* Or perhaps ghosts and wandering spirits in a fourth dimension?*
> God could have started from any of these and brought creation through any of them.


There are 3 spacial dimensions, length, width, and depth, and the Fourth dimension is time! 
You are thinking of the Fifth Dimension, and not the rock group. 
In String Theory there are 11 dimensions, 5 pairs of spacial dimensions and one of time.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the other way around - The big bang created God.  Go ahead, prove me wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think both those options would be fun to explore!
> 
> what created the big bang? god.   what created god?
> 
> What created god? the big bang.   *what created the big bang?*
> 
> What created the big bang?  Not god.  Ok it wasn't god so what created the big bang, what is its origin?
> 
> ZOMG im a blathering religious idiot for asking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many would argue, Gravity!
> Gravity, like Energy, is something that can be measured so we know it is real, even if we can't as yet define it.
Click to expand...


what creates gravity?  Mass...where did the mass originate from?  the big bang.  where did the big bang originate from?

so many questions for those who are willing to ask .


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

peach174 said:


> There is going to be an interesting program tomorrow night on the science channel about time and space.
> It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Science is starting to look into more theories about time and space.
> I think that the big bang theory seems the best of them.
> But it is also intriguing about different dimensions. That there are more than 3,I find that very  intriguing too.
> Perhaps this one would explain Heaven and Hell. Or perhaps ghosts and wandering spirits in a fourth dimension?
> God could have started from any of these and brought creation through any of them.



are they re-runs of the other ones he did or new ones?  If they are re-runs and you missed them the first time they were pretty good shows.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> this thread is a discussion on the apparant close mindedness of many who aren't even willing to consider that maybe god is real and really made everything.  Or that maybe *there is an intelligent lifeform, more intelligent than us, elsewhere in the universe that designed us.  *
> 
> It is an attempt to get those, who are heavily dependant/rooted in science, to try and open their minds back up like scientists are supposed to do.
> 
> And to have some fun related discussions along the way.
> 
> See my response prior to this one, all the questions without bashing either side?
> 
> 
> 
> That life form would not be a God! God by definition is a spirit with no form, a non-thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who decides what the definition of GOD is?  Websters, Edthecynic, plymco_pilgrim, Obama, priests......who decides that?
> 
> See by closing your mind off you couldn't even think up those questions before posting .
Click to expand...

That's how God has always been defined, but since a thing can now be God, then Energy is God.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think both those options would be fun to explore!
> 
> what created the big bang? god.   what created god?
> 
> What created god? the big bang.   *what created the big bang?*
> 
> What created the big bang?  Not god.  Ok it wasn't god so what created the big bang, what is its origin?
> 
> ZOMG im a blathering religious idiot for asking questions
> 
> 
> 
> Many would argue, Gravity!
> Gravity, like Energy, is something that can be measured so we know it is real, even if we can't as yet define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what creates gravity?*  Mass...where did the mass originate from?*  the big bang.  where did the big bang originate from?
> 
> so many questions for those who are willing to ask .
Click to expand...

Mass is Energy, and the FLoT has PROVEN through a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.


----------



## peach174

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is going to be an interesting program tomorrow night on the science channel about time and space.
> It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Science is starting to look into more theories about time and space.
> I think that the big bang theory seems the best of them.
> But it is also intriguing about different dimensions. That there are more than 3,I find that very  intriguing too.
> Perhaps this one would explain Heaven and Hell. Or perhaps ghosts and wandering spirits in a fourth dimension?
> God could have started from any of these and brought creation through any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are they re-runs of the other ones he did or new ones?  If they are re-runs and you missed them the first time they were pretty good shows.
Click to expand...


No. this is a brand new one tomorrow night.


----------



## SW2SILVER

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



Can I chime in? I'm not looking to educate. I don't "hate" creationism, either. I have a question for you, PLYMCO PILGRIM: Why ask this question? I mean, what possible difference does it make? WE are here NOW, and that is all that matters. If there is a god, I doubt humanity is the main focus of a supreme being (or beings). and I doubt as well that our well being or our extinction matters at all. Religion reflects  human egotism, as if we are the center of creation, and I reject that egotism. That is why I reject creationism, and religion of any kind. That is in my humble opinion.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many would argue, Gravity!
> Gravity, like Energy, is something that can be measured so we know it is real, even if we can't as yet define it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what creates gravity?*  Mass...where did the mass originate from?*  the big bang.  where did the big bang originate from?
> 
> so many questions for those who are willing to ask .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass is Energy, and the FLoT has PROVEN through a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Click to expand...


so how did energy come into existence.  What are its origins?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

peach174 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is going to be an interesting program tomorrow night on the science channel about time and space.
> It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Science is starting to look into more theories about time and space.
> I think that the big bang theory seems the best of them.
> But it is also intriguing about different dimensions. That there are more than 3,I find that very  intriguing too.
> Perhaps this one would explain Heaven and Hell. Or perhaps ghosts and wandering spirits in a fourth dimension?
> God could have started from any of these and brought creation through any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are they re-runs of the other ones he did or new ones?  If they are re-runs and you missed them the first time they were pretty good shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. this is a brand new one tomorrow night.
Click to expand...


gotta love tivo


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

SW2SILVER said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I chime in? I'm not looking to educate. I don't "hate" creationism, either. I have a question for you, PLYMCO PILGRIM: Why ask this question? I mean, what possible difference does it make? WE are here NOW, and that is all that matters. If there is a god, I doubt humanity is the main focus of a supreme being (or beings). and I doubt as well that our well being or our extinction matters at all. Religion reflects  human egotism, as if we are the center of creation, and I reject that egotism. That is why I reject creationism, and religion of any kind. That is in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


Sure you can chime in.
I asked the question to provoke a discussion and try and grab the attention of those who have closed minds about this topic.
It doesn't make any difference its just something to discuss.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Yes the thread was started in the science section but I (apparently rightfuly so) saw the thesis as being the conflict between what science cannot address or answer and why Creationism/ID can be rational as one possibility for answers that science cannot answer.  An open mind allows for consideration of such a concept even as it is acknowledged that it is not science and should not be taught as science.



Also see this link:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-12.html#post3777175

However, Foxfyre, ID _is_ scientific.  It's fundamental theory is predicated on the Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the first principle of biology.

As I have written elsewhere, distilling the matter down to the basics after having established the metaphysics of science and the metaphysical apriority for both evolution and ID:

Pasteurian biogenesis is the foundation of ID. The prevailing first principle of biology is _omne vivum ex vivo_, i.e., _all [biological] life is from [biological] life_. ID science proceeds from this maxim. More specifically, the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. ID theory 101.

This theory stands, and it is falsifiable . . . a circumstance that nearly sixty years of prebiotic research necessarily concedes. Indeed, proponents of abiogenesis had in the beginning quite casually expected to falsify it, only to reinforce its validity with their research instead.

ID is not concerned with the nature of the potential designer, but with the nature and order of living organisms, i.e., with the empirical data only and what they evince about origins.​
The methodological constructs of design detection, irreducible and specified complexity, are applied to active abiogenic research and the findings of that research:  to the extent to which prebiotic components of biological systems were available to the primordial world and the degree to which they were self-assembling in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.

The evolutionists on this board, blinded by the intellectual bigotry of political rhetorical, do not grasp the real-world application of these constructs' to abiogenesis.  The issue of whether or not there be a designer does not even arise at the prebiotic level of biochemical research.  

The issue arises only at the post-biotic level of research, i.e., the speciation of extant biological systems, from the ID scientist&#8216;s perspective with regard to the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable nature of the supposed common ancestry of evolutionary theory, and the nature of the potential designer is not pertinent, as the focus here goes to the conservation of transformational mutations, and the viability and number of transitory forms.

Are there any potential theological implications attending ID theory.  Yes.  But there are theological implications attending the underlying apriority of evolutionary theory, too!  The evolutionist who claims otherwise is merely deluded, deceiving  himself.  But these implications are not immediately relevant to the science in and of itself in either case.

Creationism, of course, does not belong in the classroom under the banner of science, for it is a theological construct definitively identifying a supernatural Designer in the name of revealed religion.  Except for biblical history and hermeneutics, biblical content mostly resides beyond scientific inquiry.  Naturally, I do agree with your assertion that Creationism, properly understood and applied, does provide an explanation of ultimate origins that science cannot.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> what creates gravity?*  Mass...where did the mass originate from?*  the big bang.  where did the big bang originate from?
> 
> so many questions for those who are willing to ask .
> 
> 
> 
> Mass is Energy, and the FLoT has PROVEN through a repeatable experiment that energy* can neither be created nor destroyed*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did energy come into existence.  What are its origins?
Click to expand...

What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?


----------



## 8537

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the other way around - The big bang created God.  Go ahead, prove me wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think both those options would be fun to explore!
> 
> what created the big bang? god.   what created god?
> 
> What created god? the big bang.   what created the big bang?
> 
> What created the big bang?  Not god.  Ok it wasn't god so what created the big bang, what is its origin?
> 
> ZOMG im a blathering religious idiot for asking questions
Click to expand...


it is readily apparent to anyone with eyes that Buddha created both.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass is Energy, and the FLoT has PROVEN through a repeatable experiment that energy* can neither be created nor destroyed*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how did energy come into existence.  What are its origins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?
Click to expand...


so you dont know how energy first came to be?   Dont tell me you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy that just is.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> so how did energy come into existence.  What are its origins?
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you dont know how energy first came to be?   Dont tell me *you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy* that just is.
Click to expand...

"Faith" has nothing to do with it!!!! There is a repeatable experiment that proves that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, an experiment I repeated myself in studying physics in college. 

If energy cannot be created then energy can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed then energy can't decrease. If energy cannot increase or decrease then energy is a CONSTANT!!! That means there is exactly the same amount of total energy in the universe today as there was in the past and as there will be in the future. This is a proven fact, you need only to repeat James Prescott Joule's experiment to CONFIRM it for yourself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection?  No.)



Gibberish.  ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force.  It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity.  By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Pasteurian biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biology:  _omne vivum ex vivo_; i.e., _all [biological] life is from [biological] life_ implies design to no less degree.  Yet that is an indisputable axiom of biology, which you recognize to be scientifically valid.

There's a disconnect in your mind spring, geauxtohell, a psychological disassociation from reality when it comes to ID.



> So again, I am not claiming that I.D. doesn't exist.  I am claiming that it is not a scientific theory.



You're defining ID to be something that is not scientific and then&#8212;viola!&#8212;claiming it to be something that is not scientific.  Once again, ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force, as that is beyond the kin of science and does not necessarily follow with regard to known life forms anyway.  You're merely pretending not to understand that, for what else can it be attributed to?

Further, the muckraking fascists in the politics of science and education, the acolytes of metaphysical/absolute naturalism, are calling that which is currently beyond dispute to be unscientific and that which has never been observed, demonstrated or coherently explained to be scientific.  Insanity!  If and when you jackasses demonstrate that prebiotic precursors in racemic mixtures under natural conditions, a sea of abiotic contaminants unremittingly vying against conservation and polymerization, can produce a living organism wake me from my slumber.  In the meantime, shut the hell up.

That's why you don't want to go to prebiotic chemistry, because we may see the political rhetoric of materialists for what it is and we may begin to see why the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable mechanisms of evolutionary theory's supposed common ancestry runs right in to the very same wall.

Ya know, geauxtohell, you keep trying to make ID out to be a monolithic system of thought.  There's a whole world of ID thinkers out there who do not ascribe to Behe's hackneyed version of irreducible complexity, for example, and never have.  We begin with first principles.  Many of us are quite a bit more exacting when it comes to our criticism of the Darwinian notion of an incremental complexity in the absence of any discernibly coherent account for the conservation of transformational mutations or the number of viable transitory forms.

It is the constructs of the Darwinian paradigm that are the weak sisters in the real world.  Beyond the natural selection of microspeciation, I say _they_ are the stuff of mere philosophy, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

How ya like me now?


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection?  No.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish.  ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force.  It merely holds that *the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties* that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of* irreducible complexity.  By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.*
Click to expand...

Which has been shown to be false by valence electrons.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

edthecynic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection?  No.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish.  ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force.  It merely holds that *the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties* that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of* irreducible complexity.  By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has been shown to be false by valence electrons.
Click to expand...


Sir, what I'm talking about has not been falsified.  We're not talking about the same thing.  You're suggesting that life can spring from non-living material, more specifically, from racemic, monomeric mixtures of such material, that this has been demonstrated.  The Nobel Prize to top all Nobel Prizes has not been given for this accomplishment just yet, and it's not something you should expect anytime soon.  

Please explain.


----------



## Montrovant

M.D., you speak of irreducible complexity as valid scientific testing, but I do not see where (other than ID) it is actually used, or what formula might be used for testing.  Could you please, if you know, direct me to where I can find such information?  To me it sounds unscientific, because I find it hard to think of a repeatable test to determine it, but I am happy to admit my scientific knowledge is far from vast.  If you can show me that irreducible complexity is accepted within the scientific community and not simply a construct of ID, I'll look.  TIA.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Montrovant said:


> M.D., you speak of irreducible complexity as valid scientific testing, but I do not see where (other than ID) it is actually used, or what formula might be used for testing.  Could you please, if you know, direct me to where I can find such information?  To me it sounds unscientific, because I find it hard to think of a repeatable test to determine it, but I am happy to admit my scientific knowledge is far from vast.  If you can show me that irreducible complexity is accepted within the scientific community and not simply a construct of ID, I'll look.  TIA.



You just asked the $64,000 question.

Behe's rendition of irreducible complexity: 

By _irreducibly complex_ I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  &#8212;_Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution_, pg. 39​
The majority of scientists do not accept the construct, at least as it is defined by Behe, not because it's not scientific in nature.  It is.  It's falsifiable.  The problem is that it has been arguably falsified.  But Behe's rendition of irreducible complexity is not the classical version nor, in my opinion, is it even directed at the right problem.  From the very beginning, prior to the subsequent research that refuted it, it has always intuitively struck me and many others within the ID community that Behe's rendition of the construct was false, as it failed to anticipate the possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions, or the potentialities of redundant complexity.

The classical version of irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. It entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

When we apply the classical version of the construct to prebiotic chemistry, its specified, practical expression certainly appears to be straightforwardly scientific and irrefutably sound.  When it's applied to biological systems, the matter becomes staggeringly complex, if not inscrutable scientifically, yet science is compelled to scrutinize this one.  But, once again, in this case, we're talking about the classical, Kantian version, not Behe's.

The fact of the matter is that the scientific community _does_ apply the classical version to post-biotic research in simulation studies all the time, albeit, as a means of trying to decipher a definitive distinction between the potentialities of natural mechanisms and those of sentient interference.  In my opinion, the matter is only cut-and-dry for those who stubbornly cling to Behe's rendition of the construct, on the one hand, or for those who dogmatically presuppose, most of them unwittingly, a metaphysical/absolute naturalism for science, on the other.

Obviously, I'm alluding to things that would require further discussion and thought, things that would have to be more precisely defined or spelled out.

Is your mind open?  Do you have seatbelts.  It's a bumpy ride, and I honestly don't know if my inclination is ultimately right or wrong.


----------



## konradv

Claims of irreducibitlity need to be taken with a grain of salt.  They said the same thing about the eye and flight, but they've been shown to be slowly developed traits.  If it's not taking the scientific community by storm, it's probably because those in the know can see right through the IDers' claims and have rejected them.


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish.  ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force.  It merely holds that *the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties* that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of* irreducible complexity.  By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has been shown to be false by valence electrons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, what I'm talking about has not been falsified.*  We're not talking about the same thing.*  You're suggesting that life can spring from non-living material, more specifically, from racemic, monomeric mixtures of such material, that this has been demonstrated.  The Nobel Prize to top all Nobel Prizes has not been given for this accomplishment just yet, and it's not something you should expect anytime soon.
> 
> Please explain.
Click to expand...

We may not be talking about the same thing only because you have changed what you said that I highlighted!

The  *the various organic precursors of biological systems DO possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties based on the valence electrons!!!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

edthecynic said:


> The  *the various organic precursors of biological systems DO possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties based on the valence electrons!!!*



Well, yes, I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering.  But you changed the nature of my statement first.  No big deal, but are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties" with regard to valence electrons are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms?  Please explain the process or what you have in mind.  That's all.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you dont know how energy first came to be?   Dont tell me *you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy* that just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Faith" has nothing to do with it!!!! There is a repeatable experiment that proves that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, an experiment I repeated myself in studying physics in college.
> 
> If energy cannot be created then energy can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed then energy can't decrease. If energy cannot increase or decrease then energy is a CONSTANT!!! That means there is exactly the same amount of total energy in the universe today as there was in the past and as there will be in the future. This is a proven fact, you need only to repeat James Prescott Joule's experiment to CONFIRM it for yourself.
Click to expand...


How did this energy first come into existence though? Im not asking if you can create it or destroy it, im asking how it came to be in the first place.

I have yet to see that answered, unless you can answer it with irrefutable proof then the rest lies on faith in an assumption.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection?  No.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish.  ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force.  It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity.  By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.
> 
> Pasteurian biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biology:  _omne vivum ex vivo_; i.e., _all [biological] life is from [biological] life_ implies design to no less degree.  Yet that is an indisputable axiom of biology, which you recognize to be scientifically valid.
> 
> There's a disconnect in your mind spring, geauxtohell, a psychological disassociation from reality when it comes to ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again, I am not claiming that I.D. doesn't exist.  I am claiming that it is not a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defining ID to be something that is not scientific and then&#8212;viola!&#8212;claiming it to be something that is not scientific.  Once again, ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force, as that is beyond the kin of science and does not necessarily follow with regard to known life forms anyway.  You're merely pretending not to understand that, for what else can it be attributed to?
> 
> Further, the muckraking fascists in the politics of science and education, the acolytes of metaphysical/absolute naturalism, are calling that which is currently beyond dispute to be unscientific and that which has never been observed, demonstrated or coherently explained to be scientific.  Insanity!  If and when you jackasses demonstrate that prebiotic precursors in racemic mixtures under natural conditions, a sea of abiotic contaminants unremittingly vying against conservation and polymerization, can produce a living organism wake me from my slumber.  In the meantime, shut the hell up.
> 
> That's why you don't want to go to prebiotic chemistry, because we may see the political rhetoric of materialists for what it is and we may begin to see why the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable mechanisms of evolutionary theory's supposed common ancestry runs right in to the very same wall.
> 
> Ya know, geauxtohell, you keep trying to make ID out to be a monolithic system of thought.  There's a whole world of ID thinkers out there who do not ascribe to Behe's hackneyed version of irreducible complexity, for example, and never have.  We begin with first principles.  Many of us are quite a bit more exacting when it comes to our criticism of the Darwinian notion of an incremental complexity in the absence of any discernibly coherent account for the conservation of transformational mutations or the number of viable transitory forms.
> 
> It is the constructs of the Darwinian paradigm that are the weak sisters in the real world.  Beyond the natural selection of microspeciation, I say _they_ are the stuff of mere philosophy, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.
> 
> How ya like me now?
Click to expand...


Nice try.  If:



> the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.



Is your mantra, then what is your explanation?  In other words, if it can't happen naturally, then how does it happen?  

The only other option is a supernatural force.  

Which can't be quantified or falsified which puts us back at the beginning.

You can't bury the massive wholes in your theory with bandwidth.


----------



## FA_Q2

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection?  No.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish.  ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force.  It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity.  By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.
> 
> Pasteurian biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biology:  _omne vivum ex vivo_; i.e., _all [biological] life is from [biological] life_ implies design to no less degree.  Yet that is an indisputable axiom of biology, which you recognize to be scientifically valid.
> 
> There's a disconnect in your mind spring, geauxtohell, a psychological disassociation from reality when it comes to ID.
Click to expand...


Fail.  This is where your preconceived notion of ID distorts the practice of science.  Assuming the first statement to be 100 percent true dealing with irreducible complexity and that the systems are not in nature to create life then the jump IS NOT TO ID BUT TO AN UNKNOWN.  That is, such a system ahs simply not been found in nature YET.  To make the jump to ID and make it scientifically you would need some sort of evidence.  Not evidence against evolution like irreducible complexity or the issues with abiogenesis but actual evidence FOR ID.  What you did with this statement was say that because A is false B must be the answer.  In science, B must stand on its own weight.  The proper response to what you are proposing is that we do not know.  Not ID.

As a philosophy, proof is not needed and it is an interesting philosophical idea.  Just one that has no grounds in science as of this point.


----------



## geauxtohell

FA_Q2 said:


> Fail.  This is where your preconceived notion of ID distorts the practice of science.  Assuming the first statement to be 100 percent true dealing with irreducible complexity and that the systems are not in nature to create life then the jump IS NOT TO ID BUT TO AN UNKNOWN.  That is, such a system ahs simply not been found in nature YET.  To make the jump to ID and make it scientifically you would need some sort of evidence.  Not evidence against evolution like irreducible complexity or the issues with abiogenesis but actual evidence FOR ID.  What you did with this statement was say that because A is false B must be the answer.  In science, B must stand on its own weight.  The proper response to what you are proposing is that we do not know.  Not ID.
> 
> As a philosophy, proof is not needed and it is an interesting philosophical idea.  Just one that has no grounds in science as of this point.



Yes.  I have some questions about this jump as well.

First, if Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is bunk, then who is another published scientist that has a better notion?  

Secondly, if novel phenotypes are two complex to evolve de novo, then who or what guides the process?  Trying to slip away from the arguement by saying "ID isn't about God!" makes the issue even more confused.  So now we are going to claim and _unknown_ supernatural power guided the process?

Third, what kind of logical arguement (not to mention scientific) arguement rests simply on "your theory is too complicatead to have happened on it's own!".  That's simply an opinion piece.  As an arguement, it doesn't even introduce a competing idea to fill the hole it pretends to have created.  As you noted, saying "A is false" doesn't equate to "B is true".

Finally, what is the point in trying to co-mingle natural selection with abiogenesis?  Is it simply to slip Pastuer's name in there to "smarten up" the theory?  Pastuer's work doesn't support intelligent design anymore than any other scientific theory from the 1800s.


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *the various organic precursors of biological systems DO possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties based on the valence electrons!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering.  But you changed the nature of my statement first.  No big deal, but are you saying that these *"self-ordering chemical properties" *with regard to valence electrons are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms?  Please explain the process or what you have in mind.  That's all.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the "VARIOUS ORGANIC PRECURSORS of biological systems do not possess an inherent self-ordering chemical property" when in fact they do. The various organic building blocks of all biological systems are self-ordered by the number of electrons in their outer shell. These electrons are called valence electrons. That is why only certain specific atoms and molecules combine in certain specific ways. All life is made up of these natural organic compounds. There no designer building blocks of life that have combined contrary to the number of electrons in their outer shell suggesting an intelligent designer.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you dont know how energy first came to be?   Dont tell me *you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy* that just is.
> 
> 
> 
> "Faith" has nothing to do with it!!!! There is a repeatable experiment that proves that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, an experiment I repeated myself in studying physics in college.
> 
> If energy cannot be created then energy can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed then energy can't decrease. If energy cannot increase or decrease then energy is a CONSTANT!!! That means there is exactly the same amount of total energy in the universe today as there was in the past and as there will be in the future. This is a proven fact, you need only to repeat James Prescott Joule's experiment to CONFIRM it for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did this energy first come into existence though? Im not asking if you can create it or destroy it, im asking how it came to be in the first place.
> 
> I have yet to see that answered, unless you can answer it with irrefutable proof then the rest lies on faith in an assumption.
Click to expand...

It has been answered many times, you simply have closed your mind to it. Since energy can't be created, it didn't "come to be" it always was. And since energy can't be destroyed it always will be. And energy will always remain the same total quantity.

You have no problem with that concept when it comes to God, something that can't even be proven to exist, but you can't conceive of it being possible for energy, which can be proven to exist and can be measured. All you have done is give energy a personality and called it God and then suddenly the concept of something always existing becomes a possibility to you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

edthecynic said:


> You are claiming that the "VARIOUS ORGANIC PRECURSORS of biological systems do not possess an inherent self-ordering chemical property" when in fact they do.



I claimed no such thing.  In fact, I made it abundantly clear that "I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering."

What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*

That's a dramatically different idea!  This statement goes to a number of complex factors well beyond the basic infrastructural capacities of valence electrons, including availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.

Do not change the meaning of my statement again.  

Now.  Are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties", i.e., valence-electron structuring, well known me, are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms? 

Yes or no?  If so, please explain the process to us.


----------



## konradv

M.D. Rawlings said:


> What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*



You have no way of proving that statement, so it's scientifically worthless.  How can you categorically say that over billions of years, that it couldn't happen?  At least evolutionists are striving to prove their position.  We seem to have to take yours on faith, which doesn't get you any science medals.


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming that the "VARIOUS ORGANIC PRECURSORS of biological systems do not possess an inherent self-ordering chemical property" when in fact they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I claimed no such thing.  In fact, I made it abundantly clear that "I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering."
> 
> What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*
> 
> That's a dramatically different idea!  This statement goes to a number of complex factors well beyond the basic infrastructural capacities of valence electrons, including availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.
> 
> Do not change the meaning of my statement again.
> 
> Now.  Are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties", i.e., valence-electron structuring, well known me, are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms?
> 
> Yes or no?  If so, please explain the process to us.
Click to expand...

No matter how "irreducibly complex" the chemical structure found in living organisms, they are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their outer shell, the valence electrons. There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

konradv said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of proving that statement, so it's scientifically worthless.  How can you categorically say that over billions of years, that it couldn't happen?  At least evolutionists are striving to prove their position.  We seem to have to take yours on faith, which doesn't get you any science medals.
Click to expand...


So let me see if I've got this right.  You're saying that the Pasteurian law of abiogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are worthless, based on thin air?  A mere hypothesis based on what might be overthrows it?  That is not how science works at all.  You're the one asserting that science should accommodate faith!  



That _is_ the prevailing theory of biology, and it _is_ falsifiable.  You're merely revealing your ignorance about nearly sixty years of abiogenic research!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

FA_Q2 said:


> Fail.  This is where your preconceived notion of ID distorts the practice of science.  Assuming the first statement to be 100 percent true dealing with irreducible complexity and that the systems are not in nature to create life then the jump IS NOT TO ID BUT TO AN UNKNOWN.  That is, such a system ahs simply not been found in nature YET.  To make the jump to ID and make it scientifically you would need some sort of evidence.  Not evidence against evolution like irreducible complexity or the issues with abiogenesis but actual evidence FOR ID.  What you did with this statement was say that because A is false B must be the answer.  In science, B must stand on its own weight.  The proper response to what you are proposing is that we do not know.  Not ID.



      


*Irreducible Complexity as Applied to Prebiotic Chemistry​*
Pasteurian biogenesis:  _omne vivum ex vivo_; i.e., _all [biological] life is from [biological] life_.  Indisputably, that is the prevailing axiom of biology, which replaced spontaneous generation after it was falsified by Pasteur's research.

Are you mad?  Stupid or something?

The notion that the first living cell was formed by the assemblages of self-replicating chemicals within a variable medium of polymerization, albeit, in accordance with the physical laws of chemistry under uncertain primordial conditions is a mere hypothesis, one that might or might not be true.  Until the hypothesis of abiogenesis is substantiated by experimental research, the Pasteurian law of biogenesis stands.

Currently, we do not know how life began; we only thing we know for certain in scientific terms is that all life is from life, not inanimate matter.  Scientific theories are not expressed in hypothetical terms; they&#8217;re expressed as scientific facts until such time they are revised or falsified by new experimentally substantiated information.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis does not distort the practice of science.  And the scientific expression that follows from it, the construct of irreducible complexity as applied to prebiotic research is by nature a valid, falsifiable theory, one that currently stands undisputed, namely:  the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are not a jump to anything.  Current theory is predicated on the known facts of the matter.  You and your cohorts are the only ones around here distorting standard scientific practice regarding the distinction between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories.  SHUT UP!  Theories, which are substantially predicated on current information, ARE asserted as truths.  Hypotheses, which are guesses about how something or another might have occurred, are mere propositions.  We do not replace theories with unsubstantiated hypotheses just because they might be true.

One can say anything might be true, Jackass!  In this instance, what is currently known to be true, not what might be true, is that all life comes from life.

You're dismissed.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Irreducible Complexity as Applied to Post-Biotic Research in Simulation  Studies​*
Again:

The fact of the matter is that the [entire] scientific community _does_ apply the classical version [of irreducible complexity] to post-biotic research in simulation studies all the time, albeit, as a means of trying to decipher a definitive distinction between the potentialities of natural mechanisms and those of sentient interference.​



konradv said:


> Claims of irreducibitlity need to be taken with a grain of salt.  They said the same thing about the eye and flight, but they've been shown to be slowly developed traits.



But that's not quite right, is it?  

They've been hypothetically simulated by computer programs to potentially be such from this side of known outcomes.  As natural processes would necessarily be mindless, stochastic and unquantifiable&#8212;such simulations do not necessarily show that these things developed by natural mechanisms, as among other things, the alternating pathways of infrastructural redundancy and simplification are assumed, a factor that does not universally prevail in the systems of extant organisms.  

Environmental changes are random.  Mutations are random.  Natural selection is random.  In reality, the steps in any given pathway and the direction of that pathway would not be predictable.  But the parameters are known, beginning with the outcome, and the hypothetical jumping off point is calculated with the outcome in mind.  These are inserted in the simulations from this side of experience.  So scenarios that would be random in reality are simulated with a degree of sentient interference . . . which is not random  Hmm.  

So what do we have here?

What is, is; therefore, what was, was . . . in accordance with an incremental process of fortuitous accidents?  Are you sure?  And why presuppose an incremental model of alternating, redundant complexity and simplification for all time and for all structures of living systems in the first place but to see if it might lead to known outcomes?  That&#8217;s a think about it for a while question.  

These simulations do not necessarily show that the processes weren't synchronously instantaneous at all, and they do not prove that an intelligent designer was not involved or necessary.

Hello!  That's what happens when you consider only one side of the equation, one that is monopolistically imposed on science education by persons presupposing a metaphysical/absolute naturalism, without giving a heads up, really, and as if the traditional apriority of science before Darwin&#8212;the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism&#8212;were not equally valid or as if these persons were not begging the question.  Oops.



> If it's not taking the scientific community by storm, it's probably because those in the know can see right through the IDers' claims and have rejected them.



It's not in the sense that you mean, but the classical version is necessarily applied to simulation studies all the time.  "See right through the IDers' claims", eh?  Really?  I see right through the materialist's dogmatism and the fact that he may not be simulating what thinks he&#8216;s simulating at all.


----------



## FA_Q2

M.D. Rawlings said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.  This is where your preconceived notion of ID distorts the practice of science.  Assuming the first statement to be 100 percent true dealing with irreducible complexity and that the systems are not in nature to create life then the jump IS NOT TO ID BUT TO AN UNKNOWN.  That is, such a system ahs simply not been found in nature YET.  To make the jump to ID and make it scientifically you would need some sort of evidence.  Not evidence against evolution like irreducible complexity or the issues with abiogenesis but actual evidence FOR ID.  What you did with this statement was say that because A is false B must be the answer.  In science, B must stand on its own weight.  The proper response to what you are proposing is that we do not know.  Not ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Irreducible Complexity as Applied to Prebiotic Chemistry​*
> Pasteurian biogenesis:  _omne vivum ex vivo_; i.e., _all [biological] life is from [biological] life_.  Indisputably, that is the prevailing axiom of biology, which replaced spontaneous generation after it was falsified by Pasteur's research.
> 
> Are you mad?  Stupid or something?
> 
> The notion that the first living cell was formed by the assemblages of self-replicating chemicals within a variable medium of polymerization, albeit, in accordance with the physical laws of chemistry under uncertain primordial conditions is a mere hypothesis, one that might or might not be true.  Until the hypothesis of abiogenesis is substantiated by experimental research, the Pasteurian law of biogenesis stands.
> 
> Currently, we do not know how life began; we only thing we know for certain in scientific terms is that all life is from life, not inanimate matter.  Scientific theories are not expressed in hypothetical terms; theyre expressed as scientific facts until such time they are revised or falsified by new experimentally substantiated information.
> 
> The Pasteurian law of biogenesis does not distort the practice of science.  And the scientific expression that follows from it, the construct of irreducible complexity as applied to prebiotic research is by nature a valid, falsifiable theory, one that currently stands undisputed, namely:  the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.
> 
> The Pasteurian law of abiogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are not a jump to anything.  Current theory is predicated on the known facts of the matter.  You and your cohorts are the only ones around here distorting standard scientific practice regarding the distinction between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories.  SHUT UP!  Theories, which are substantially predicated on current information, ARE asserted as truths.  Hypotheses, which are guesses about how something or another might have occurred, are mere propositions.  We do not replace theories with unsubstantiated hypotheses just because they might be true.
> 
> One can say anything might be true, Jackass!  In this instance, what is currently known to be true, not what might be true, is that all life comes from life.
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...


All of which is completely meaningless as you ignored the main point.  

*Evidence that shows evolution to be false in no way, shape or form proves ID at all.  Period.  You need to come up with some actual evidence of ID.  Now, sow me ONE scrap of evidence for id.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> Is your mantra, then what is your explanation?  In other words, if it can't happen naturally, then how does it happen?
> 
> The only other option is a supernatural force.
> 
> Which can't be quantified or falsified which puts us back at the beginning.
> 
> You can't bury the massive wholes in your theory with bandwidth.



Though that's what I personally believe and that's what the research evinces, I never said, in terms of science, that abiogenesis couldn't be true.  And with regard to known life, the supernatural is not the only option, Thick-as-Brick geauxtohell.  

But even if the supernatural appeared to be the only alternative, so what?  Theological implications are not part of the scientific equation.  If they were, then the constructs of the evolutionary paradigm would not be valid science.  You guys just pretend they don't exist as you deny the nature of the constructs' apriority.    You know, the apriority whose name you will not speak.   

Currently, as far as science is concerned, we do not know how life arose in the first place.  Currently, as far as science is concerned, all we know is that all life comes from life.  That theory has theological implications, too, but it cannot be credibly argued that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is not a scientific fact and will remain one until it is falsified, if ever.  It currently stands.  It has not been falsified.

Initially, Darwin, a Deist, supposed that God created the first living organism to get things rolling.  He latter regretted that, supposing that the first viable cell was a primitive blob of protoplasm.  Of course, that was the first hypothesis of abiogenesis to be falsified.  The second to be falsified was the hypothesis that amino acids were the initial prebiotic precursors of life.  Hence, the RNA-world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, or a synthesis thereof.  Actually, both of these hypothesis are in trouble, too, for a long list of reasons.    

On the other hand, it looks like we might be able to eventually engineer life under laboratory conditions using biopolymers harvested from extant cells.  Naturally, that would not account for the origins of their monomeric precursors or the polymerization of the same, and would necessarily entail a directed process based on known biotechnology, namely, a process of intelligent design in accordance with a blueprint that appears to have been drawn out by an intelligent designer.

But materialists keeping hoping they will overthrow the Pateurian law of biogenesis, even though all the evidence just keeps backing it up.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

FA_Q2 said:


> All of which is completely meaningless as you ignored the main point.
> 
> *Evidence that shows evolution to be false in no way, shape or form proves ID at all.  Period.  You need to come up with some actual evidence of ID.  Now, sow me ONE scrap of evidence for id.*



Meaningless?



I ignored the main point?



The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are not the point, eh?



Dude, you're talking about the theory of evolution in regard to a post that's about abiogenesis.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

spectrumc01 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it.  Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway.
> 
> Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism.  Your mind is made up and there is no changing it.  That is the problem with debates like this one.  All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.
> 
> The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools.  The church is the place to teach religion based creationism.  The home is the place to teach religion based creationism.  Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.
Click to expand...


And Darwin ? I mean they dont teach that he concluded that Woman and black's dont have the mental ability of white Males or that a good deal of his theories come from watching Chimps get drunk, and that they get the same type of herpes that Humans do. You can find those in his books "origin of species" and I thing the other is called " The Voyage of the Beagle. At any rate, why not teach them side by side ? Good post by the way.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

edthecynic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming that the "VARIOUS ORGANIC PRECURSORS of biological systems do not possess an inherent self-ordering chemical property" when in fact they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I claimed no such thing.  In fact, I made it abundantly clear that "I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering."
> 
> What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*
> 
> That's a dramatically different idea!  This statement goes to a number of complex factors well beyond the basic infrastructural capacities of valence electrons, including availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.
> 
> Do not change the meaning of my statement again.
> 
> Now.  Are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties", i.e., valence-electron structuring, well known me, are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms?
> 
> Yes or no?  If so, please explain the process to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how "irreducibly complex" the chemical structure found in living organisms, they are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their outer shell, the valence electrons. There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.
Click to expand...


I KNOW WHAT VALENCE ELECTRONS ARE; I KNOW HOW VALENCE ELECTRONS WORK!  HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT? 

In any event&#8212;&#8212;your statement is gibberish.  Living organisms have outer shells?  Chemical structures have outer shells?  You can't even coherently express the idea you're after.  But never mind.  The idea your after is of secondary relevance to the concerns of precursor availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.   YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!  NINCOMPOOP!  

Moving on. . . .

"[D]esigner molecules in the building blocks of life"?

More gibberish.  You might as well have written:  "GURUNDEA-LAP-TIP-MERGEN-STOTCHER-KOOK-LOO."  

I didn't say anything about "designer molecules", and, tell us, Einstein, what _are_ the building blocks of life according to your rather strange theory?


----------



## Montrovant

Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about.  Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence?  Once that life was created, by whatever intelligence, evolution can then explains the various changes that occur?  Does ID make any claims about changes of species, or does it not deal with that at all?  

I don't care about the pros or cons of evolutionary theory in regards to this question.  Rather, I want to understand what ID says without anything about evolutionary theory diluting it, if possible.

As far as irreducible complexity, I still don't know where else other than ID it is used in science.  While it not being used in any other theory or field would not automatically make it invalid, it would make it more difficult to accept (at least for me).  I also do not know how it is tested for.  Is there an equation that can be applied to show whether or not something is irreducibly complex?

M.D., as I've said, I'm very much a layman here.  From my perspective it seems you have done more arguing against other theories or hypotheses than for ID.  It may be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said because of my ignorance, but ID and specifically irreducible complexity have always seemed to me to be untestable ideas, therefor not science.  Even if they are completely true that would seem to make them not fall within the realm of science.  But I am trying to keep enough of an open mind so that if I am shown that they are, in fact, testable and scientific, I won't dismiss it.  If you could give me a brief summation of what ID entails, and explain the process by which something is tested to see if it is irreducibly complex, or if you could direct me somewhere I could have that explained, I'd appreciate it.

P.S. - Does ID allow for the possibility an alien intelligence, rather than a supernatural one, is the designer?  I'm sure that would be answered if I were clear on what ID proposes, but should you not wish to try and explain the theory here (and possibly dumb it down so I can understand it lol) I would at least like an answer to that question.  
Thanks.


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I claimed no such thing.  In fact, I made it abundantly clear that "I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering."
> 
> What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*
> 
> That's a dramatically different idea!  This statement goes to a number of complex factors well beyond the basic infrastructural capacities of valence electrons, including availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.
> 
> Do not change the meaning of my statement again.
> 
> Now.  Are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties", i.e., valence-electron structuring, well known me, are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms?
> 
> Yes or no?  If so, please explain the process to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how "irreducibly complex" the chemical structure found in living organisms, they are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their outer shell, the valence electrons. There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I KNOW WHAT VALENCE ELECTRONS ARE; I KNOW HOW VALENCE ELECTRONS WORK!  HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT?
> 
> In any eventyour statement is gibberish.*  Living organisms have outer shells?  Chemical structures have outer shells?*  You can't even coherently express the idea you're after.  But never mind.  The idea your after is of secondary relevance to the concerns of precursor availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.   YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!  NINCOMPOOP!
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> "[D]esigner molecules in the building blocks of life"?
> 
> More gibberish.  You might as well have written:  "GURUNDEA-LAP-TIP-MERGEN-STOTCHER-KOOK-LOO."
> 
> I didn't say anything about "designer molecules", and, tell us, Einstein, what _are_ the building blocks of life according to your rather strange theory?
Click to expand...

When you ask stupid questions like those you prove you know absolutely nothing about valence electrons. But knowing nothing about valence electrons you have no idea just how stupid those questions about outer shells are!!! 

SparkNotes: Atomic Structure: Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the  valence shell are valence electrons.  Valence electrons are the highest energy  electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive.  While inner electrons (those not  in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence  electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds.  For this reason, elements  with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since  they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way.  The Periodic Table  was designed with this feature in mind.  Each element has a number of valence electrons  equal to its group number on the Periodic Table.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about.  Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence?  Once that life was created, by whatever intelligence, evolution can then explains the various changes that occur?  Does ID make any claims about changes of species, or does it not deal with that at all?
> 
> I don't care about the pros or cons of evolutionary theory in regards to this question.  Rather, I want to understand what ID says without anything about evolutionary theory diluting it, if possible.
> 
> As far as irreducible complexity, I still don't know where else other than ID it is used in science.  While it not being used in any other theory or field would not automatically make it invalid, it would make it more difficult to accept (at least for me).  I also do not know how it is tested for.  Is there an equation that can be applied to show whether or not something is irreducibly complex?
> 
> M.D., as I've said, I'm very much a layman here.  From my perspective it seems you have done more arguing against other theories or hypotheses than for ID.  It may be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said because of my ignorance, but ID and specifically irreducible complexity have always seemed to me to be untestable ideas, therefor not science.  Even if they are completely true that would seem to make them not fall within the realm of science.  But I am trying to keep enough of an open mind so that if I am shown that they are, in fact, testable and scientific, I won't dismiss it.  If you could give me a brief summation of what ID entails, and explain the process by which something is tested to see if it is irreducibly complex, or if you could direct me somewhere I could have that explained, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> P.S. - Does ID allow for the possibility an alien intelligence, rather than a supernatural one, is the designer?  I'm sure that would be answered if I were clear on what ID proposes, but should you not wish to try and explain the theory here (and possibly dumb it down so I can understand it lol) I would at least like an answer to that question.
> Thanks.



For me, Intelligent Design emcompasses the outermost scope of what the mind can conclude from experience and observation of the world and universe we live in.

For Socrates. it is simple logic.  It was illogical to observe that skin tans in the sun to protect it from injury or eyelids protect the eyeballs  was all due to chance.  It was far more logical to recognize evidence of wise planning in the universe.

Plato focused on how things come to be and theorized that all that we experience and observe is a result of our own mind creating what we see and experience.  The 'idea' of everything has always been here and we latch onto the 'idea' to create the world and universe around us.

Aristotle argued that all nature reflects a purpose and direction that is rationally accomplished by a 'god' but not a 'creator'.  Again for Aristole, all the substance, time, and space of the universe has always been here but is part of a 'prime mover' who keeps it in motion.  He described the prime mover as 'self-thinking thought," but unlike his mentor, Plato, he did not believe it came from the human mind but rather the human mind was part of it..

Immanuel Kant and to some degree Spinoza and Einstein went with a physico-theological proof of observation of symmetry, beauty, purpose, and cohesiveness of nature and the universe that they could not dismiss an intelligence between caught up in or being part of the whole, designing and directing it.

Then of course we have theories like Von Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods' that all we are here on Planet Earth is the result of ancient alien visitations.  He didn't theorize about the origins of them.  

And of course the simplest religious faith in a Supreme Being or Beings who simply spoke and it all happened as we now know it to be.

Intelligent Design, in the hands and minds of the open minded is bigger than any science we currently have and far more complex and intricate than any basic religious belief.

And personally, I don't see how our brightest and best can just summarily dismiss it as irrelevent or fantasy and not worthy of exploration or consideration.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

edthecynic said:


> When you ask stupid questions like those you prove you know absolutely nothing about valence electrons. But knowing nothing about valence electrons you have no idea just how stupid those questions about outer shells are!!!
> 
> SparkNotes: Atomic Structure: Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons
> 
> The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the  valence shell are valence electrons.  Valence electrons are the highest energy  electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive.  While inner electrons (those not  in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence  electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds.  For this reason, elements  with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since  they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way.  The Periodic Table  was designed with this feature in mind.  Each element has a number of valence electrons  equal to its group number on the Periodic Table.



Okay, you little pissant, the gloves come off.

My questions were satirically rhetorical, the stuff of scathing contempt for the pretensions of a know-nothing twit muddling the scientific concerns of prebiotic chemistry with pseudo-scientific blather.  So after being exposed, you still want to brazenly go on with this charade, eh?


*I wrote:  "You can't even coherently express the idea you're after."*

After you wrote:

*No matter how 'irreducibly complex' the chemical structure [singular antecedent] found in living organisms [plural antecedent?], they [plural pronoun] are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their [plural pronoun] outer shell [singular noun], the valence electrons.​*Grammatically, _chemical structure_ is the antecedent, but it's singular while the pronouns are plural.  However, _living organisms_ is a plural term.  But living organisms don't have outer shells in the sense that you mean, do they, you drooling retard?  And it's nonsensical to talk about chemical structure having an outer shell when it's *the atoms* of structures that have outer valence shells.  Right, retard?

Now the following expression is coherent . . . but, of course, you didn't write it:

*The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons.​*
But the relevance of your detour into Valence Electronville has yet to be explained.  What does this have to do with the fact that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms?  That is to say, spelling it out for you, what does this have to do with the availability of the pertinent monomeric precursors, biochemical conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on beyond atomic structure?

Answer:  virtually nothing, retard!


And then we have this ironic statement&#8212;the "GURUNDEA-LAP-TIP-MERGEN-STOTCHER-KOOK-LOO" statement&#8212;from you, so incredibly stupid it makes gnats look like geniuses:  
*There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.​*Dipstick, there are no designer molecules, as such, at the monomeric level anywhere in nature, and the phrase _building blocks of life_ is an informal reference in biology to _amino acids_.  Amino acids will not form proteins in nature as they only occur in racemic mixtures, and they will not form proteins under laboratory conditions either, even in homochiral mixtures.  Valence electrons have nothing to do with the problem.

SHUT UP!  YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties *that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of proving that statement, so it's scientifically worthless.  How can you categorically say that over billions of years, that it couldn't happen?  At least evolutionists are striving to prove their position.  We seem to have to take yours on faith, which doesn't get you any science medals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I've got this right.  You're saying that the Pasteurian law of abiogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are worthless, based on thin air?  A mere hypothesis based on what might be overthrows it?  That is not how science works at all.  You're the one asserting that science should accommodate faith!
> 
> 
> 
> That _is_ the prevailing theory of biology, and it _is_ falsifiable.  You're merely revealing your ignorance about nearly sixty years of abiogenic research!
Click to expand...


Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation".  The modern notion of "abiogenesis" wasn't around at that time.  

Pasteur's work has nothing to do with I.D..  It was just good science.  It doesn't support ID anymore than any other scientific discovery.

All that aside, it doesn't allow ID to get around the fact that it is non-falsifiable.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Though that's what I personally believe and that's what the research evinces, I never said, in terms of science, that abiogenesis couldn't be true.  And with regard to known life, the supernatural is not the only option, Thick-as-Brick geauxtohell.



You keep making this statement, and then offer absolutely zilch to back it up (even though you have been asked).  

What intelligent, natural process could guide natural selection for every living organism throughout the history of this planet?  

That should be rich.

BTW (and again), don't think that it's not completely obvious that you have attempted to steer this issue away from discussions on natural selection in favor of abiogenesis.  Intelligent Design as put forth by it's proponents was proposed as a competing theory to natural selection.  It had little to do with abiogenesis.  Though, I suppose if you are gong to start evoking the supernatural, their is no limit to what you can pretend to explain scientifically.

Again, you aren't fooling anyone.   



> But even if the supernatural appeared to be the only alternative, so what?



It is the only alternative.  And the "what" is exactly the problem.  You can't disprove the existence of a supernatural force, therefore you can't construct a hypothesis support the notion of a supernatural force.  It's that simple.  Once you incorporate an all powerful entity into your methodology, then you have an automatic trump card to every question and the answer always becomes "<insert supernatural force here> did it.>

Perhaps you've never actually done scientific research or formally studied biostatistics and understand how a hypothesis, p-values, etc work.  Either that, or you are being intentionally dense.  

You guys think you are being sly by saying "It doesn't have to be God!".  In fact, it becomes even more silly.  So now you won't even name the force you claim to believe or can prove scientifically is guiding evolution.  

In that light, your argument can be boiled down to "This is too difficult to be explained through natural processes alone." which is not a scientific statement at all.  It's an opinion (and a rather academically lazy opinion at that).   



> Theological implications are not part of the scientific equation.  If they were, then the constructs of the evolutionary paradigm would not be valid science.  You guys just pretend they don't exist as you deny the nature of the constructs' apriority.    You know, the apriority whose name you will not speak.



You mean you insistence that this all borders on the "metaphysical" while (quite hilariously) stating that the actual answer is that some magical force guided the process?  

It's not that we dare not parrot your idiotic opinion, it's just that we find it too absurd to entertain without laughing.     



> Currently, as far as science is concerned, we do not know how life arose in the first place.  Currently, as far as science is concerned, all we know is that all life comes from life.  That theory has theological implications, too, but it cannot be credibly argued that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is not a scientific fact and will remain one until it is falsified, if ever.  It currently stands.  It has not been falsified.



How absurd.  You act as if Pasteur's refutation of "spontaneous generation" is now applicable to refute the "RNA world" model.  It does not.  Pastuer's experiment was rather simple and didn't even touch on biochemistry.  Pastuer never made claims that his theory explained the origin of life on this planet.  He just showed that spontaneous generation was bunk.  Furthermore, the double helix wasn't even discovered until the fifties.  Only the most disingenuous of hacks would try and evoke Pasteur supporting I.D.

Again, you seem to want to discuss abiogenesis as opposed to natural selection.  Is that so you can keep prattling on about Pasteur as if he is the Godfather of Intelligent Design?    



> Initially, Darwin, a Deist, supposed that God created the first living organism to get things rolling.  He latter regretted that, supposing that the first viable cell was a primitive blob of protoplasm.  Of course, that was the first hypothesis of abiogenesis to be falsified.  The second to be falsified was the hypothesis that amino acids were the initial prebiotic precursors of life.  Hence, the RNA-world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, or a synthesis thereof.  Actually, both of these hypothesis are in trouble, too, for a long list of reasons.



Actually, the debate continues to rage and probably will until the end of time.  Some theories (Miller-Urey) that were thought to be disproven have come back into vogue.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18conv.html

Miller and Urey's experiment was just repeated (because good scientific work is reproducible) with better results than the original.  

Through each process, scientific methodology has either supported or argued against a notion.

Again, your logical canard is insisting that anything short of a 100% answer for any one theory automatically proves yours.  In fact, your theory is so goofy, it's not even being considered.   



> On the other hand, it looks like we might be able to eventually engineer life under laboratory conditions using biopolymers harvested from extant cells.  Naturally, that would not account for the origins of their monomeric precursors or the polymerization of the same, and* would necessarily entail a directed process* based on known biotechnology, namely, a process of intelligent design in accordance with a blueprint that appears to have been drawn out by an intelligent designer.



I bolded your massive logical leap.  The impetus is on you to support such a radical statement.

BTW, who is the "intelligent designer"?  I would assume you would have to know him before you could comment on how he did something.   



> But materialists keeping hoping they will overthrow the Pateurian law of biogenesis, even though all the evidence just keeps backing it up.



I've followed this issue for years.  Until you showed up, I never met anyone who mentioned Pasteur's work relating to this in the least.


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you ask stupid questions like those you prove you know absolutely nothing about valence electrons. But knowing nothing about valence electrons you have no idea just how stupid those questions about outer shells are!!!
> 
> SparkNotes: Atomic Structure: Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons
> 
> The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the  valence shell are valence electrons.  Valence electrons are the highest energy  electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive.  While inner electrons (those not  in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence  electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds.  For this reason, elements  with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since  they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way.  The Periodic Table  was designed with this feature in mind.  Each element has a number of valence electrons  equal to its group number on the Periodic Table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you little pissant, the gloves come off.
> 
> My questions were satirically rhetorical, the stuff of scathing contempt for the pretensions of a know-nothing twit muddling the scientific concerns of prebiotic chemistry with pseudo-scientific blather.  So after being exposed, you still want to brazenly go on with this charade, eh?
> 
> 
> *I wrote:  "You can't even coherently express the idea you're after."*
> 
> After you wrote:
> 
> <b>No matter how 'irreducibly complex' the chemical structure [singular antecedent] found in living organisms [plural antecedent?], they [plural pronoun] are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their [plural pronoun] outer shell [singular noun], the valence electrons.​</b>
> Grammatically, _chemical structure_ is the antecedent, but it's singular while the pronouns are plural.  However, _living organisms_ is a plural term.  But living organisms don't have outer shells in the sense that you mean, do they, you drooling retard?  And it's nonsensical to talk about chemical structure having an outer shell when it's *the atoms* of structures that have outer valence shells.  Right, retard?
Click to expand...

The more you know you are wrong, the more insulting and condescending you get. Molecules have valency too, but an expert like you knew that already so an expert like you had to know you were lying when you said only atoms have valency. Either that or you were too stupid to know you were wrong. 

Here are some very well known examples of molecules that have valency:

Phosphate   (PO4)3- has a valency of 3
Sulphate     (SO4)2- has a valency of 2
Ammonium (NH4)+ has a valency of 1
Nitrate (NO3)- has a valency of 1


----------



## geauxtohell

Montrovant said:


> Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about.  Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence?  Once that life was created, by whatever intelligence, evolution can then explains the various changes that occur?  Does ID make any claims about changes of species, or does it not deal with that at all?
> 
> I don't care about the pros or cons of evolutionary theory in regards to this question.  Rather, I want to understand what ID says without anything about evolutionary theory diluting it, if possible.
> 
> As far as irreducible complexity, I still don't know where else other than ID it is used in science.  While it not being used in any other theory or field would not automatically make it invalid, it would make it more difficult to accept (at least for me).  I also do not know how it is tested for.  Is there an equation that can be applied to show whether or not something is irreducibly complex?
> 
> M.D., as I've said, I'm very much a layman here.  From my perspective it seems you have done more arguing against other theories or hypotheses than for ID.  It may be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said because of my ignorance, but ID and specifically irreducible complexity have always seemed to me to be untestable ideas, therefor not science.  Even if they are completely true that would seem to make them not fall within the realm of science.  But I am trying to keep enough of an open mind so that if I am shown that they are, in fact, testable and scientific, I won't dismiss it.  If you could give me a brief summation of what ID entails, and explain the process by which something is tested to see if it is irreducibly complex, or if you could direct me somewhere I could have that explained, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> P.S. - Does ID allow for the possibility an alien intelligence, rather than a supernatural one, is the designer?  I'm sure that would be answered if I were clear on what ID proposes, but should you not wish to try and explain the theory here (and possibly dumb it down so I can understand it lol) I would at least like an answer to that question.
> Thanks.



"Layman" or not you have accurately summed up the major issues and questions about I.D.  You haven't missed anything.  The "best and brightest" in the ID movement can't answer the questions you have asked, therefore, I wouldn't expect M.D. to be able to give you the answers you seek.  

If you are really interested, here are too good sources:   
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg]YouTube - &#x202a;Ken Miller on Intelligent Design&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

M.D. is quick to dismiss Dr. Miller's simple explanation of why "irrefutable complexity" is bunk.  However, he stops there.  

As you noted, his tactic (and the tactic of all ID proponents) is simply to argue against Evolutionary theory without offering any viable alternative.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> And personally, I don't see how our brightest and best can just summarily dismiss it as irrelevent or fantasy and not worthy of exploration or consideration.



Because it can't be explored scientifically.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Okay, you little pissant, the gloves come off.



You mean you've been holding back?



> SHUT UP!  YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.



Quite the intellectual argument.  You are certainly showing us!


----------



## percysunshine

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...


----------



## geauxtohell

percysunshine said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...
Click to expand...


It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.  

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8]YouTube - &#x202a;AC/DC Who Made Who (Maximum Overdrive Version)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## percysunshine

geauxtohell said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.
> 
> Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?
> 
> "The video game say "play me."
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8]YouTube - &#x202a;AC/DC Who Made Who (Maximum Overdrive Version)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
Click to expand...



The point in time when the universe was created, regardless of how or who or why, could not have supported life. It was just a big giant plasma ball....well...an extrpolated set of physics equations plasma ball.

'shit happens'


----------



## geauxtohell

Aside from the lack of science supporting ID, there is the legal issue:  

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf




> H. Conclusion
> The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
> of this case makes it* abundantly clear that the Board&#8217;s ID Policy violates the
> Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
> seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
> moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
> antecedents.*
> Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
> assumption which is utterly false. *Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
> is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
> general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs&#8217; scientific experts testified that the
> theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
> scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
> existence of a divine creator.*
> To be sure, Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution is imperfect. However,* the fact*
> Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 136 of 139
> 
> 137
> *that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
> be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
> religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
> propositions.*
> The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
> Board who voted for the ID Policy.* It is ironic that several of these individuals,
> who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
> time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
> Policy.*
> With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
> have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor
> do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
> stated, *our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
> alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.*
> *Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
> activist judge. *If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
> Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
> on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
> constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an
> Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 137 of 139
> 
> 138
> imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the
> Board&#8217;s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
> has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
> of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
> maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
> To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
> Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
> and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order
> permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
> within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
> disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to
> a religious, alternative theory known as ID.* We will also issue a declaratory
> judgment that Plaintiffs&#8217; rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
> Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants&#8217; actions.
> Defendants&#8217; actions in violation of Plaintiffs&#8217; civil rights as guaranteed to them by
> the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983* subject Defendants to
> liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
> damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs&#8217; attorneys&#8217; services and costs
> incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs&#8217; constitutional rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish.  There should be no legal issue.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish.  There should be no legal issue.



If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue. 

Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish.  There should be no legal issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.
> 
> Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.
Click to expand...


I have read the opinion.  I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish.  There should be no legal issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.
> 
> Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the opinion.  I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.
Click to expand...


You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, however, per numerous Supreme Court decisions (i.e. the Lemon test) creationism violates the establishment clause.  Per Dover, I.D. is creationism by another name.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.
> 
> Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the opinion.  I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, however, per numerous Supreme Court decisions (i.e. the Lemon test) creationism violates the establishment clause.  Per Dover, I.D. is creationism by another name.
Click to expand...


The establishment clause was intended to apply to the federal government only.  I am opposed to the federal government having anything to do with education or the schools other than possibly as a clearing house for shared data.

For what it's worth, I am also on record, in this thread even, as opposing teaching Creationism in the schools.  But it should be the local school board's call and not the federal government or the courts.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Montrovant said:


> Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about.



No problem.  But it seems best to take and discuss these questions one at a time.



> Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence?



Philosophically, yes.  Scientifically, not necessarily.  

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science, states that all [biological] life comes from [biological] life.  ID states, therefore, that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to that field of research.  The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.  

Abiogenesis, regardless of the shoe shine peddled by evolutionists, is nothing more than a mere hypothesis.  The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world stand.  Hypotheses do not overthrow theories based on the calculation that the former might be true, but not just that, true against the prevailing evidence to the contrary.  That's absurd, and that's what's being insinuated here.

This is the same crap that's peddled at the professional level of academia.  The evolutionary establishment gets away with this not because what it's saying makes sense, but because of the political shenanigans of academic majoritism which distorts the actual state of abiogenic research and the nature of ID's scientific assertion regarding prebiotic chemistry.

P.S. I saved your post with the other questions.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation".  The modern notion of "abiogenesis" wasn't around at that time.



So?  The modern notion is a hypothesis, and the scientifically established Pasteurian law of biogenesis, which refutes it, is not.  



> Pasteur's work has nothing to do with I.D..  It was just good science.  It doesn't support ID anymore than any other scientific discovery.



Yeah.  That's what you keep saying, but you never tell us why *ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry*, the scientific expression of classical irreducible complexity as applied to abiogenic research and predicated on Pasteur's work, is not scientific.  



> All that aside, it doesn't allow ID to get around the fact that it is non-falsifiable.



The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  That theory is falsifiable!  Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable.  

You're a brazen liar.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.
> 
> Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?
> 
> "The video game say "play me."
Click to expand...


LOL!  That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum.  It's the problem of infinite regression.  God by definition exists eternally.  He has no beginning.  He is not a creature.  He was not created.  He exists.


----------



## Foxfyre

To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life.  The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.

His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that *a sterile environment* is incapable of producing life.  The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.
> 
> His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.


The universe is hardly sterile!


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that *a sterile environment* is incapable of producing life.  The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.
> 
> His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is hardly sterile!
Click to expand...


Some of it no doubt is.  Some isn't.  But no scientific theory exists to explain how the substance of life formed to create an unsterile environment.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the opinion.  I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, however, per numerous Supreme Court decisions (i.e. the Lemon test) creationism violates the establishment clause.  Per Dover, I.D. is creationism by another name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The establishment clause was intended to apply to the federal government only.  I am opposed to the federal government having anything to do with education or the schools other than possibly as a clearing house for shared data.
> 
> For what it's worth, I am also on record, in this thread even, as opposing teaching Creationism in the schools.  But it should be the local school board's call and not the federal government or the courts.
Click to expand...


The supremacy clause means that individual states can't act in a manner contrary to the federal laws.  So, the establishment clause is the law of the land and is the legal precedence for keeping creationism out of school.  

Actually, that opinion is a pretty good timeline how the courts have ruled against creationism.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science,



LMAO.  The "prevailing theory"?  If any theory can make such a heady claim, it's evolution.  

Again, you overstate Pasteur's findings:

CB000: Law of Biogenesis



> states that all [biological] life comes from [biological] life.  ID states, therefore, that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to that field of research.  The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.



Irreducible complexity is not valid, falsifiable and is seen as a laughing stock.  In fact, Behe is given the credit for this (flawed) notion (Darwin's Black Box) and has never been able to support it.

You claim Behe is all wrong.  You have yet to produce another scientist or peer reviewed paper in support of irreducible complexity.  



> Abiogenesis, regardless of the shoe shine peddled by evolutionists, is nothing more than a mere hypothesis.



I have yet to see an "evolutionist" on this thread claim that any single theory of abiogenesis has a strong consensus.  We have noted that it is controversial and much more esoteric then evolution.

We have also noted that it is a separate field of study from natural selection (which I.D. focuses on - natural selection and not abiogenesis).  

Finally, the shaky ground of abiogenesis doesn't equate to your theory being correct.  At least the study of abiogenesis extends beyond the realm of personal opinion, which is all you have.    



> The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world stand.  Hypotheses do not overthrow theories based on the calculation that the former might be true, but not just that, true against the prevailing evidence to the contrary.  That's absurd, and that's what's being insinuated here.
> 
> This is the same crap that's peddled at the professional level of academia.  The evolutionary establishment gets away with this not because what it's saying makes sense, but because of the political shenanigans of academic majoritism which distorts the actual state of abiogenic research and the nature of ID's scientific assertion regarding prebiotic chemistry.
> 
> P.S. I saved your post with the other questions.



Good.  You haven't answered any of them.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation".  The modern notion of "abiogenesis" wasn't around at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  The modern notion is a hypothesis, and the scientifically established Pasteurian law of biogenesis, which refutes it, is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pasteur's work has nothing to do with I.D..  It was just good science.  It doesn't support ID anymore than any other scientific discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That's what you keep saying, but you never tell us why *ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry*, the scientific expression of classical irreducible complexity as applied to abiogenic research and predicated on Pasteur's work, is not scientific.
Click to expand...


I don't recall you asking me to comment on "ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry".  Once again, I will answer your questions, though you refuse to answer mine.  However, this is about the 5th pseudo-theory you've tossed out.  By all means, link a paper that explains exactly what ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is and I will take a look.  Don't waste my time with giving me another opinion piece.  

In the meantime, here is some reading for you:

http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/OrgelRNAWorld.pdf



> The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  That theory is falsifiable!  Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable.



How is it falsifiable?  It's an opinion.  Those that have tried to demonstrate this to be a quantitative statement through experimentation have failed miserably.  You could link the papers, but you know I'll link the obvious rebuttals.  

Furthermore, that statement is also not the crux of "Intelligent Design".  Even if it were true, it merely causes problems for the current field of abiogenesis.  It doesn't automatically prove I.D. to be true.  

A more valid I.D. hypothesis would be your statement with the caveat "which proves that evolution is guided by an outside force".

By the way, you have still yet to show me how that force could be anything other than a supernatural power.



> You're a brazen liar.



And you are an intellectual lightweight.  You seem to think you can prove your theory through excessive verbage, ignoring other people's points and questions, insults, and evoking fiat.

As such, you basically show why the scientific community finds "I.D." to be a laughable fraud.  You can't stand up to the scrutiny of the scintific community, therefore you attempt to advance your position through being a flim-flam artist.

As I said before, you aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.
> 
> Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?
> 
> "The video game say "play me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum.  It's the problem of infinite regression.  God by definition exists eternally.  He has no beginning.  He is not a creature.  He was not created.  He exists.
Click to expand...


Which God and why that one?  

Because your religious beliefs tell you that is true?

How do you know an intelligent designer didn't design God and put him in charge of our cosmos?

You believe what you believe as an article of faith.  That is fine.

It is not a scientific argument though.


----------



## edthecynic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.
> 
> Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?
> 
> "The video game say "play me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum.  It's the problem of infinite regression. * God by definition exists eternally.  He has no beginning.  He is not a creature.  He was not created.  He exists.*
Click to expand...

So you have defined energy as God! Thank you.

Energy cannot be created and exists eternally, not by definition but by repeatable experiment!!!


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life.  The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.
> 
> His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.



Why would it be?  Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation, which is now seen to be as laughable as believing the Earth is the center of the Universe.

What he did not do was establish Intelligent Design or weigh in on the origins of life in this world.  

It was a simple (but important experiment) with straight forwards conclusions.  MDR is making claims about Pasteur's work that simply aren't there.

In fairness to Pasteur, at that time mankind was only beginning to understand simple genetic inheritance.  We had no understanding of amino acids or nucleotides.  There is no way Pasteur could have commented on "The RNA Word" with his work.  

In a similar vein, Darwin's proposed mechanism for genetic inheritance was completely goofy.  Scientists do the best that they can with the knowledge of he world they have at the time.  

Therefore, for MDR to claim that Pasteur's work has any implications for the current debate of abiogenesis is either completely ignorant or just patently dishonest.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that *a sterile environment* is incapable of producing life.  The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.
> 
> His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is hardly sterile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of it no doubt is.  Some isn't.  But no scientific theory exists to explain how the substance of life formed to create an unsterile environment.
Click to expand...


That is not true.  Here is one such theory:

http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/OrgelRNAWorld.pdf

Miller and Urey received a noble prize for their work on this question in the _1950s_ .


----------



## Greenbeard

edthecynic said:


> So you have defined energy as God! Thank you.
> 
> Energy cannot be created and exists eternally, not by definition but by repeatable experiment!!!



God as a mere scalar? Sacrilege!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> I've followed this issue for years.  Until you showed up, I never met anyone who mentioned Pasteur's work relating to this in the least.



That's because you've been following the evolutionist's narrative for years, which, among other things, confounds the classical rendition of irreducible complexity and its scientific expression as applied to prebiotic chemistry, with Behe's rendition, which is obviously false, a straw man.

Politics?  Syllogisms?  Analogies?  The matter is ultimately one of scientific research,  experimentation, and falsification.

There is a whole other world of ID thought out there that has always begun with Pasteur's law for obvious reasons and proceeds accordingly.

On the other hand, the ID establishment is compelled to address the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry as well and that is where most of the energy is focused.  Here the matter becomes less scientifically scrutable, as specified complexity and probability are inversely related and are predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism.

Is it unreasonable to conclude that highly complex and specified biological infrastructures and systems were designed rather than achieved by a mindless, stochastic and ultimately unquantifiable mechanism of natural causality?

No.

Are such calculi scientifically verifiable in any empirical sense?  

Maybe.  Maybe not.  If not today, maybe in the future.  If not now, maybe never.

And so the evolutionist will say that the calculi of specified complexity abuse the art of mathematical probability because the mathematician, whether his guesses be reasonable or not, presupposes a set of parameters that cannot be empirically substantiated.  So not only is specified complexity as applied to speciation bad science or pseudo science, it's bad math because its calculations allege to show something about reality that may not be true.  If the parameters are wrong, the calculation is useless.   Think a syllogism whose conclusion is valid because it duly follows from the major and minor premises, but because the premises are absurd, the conclusion, however valid, is not true.  So goes the evolutionist's criticism.   

But what the evolutionist never tells you is that the parameters of his algorithms are a collection of educated guesses, too, starting with the jumping off points of the supposed incremental processes of complexity, which are calculated on the basis of known outcomes.  The mechanisms of the pathways are presupposed, too, and the pathways themselves are in reality unpredictable but for the convenience of the known outcomes.  LOL!  None of the parameters but the known outcomes can be directly or empirically substantiated.

Are the Darwinian algorithms necessarily unreasonable?

No.  

But the evolutionist is merely saying that a known outcome must have necessarily been achieved by a random chain of mutations within a medium of constants because, after all, the various species are here in the forms that they are, and the parameters of the Darwinian algorithms do in fact allow for the processes to arrive at the known destinations.  Hence, the outcomes are specified, but not complex in the sense of their derivations.

Ultimately, the evolutionist's characterization of specified complexity is based on his rejection of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism in favor of a methodological/absolute naturalism, an apriority that might be wrong.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to prebiotic chemistry is nothing more than the bigotry of intellectual dishonesty and the blather of political sloganeering.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to the history of speciation is arguably true, albeit, only when one disregards the validity of a classical naturalism.  In what sense is the construct of a common ancestry scientific other than the fact that a majority of scientists say so as they embrace a metaphysical apriority that begs the question?


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> That's because you've been following the evolutionist's narrative for years, which, among other things, confounds the classical rendition of irreducible complexity and its scientific expression as applied to prebiotic chemistry, with Behe's rendition, which is obviously false, a straw man.



You mean I read actual scientific journals and texts and listen to actual scientists?  That would be correct.  



> Politics?  Syllogisms?  Analogies?  The matter is ultimately one of scientific research,  experimentation, and falsification.
> 
> There is a whole other world of ID thought out there that has always begun with Pasteur's law for obvious reasons and proceeds accordingly.
> 
> On the other hand, the ID establishment is compelled to address the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry as well and that is where most of the energy is focused.  Here the matter becomes less scientifically scrutable, as specified complexity and probability are inversely related and are predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism.
> 
> Is it unreasonable to conclude that highly complex and specified biological infrastructures and systems were designed rather than achieved by a mindless, stochastic and ultimately unquantifiable mechanism of natural causality?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are such calculi scientifically verifiable in any empirical sense?
> 
> Maybe.  Maybe not.  If not today, maybe in the future.  If not now, maybe never.



"Maybe.  Maybe not."???  That's the whole issue at stake here.  As I said, no one is debating the validity of I.D.  That is beyond the scope of mankind to settle.  We are debating whether or not I.D. can every meet the standards of the scientific method.

Perhaps you should be a little less wishy-washy on this point.   



> And so the evolutionist will say that the calculi of specified complexity abuse the art of mathematical probability because the mathematician, whether his guesses be reasonable or not, presupposes a set of parameters that cannot be empirically substantiated.  So not only is specified complexity as applied to speciation bad science or pseudo science, it's bad math because its calculations allege to show something about reality that may not be true.  If the parameters are wrong, the calculation is useless.   Think a syllogism whose conclusion is valid because it duly follows from the major and minor premises, but because the premises are absurd, the conclusion, however valid, is not true.  So goes the evolutionist's criticism.
> 
> But what the evolutionist never tells you is that the parameters of his algorithms are a collection of educated guesses, too, starting with the jumping off points of the supposed incremental processes of complexity, which are calculated on the basis of known outcomes.  The mechanisms of the pathways are presupposed, too, and the pathways themselves are in reality unpredictable but for the convenience of the known outcomes.  LOL!  None of the parameters but the known outcomes can be directly or empirically substantiated.
> 
> Are the Darwinian algorithms necessarily unreasonable?
> 
> No.
> 
> But the evolutionist is merely saying that a known outcome must have necessarily been achieved by a random chain of mutations within a medium of constants because, after all, the various species are here in the forms that they are, and the parameters of the Darwinian algorithms do in fact allow for the processes to arrive at the known destinations.  Hence, the outcomes are specified, but not complex in the sense of their derivations.
> 
> Ultimately, the evolutionist's characterization of specified complexity is based on his rejection of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism in favor of a methodological/absolute naturalism, an apriority that might be wrong.
> 
> The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to prebiotic chemistry is nothing more than the bigotry of intellectual dishonesty and the blather of political sloganeering.
> 
> The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to the history of speciation is arguably true, albeit, only when one disregards the validity of a classical naturalism.  In what sense is the construct of a common ancestry scientific other than the fact that a majority of scientists say so as they embrace a metaphysical apriority that begs the question?



Another OPED post by you.  Again, if you want to establish I.D. as legitimate, then the onus is on you to provide the scientific evidence for it.

It is not sufficient to simply point out the alleged holes in natural selection.  

At some point, you are going to have to make an affirmative debate for your position.  

Since Behe is not to be believed, what other published scientist do we turn to do discuss irreducible complexity?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.  The "prevailing theory"?  If any theory can make such a heady claim, it's evolution.
> 
> Again, you overstate Pasteur's findings:
> 
> CB000: Law of Biogenesis
Click to expand...


I have not overstated the findings of his research.  You're full of it.  You're "LMAO" is bluster.  However, I'll allow that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is the prevailing first principle of biology, while evolutionary theory, albeit, as a matter of majoritism, is the prevailing theory of speciation.   

As for your insinuation beyond that, you're *lying again*! 

From the link you provided:

*There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.​*I never claimed that the law of biogenesis refutes evolutionary speciation; it refutes spontaneous generation, and in the light of current research in prebiotic chemistry, its ramifications refute abiogenesis as well.  It does not address what may or may not have occurred after life began, and I never said it did.

*LIAR.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

> The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  That theory is falsifiable!  Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable.  --M. D. Rawlings





geauxtohell said:


> How is it falsifiable?  It's an opinion.  Those that have tried to demonstrate this to be a quantitative statement through experimentation have failed miserably.  You could link the papers, but you know I'll link the obvious rebuttals.



Rebuttals?  *Lies* aren't rebuttals.  *Dissembling* isn't a rebuttal.  *All life comes from life.*  First you say that the law of biogenesis is based on good research; now you say it isn't falsifiable or real science.  Make up your mind.  *Liar*.




> In the meantime, here is some reading for you:
> 
> http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3...elRNAWorld.pdf



No.  *Lair.*  I've already read that paper.  Here's some reading for you:  Abiogenesis:  The Holy Grail of Atheism.  Scroll down to annotation 14 in the text of the article and read down from there.  Don't stop until you see why it's all moot:  you know, current science, the implications of subsequent research.




> Furthermore, that statement is also not the crux of "Intelligent Design".



It most certainly is with regard to prebiotic chemistry.  *Liar.*




> Even if it were true, it merely causes problems for the current field of abiogenesis.



It is true, *liar*.  All life comes from life, and until such time research overthrows that axiom, it will remain a scientific fact, *liar*. 




> A more valid I.D. hypothesis would be your statement with the caveat "which proves that evolution is guided by an outside force".



That's utter nonsense, *liar.*  Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are distinct fields.  You're confounding them in a pathetic attempt to refute what you can't after insinuating that I don't know the difference, which you know to be a lie, *liar*.




> By the way, you have still yet to show me how that force could be anything other than a supernatural power.



The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications with regard to prebiotic chemistry don't address the supernatural nor do they have to.  *Liar.*




> And you are an intellectual lightweight.



*Liar.*  LOL!  You've been beat all to hell and back again, and so all you have left are lies.  Lies don't count for rebuttals, lightweight.  *Liar.*




> As I said before, you aren't fooling anyone.



So says the *liar*.

Maybe you and edthecynic can strike up a career in a sideshow for liars down in Valence Electronville.  It would be very entertaining, lots of laughs, just not very informative.

And by the way, why are you still arguing Behe's falsified notion of irreducible complexity and pretending it applies to ID thought universally?   Evolutionists and their straw men!  LOL!

*Liar.* 

Hey, *liar*, in his book, Behe acknowledges that he derived his version of the construct from the famous Paleyan and Kantian formulations respectively.  Behe coined the term for the construct; he is not the progenitor of the construct, and the classical version, applied by all scientists, evolutionist and ID scientists alike in simulated speciation studies, is not the same thing as his.  You're simply exposing your ignorance about the history of ideas.  LOL!  So I'll chalk that untruth up to ignorance.  If you repeat it again, it'll be a lie, 'cause now ya know better.  And of course you will repeat it on this or another thread, because that's what you do.  *Liar.*

But wait a minute, I already explained that once before.  Never mind, you just lied again.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you've been following the evolutionist's narrative for years, which, among other things, confounds the classical rendition of irreducible complexity and its scientific expression as applied to prebiotic chemistry, with Behe's rendition, which is obviously false, a straw man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I read actual scientific journals and texts and listen to actual scientists?  That would be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics?  Syllogisms?  Analogies?  The matter is ultimately one of scientific research,  experimentation, and falsification.
> 
> There is a whole other world of ID thought out there that has always begun with Pasteur's law for obvious reasons and proceeds accordingly.
> 
> On the other hand, the ID establishment is compelled to address the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry as well and that is where most of the energy is focused.  Here the matter becomes less scientifically scrutable, as specified complexity and probability are inversely related and are predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism.
> 
> Is it unreasonable to conclude that highly complex and specified biological infrastructures and systems were designed rather than achieved by a mindless, stochastic and ultimately unquantifiable mechanism of natural causality?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are such calculi scientifically verifiable in any empirical sense?
> 
> Maybe.  Maybe not.  If not today, maybe in the future.  If not now, maybe never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Maybe.  Maybe not."???  That's the whole issue at stake here.  As I said, no one is debating the validity of I.D.  That is beyond the scope of mankind to settle.  We are debating whether or not I.D. can every meet the standards of the scientific method.
> 
> Perhaps you should be a little less wishy-washy on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so the evolutionist will say that the calculi of specified complexity abuse the art of mathematical probability because the mathematician, whether his guesses be reasonable or not, presupposes a set of parameters that cannot be empirically substantiated.  So not only is specified complexity as applied to speciation bad science or pseudo science, it's bad math because its calculations allege to show something about reality that may not be true.  If the parameters are wrong, the calculation is useless.   Think a syllogism whose conclusion is valid because it duly follows from the major and minor premises, but because the premises are absurd, the conclusion, however valid, is not true.  So goes the evolutionist's criticism.
> 
> But what the evolutionist never tells you is that the parameters of his algorithms are a collection of educated guesses, too, starting with the jumping off points of the supposed incremental processes of complexity, which are calculated on the basis of known outcomes.  The mechanisms of the pathways are presupposed, too, and the pathways themselves are in reality unpredictable but for the convenience of the known outcomes.  LOL!  None of the parameters but the known outcomes can be directly or empirically substantiated.
> 
> Are the Darwinian algorithms necessarily unreasonable?
> 
> No.
> 
> But the evolutionist is merely saying that a known outcome must have necessarily been achieved by a random chain of mutations within a medium of constants because, after all, the various species are here in the forms that they are, and the parameters of the Darwinian algorithms do in fact allow for the processes to arrive at the known destinations.  Hence, the outcomes are specified, but not complex in the sense of their derivations.
> 
> Ultimately, the evolutionist's characterization of specified complexity is based on his rejection of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism in favor of a methodological/absolute naturalism, an apriority that might be wrong.
> 
> The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to prebiotic chemistry is nothing more than the bigotry of intellectual dishonesty and the blather of political sloganeering.
> 
> The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to the history of speciation is arguably true, albeit, only when one disregards the validity of a classical naturalism.  In what sense is the construct of a common ancestry scientific other than the fact that a majority of scientists say so as they embrace a metaphysical apriority that begs the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another OPED post by you.  Again, if you want to establish I.D. as legitimate, then the onus is on you to provide the scientific evidence for it.
> 
> It is not sufficient to simply point out the alleged holes in natural selection.
> 
> At some point, you are going to have to make an affirmative debate for your position.
> 
> Since Behe is not to be believed, what other published scientist do we turn to do discuss irreducible complexity?
Click to expand...


(1) We agree that Behe's application is false, but it is not the classical version of the construct.  Your point is pointless.

(2) Why in the world would I state the matter any other way?  I'm not being wishy-washy.  That's the state of things.  Unlike their application to prebiotic chemistry, the constructs of  ID as applied to the history of speciation are difficult to define scientifically.  They amount to a rational-mathematical calculation coupled with an analogous methodology of design detection. 

(3) Yep.  And that's the difference between you and me.  I'm honest about the matter, and the typical evolutionist isn't.  The problems with evolutionary theory with regard to a supposed common ancestry are more than just holes in its primary mechanism.


You miss the point altogether.  Both ID and Darwinism are wish-washy in terms of science when it comes to evaluating something that is ultimately historical in nature.  You evolutionists just pretend otherwise, just like you pretend not to understand the scientific validity of irreducible complexity's application to prebiotic chemistry, you know, just like you pretend that I haven't answered your challenge regarding its supposed lack of falsification.

Hence, my new signature, in your face every time you read my posts.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.
> 
> Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?
> 
> "The video game say "play me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum.  It's the problem of infinite regression.  God by definition exists eternally.  He has no beginning.  He is not a creature.  He was not created.  He exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which God and why that one?
> 
> Because your religious beliefs tell you that is true?
> 
> How do you know an intelligent designer didn't design God and put him in charge of our cosmos?
> 
> You believe what you believe as an article of faith.  That is fine.
> 
> It is not a scientific argument though.
Click to expand...


Dude, of course we're not discussing science in this instance.  That goes without saying.  And, no, it has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs.  We are here.  Something or another has existed eternally.  Something or another was not created. 

God or matter, one or the other:  the first, the ultimate uncaused, cause, the unmoved, mover.  Something or someone that was designed or created by another would not be it.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.  The "prevailing theory"?  If any theory can make such a heady claim, it's evolution.
> 
> Again, you overstate Pasteur's findings:
> 
> CB000: Law of Biogenesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not overstated the findings of his research.  You're full of it.  You're "LMAO" is bluster.  However, I'll allow that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is the prevailing first principle of biology, while evolutionary theory, albeit, as a matter of majoritism, is the prevailing theory of speciation.
> 
> As for your insinuation beyond that, you're *lying again*!
> 
> From the link you provided:
> 
> *There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.​*I never claimed that the law of biogenesis refutes evolutionary speciation; it refutes spontaneous generation,
Click to expand...


No crap.  What have I been saying all along?



> and in the light of current research in prebiotic chemistry, its ramifications refute abiogenesis as well.  It does not address what may or may not have occurred after life began, and I never said it did.
> 
> *LIAR.*



"Ramifications"?  

You really are desperate, aren't you?  Pasteur's work says nothing about abiogenesis, and I suspect you are smart enough to know that.

If you aren't, read my earlier statements.

Once again, acting like a petulant child only makes you look like the fool you obviously mistake the rest of us for.  

You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.  That theory is falsifiable!  Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable.  --M. D. Rawlings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it falsifiable?  It's an opinion.  Those that have tried to demonstrate this to be a quantitative statement through experimentation have failed miserably.  You could link the papers, but you know I'll link the obvious rebuttals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rebuttals?  *Lies* aren't rebuttals.  *Dissembling* isn't a rebuttal.  *All life comes from life.*  First you say that the law of biogenesis is based on good research; now you say it isn't falsifiable or real science.  Make up your mind.  *Liar*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  *Lair.*  I've already read that paper.  Here's some reading for you:  Abiogenesis:  The Holy Grail of Atheism.  Scroll down to annotation 14 in the text of the article and read down from there.  Don't stop until you see why it's all moot:  you know, current science, the implications of subsequent research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly is with regard to prebiotic chemistry.  *Liar.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true, *liar*.  All life comes from life, and until such time research overthrows that axiom, it will remain a scientific fact, *liar*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's utter nonsense, *liar.*  Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are distinct fields.  You're confounding them in a pathetic attempt to refute what you can't after insinuating that I don't know the difference, which you know to be a lie, *liar*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications with regard to prebiotic chemistry don't address the supernatural nor do they have to.  *Liar.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are an intellectual lightweight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Liar.*  LOL!  You've been beat all to hell and back again, and so all you have left are lies.  Lies don't count for rebuttals, lightweight.  *Liar.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the *liar*.
> 
> Maybe you and edthecynic can strike up a career in a sideshow for liars down in Valence Electronville.  It would be very entertaining, lots of laughs, just not very informative.
> 
> And by the way, why are you still arguing Behe's falsified notion of irreducible complexity and pretending it applies to ID thought universally?   Evolutionists and their straw men!  LOL!
> 
> *Liar.*
> 
> Hey, *liar*, in his book, Behe acknowledges that he derived his version of the construct from the famous Paleyan and Kantian formulations respectively.  Behe coined the term for the construct; he is not the progenitor of the construct, and the classical version, applied by all scientists, evolutionist and ID scientists alike in simulated speciation studies, is not the same thing as his.  You're simply exposing your ignorance about the history of ideas.  LOL!  So I'll chalk that untruth up to ignorance.  If you repeat it again, it'll be a lie, 'cause now ya know better.  And of course you will repeat it on this or another thread, because that's what you do.  *Liar.*
> 
> But wait a minute, I already explained that once before.  Never mind, you just lied again.
Click to expand...


Come back when you are ready to act like an adult.  You should save yourself the embarrassment of another temper tantrum/emoticon breakdown.  You don't have much credibility left to lose.   

Remember, you are still delinquent in offering an explanation that supports I.D. (as opposed to merely arguing against natural selection).


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> Come back when you are ready to act like an adult.  You should save yourself the embarrassment of another temper tantrum/emoticon breakdown.  You don't have much credibility left to lose.



You guys incessantly misrepresent what is written, but I'm the bad guy because I call you out on it.  *edthecynic* even goes so far as to lie about the science, an easy thing to Google.  I gave him a chance to correct it, but, no, he chose to brazen it out, suggesting I didn't know what I was talking about.  

Pathetic.



> Remember, you are still delinquent in offering an explanation that supports I.D. (as opposed to merely arguing against natural selection).



Here's another example.  The idea that I've offered nothing in support of ID is absurd, and I've never argued against natural selection.  I've argued against the construct of a common ancestry.

Are you stupid or lying?  It's one or the other.  Since you're not stupid, well, not entirely stupid, you must be lying.  I'm a simple man.  I stick to the facts and the rules of logic.  You don't like facts and logic pisses you off.  You try to make me look stupid or dishonest, albeit, by changing my ideas.  Do that and I'll hand you your ass in short order.  I ain't to be trifled with.  You guys just never seem to learn that lesson.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You guys incessantly misrepresent what is written, but I'm the bad guy because I call you out on it.  *edthecynic* even goes so far as to lie about the science, an easy thing to Google.  I gave him a chance to correct it, but, no, he chose to brazen it out, suggesting I didn't know what I was talking about.



No, you are the "bad guy" because you tend to throw temper tantrums and act like a baby.  Then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.  

If you are misrepresented, perhaps you should try sticking to a simple message and communicating it in less then 4000 words.  

Of course, you'd be lost without your acadmic fluff.  



> Here's another example.  The idea that I've offered nothing in support of ID is absurd, and I've never argued against natural selection.  I've argued against the construct of a common ancestry.
> 
> Are you stupid or lying?  It's one or the other.  Since you're not stupid, well, not entirely stupid, you must be lying.  I'm a simple man.  I stick to the facts and the rules of logic.  You don't like facts and logic pisses you off.  You try to make me look stupid or dishonest, albeit, by changing my ideas.  Do that and I'll hand you your ass in short order.  I ain't to be trifled with.  You guys just never seem to learn that lesson.



You "ain't to be trifled with"?  What are you doing now?  Evoking your best R.D. Mercer impression?  What in the hell are you going to do?  Bore us to death with more banalities?  Call us liars (again)?  Whip out 4000 laughy emoticons?  Call us stupid?  Call us fascists?  

I suspect you are going to do the only thing you can do, which is what you have been doing all along:  sit there and pout.  

I haven't tried to make you look stupid or dishonest.  You've done a good enough job of that on your own.  In fact, I've tried to be cordial in dealing with you.  I've attempted to answer your questions.  You simply ignore mine.  

I don't have any illusions that I am going to change your mind on this issue.  That is not my goal.  It is nice to discuss this with the poster that understands the issues at hand and can honestly discuss the issue.  

You just aren't that person.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> No, you are the "bad guy" because you tend to throw temper tantrums and act like a baby.







> Then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.



Oh, shut up.  You ninnies have been routed on every point.  



> Of course, you'd be lost without your acadmic fluff.



 



> You "ain't to be trifled with"?  What are you doing now?  Evoking your best R.D. Mercer impression?



The satire just flies right over your head.  I knew it would.  



> Call us liars (again)?  Whip out 4000 laughy emoticons?  Call us stupid?  Call us fascists?



You're liars.  You're stupid.  (Valence Electronville, eh?)  You're intellectual fascists and statist leftbots.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are the "bad guy" because you tend to throw temper tantrums and act like a baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shut up.  You ninnies have been routed on every point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "ain't to be trifled with"?  What are you doing now?  Evoking your best R.D. Mercer impression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The satire just flies right over your head.  I knew it would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call us liars (again)?  Whip out 4000 laughy emoticons?  Call us stupid?  Call us fascists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're liars.  You're stupid.  (Valence Electronville, eh?)  You're intellectual fascists and statist leftbots.
Click to expand...


Like I said, you basically provided the expected response.  

Good luck with your novel I.D. theory.  I am sure you will continue to be disspointed in being ignored by the scientific community.  You will probably continue to claim that this is all some sort of "statist" conspiracy and refuse to acknowlege a simple truth:

If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board, you have no hope in the world of peer review.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

spectrumc01 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it.  Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway.
> 
> Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism.  Your mind is made up and there is no changing it.  That is the problem with debates like this one.  All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.
> 
> The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools.  The church is the place to teach religion based creationism.  The home is the place to teach religion based creationism.  Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.
Click to expand...


Provide some facts and we'll see if your right about those of us who think the big bang theory is hogwash will still believe so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish.  There should be no legal issue.



Of course ID should be taught in public education, just not in the biology classroom.


----------



## Moonglow

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



Nobody really knows, not even the creationists. That is why the creation myth has never been proven. That is why the creation myth was created by hundreds of societies trying to answer a question that they could not answer with certainty of an educated mind for the future of humankind.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .



*The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands. *



Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands. *
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?
Click to expand...


You'll have to complete the "theory" by telling me how this process occurred if it didn't occur naturally.  Again, it's not sufficient for you to simply point at evolution and point out the holes and claim that is proof of your idea.  You have to actually propose your own alternative theory.  

But sure, I'll play this little game with you.

P.S.  You are going to have to do a little better than "some unknown outside force did it".


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands. *
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?
Click to expand...




> You'll have to complete the "theory" by telling me how this process occurred if it didn't occur naturally.



No I don't, and you know that, no more than the Pasteurian law of biogenesis need explain the ultimate origin of life.

The theory is falsifiable.

You are refuted.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands. *
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to complete the "theory" by telling me how this process occurred if it didn't occur naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't, and you know that, no more than the Pasteurian law of biogenesis need explain the ultimate origin of life.
> 
> The theory is falsifiable.
> 
> You are refuted.
Click to expand...


If you want to simply restate Pasteur's "laws", then there is nothing to refute.

If you want to claim Pasteur's laws say something they don't, then I've already responded.  

If you have the intestinal fortitude to actually tell us what your theory is or at least what you believe, then we can proceed.  

Otherwise, stop wasting my time.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

geauxtohell said:


> If you want to claim Pasteur's laws say something they don't, then I've already responded.



No.  You lied.  Remember?  You insinuated that prebiotic chemistry and post-biotic speciation were the same thing, that ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry addresses speciation after life began, and of course, that's a lie.  A big fat whoppin' lie.  An obvious lie.  A silly lie.  A sick, insane lie.    The lie of a pathetic, lying ass dog.

Tell me, have you discovered the metaphysics of science and the metaphysics of your theory whose name you will not speak yet?  Still lying about these things, too?

Behold what the rabid, barking mad evolutionist does when he's cornered.


----------



## geauxtohell

M.D. Rawlings said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to claim Pasteur's laws say something they don't, then I've already responded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You lied.  Remember?  You insinuated that prebiotic chemistry and post-biotic speciation were the same thing, that ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry addresses speciation after life began, and of course, that's a lie.  A big fat whoppin' lie.  An obvious lie.  A silly lie.  A sick, insane lie.    The lie of a pathetic, lying ass dog.
> 
> Tell me, have you discovered the metaphysics of science and the metaphysics of your theory whose name you will not speak yet?  Still lying about these things, too?
> 
> Behold what the rabid, barking mad evolutionist does when he's cornered.
Click to expand...


Like I said.  Come back when you are serious.  Until then, you are wasting my time.


----------



## JohnA

Toro said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if that God is the Islamic God?
> 
> The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if he is?  Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.
> 
> I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith.  Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me.  This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that the attack on Evolution does not generally come from scientists. It comes from religious people. Why?  Because it challenges their belief system on the origins of the universe, and implicitly, their belief in God as explained by their religion. This does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily correct, and most scientists know this. Instead, Evolution as a theory on the origins of man is one that best fits our understanding of the world around us through the scientific method. If a better explanation comes along, Science will abandon Evolution.
> 
> But (most) Creationists aren't interested in discovering the origins of the universe. They are interested in promoting their religion. Their agenda is to tear down the edifice of Evolution so that their explanation is the only one remaining by default.
> 
> I, like everyone else, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. And perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang, I don't know. But if He did, it is highly likely that God is something very different than the one described in the Christian bible, or any of the holy books for that matter.
Click to expand...

 im a atheist cus that  to me  it seems the most likely truth ,with all of the  facts  we have to prove  evolution and absolutely   no proof  at all  of g-d (any g-d ) religion relies on faith  alone ... you either have it or you dont . 

 even if in the future we find  some proof of a supreme being  there is no guarantee   he fits  the mold of christianity  or any other organized religion . 
 possibly  he will have no
 RELIGIOUS BIAS  AT ALL. its possible he didnt mandate the following of any particular  moral code  or that  he created any particular race  as superior .or that he cares or controls or knows what or how we live or even when or how we die . 


 one of the religions  could be right or NONE  of them .there are so many  differant faiths alive  now and there  has been many more in the past .all of them  have some artifacts and books . many have  prophesied   the  end of the  world  all wrong . all religions are  pretty much the same base  story line  altered to suit the individual belief  

 with atheism its only  one belief system *there  is no g-d *....no artifacts  no books no prophecies  .to back it up ,just reality


----------



## FA_Q2

Really!!  2011, come on..


----------



## Douger

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.


It didn't. It's all an illusion.


----------



## nitroz

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.



There are theories, but nobody knows for sure.

Any evidence of creationism before man came along?


----------



## ipMems

if all animals was created, then why they are all made typically, by one scheme? for the Creator it's more easier and better to make different schemes of body construction... but we see, that all animals seemed to be born from one branch... and thinking logically, we must come to decision, that all life forms have the one primitive Father in past, but this is not your loved Creator


----------



## Foxfyre

nitroz said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the universe come into being?
> 
> Opine and Educate me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are theories, but nobody knows for sure.
> 
> Any evidence of creationism before man came along?
Click to expand...


Wouldn't this be one of those "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nothing to hear it, does it make a sound" questions?

Certainly any evidence of creation would have existed before man came along if evidence of creation exists after man got here.  The question remans, however, given that nobody has any means to verify or prove either the scientific or the religious or the rationalized theories or explanations of Creation, whether any one has more or less credibility than another.

It is reasonable to me to explore all as to their origins and processes to arrive at any given conclusion re Creation or concepts of intelligent design that exist outside of religious or scientific theories.

What is stupid is to denigrate and insult people because they are capable of thinking about these things and giving consideration based on logic and reason rather than on some prescribed doctrine dictated by the religionists be they Christian or some other faith or Atheist.


----------



## kowalskil

spectrumc01 said:


> I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it.  .... The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools.  The church is the place to teach religion based creationism.  The home is the place to teach religion based creationism.  Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.



That is what most people think, including myself. As I wrote earlier, God is not a material entity. God's existence cannot possibly validated by empirical data. Big bang, by contrast, is theory based on empirical data. Which experimental data conflict with the big bang theory?

Ludwik Kowalski


----------

