George

Bfri, I think what he (SithLord) is saying is that he'll prove how matter was created from nothing right after you prove, using concrete evidence as you say, where God came from.

Very good discussion going on here though

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.

MickinEngland

Incidentally, for decades scientists said the universe is expanding but slowing down.
But recently they've started saying its expanding faster and faster, not slowing down at all..
Wish they'd make up their minds ;)



Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

}SOC{Spector17

Huh? I listed 2 quotes from the Bible, both 2 entirely different animals. The 1st was talking about the behemoth, and the 2nd was talking about leviathan (or dragon).
I don’t think I have any hole to back out of…

[quote] So what are you going to do? What every christian does when they try to use the bible as a literal record but get caught up in an incosistancy? You gonna back pedal and say it wasn't all meant to be taken literally... just the parts that fit your needs right?[quote]

No need to…

[quote=from me] And Job 41 describes what is a dragon. Ok before you are moaning that I believe in dragons, let me say one thing: Pretty much every ancient nation on Earth has some writing on dragons. Why can dragons be found in all the world mythologies? Dragon pictures are found in Africa, India, Europe, the Middle East, the Orient and every other part of the world. There must have once been dragons alive on Earth. Source: History Of Dragons and related links. [quote]

I don’t see your problem in believing in dragons. As I said above: About even nation on Earth has some mention of dragons like creatures, even if they have had no contact with each other. I don’t see why it is so hard to believe in dragons…

They were written down by about every nation on earth for you to enjoy.

lol, there isn’t in fact much proof about evolution… What is the chance that nothing can explode into something and form what we have today… isn’t like 1/99999^99999^9999 of a chance? (btw, I made that number up…lol)

huh? We don’t lose we win…

Ask away, I’m a-waiting…

What is the other theory? Oh right… evolution. I forgot about that….The theory that nothing that “blew up” into something.

Then why haven’t they ever found a cross between a fish and a frog for example. Or a leopard seal to a bald eagle…?

2 Things:
#1 Why do we see no “failed mutations” today. Oh, and if your answer will be: “Because everything has been worked out by today.” My response will be “why today/decade/millennium specific?”
#2 Where do you get billions and billions of years from? Carbon dating can only measure up to a MAX of 50,000 years. SO who came up with that number?

Bah, im tired with your quoted argument. I got homework to do and 3 tests to study for… so…

Oh, and please, sith, respond to every point i have made. As I have down to yours.

DizzyDee

Name one scientist who has ever indicated that this is what evolution claims. The problem with many christians is they learned a skewed "straw man" story of evolution, that admittedly sounds ridiculous. However, if you took your christian biased, rose-coloured glasses off and read some real science on the subject maybe your arguments against evolution would sound more intelligent. Do some more reading and please ensure it is not from christian apologists.

__________________
DizzyDee

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

George

Give us a few quotes DizzyDee

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.

Grant

wow... i wish i could say things that sound so cool :P

what DizzyDee is trying to say, in stupid terms, is htat you confused evolution with the big bang theory

__________________
Hey.

DizzyDee

Are you teasing me Grant? yes that is partly what I meant, but it is also a misguided view of the big bang theory - it does not claim that everything was created from nothing - there was an explosion of different forms of matter - so it was created from one thing into something else. A fairly decent account can be found here Creation of a Cosmology: Big Bang Theory

Also, I am sorry about spouting off about christians, I know that there are many who fully understand and accept the big bang theory and evolution but believe they were divinely inspired - which is a position I can accept. I didn't mean to paint all christians with the same brush. There are, however, some christians who do have skewed ideas of what evolution and the big bang theories really are.

George wanted some quotes, all I have are common arguments I hear from time to time that I've researched on my own. Perhaps when I have more time I'll get you some quotes.

Statistics prove that evolution is an invalid thoery for the origin of life.

The first and most important thing everyone should be taught in high school mathematics is that statistics are routinely abused in every field, or misemployed by those who have an agenda, or lack ability, so we should not be surprised to find a lot of this sort of error, everywhere--not just in the creationism debate. Indeed, whenever statistics come up in any venue, we should always be at our most skeptical. And even more so in the present case. For we should expect something is up when the information needed for a correct statistical calculation doesn't even exist. We do not know what the protobiont was made of or how complex it was, nor do we know how many possible protobionts that can be manufactured chemically, yet both must be known before any calculation of the probability of the origin of life can be made. The fact that several authors go ahead and do such a calculation anyway should set off alarm bells--honest or competent people don't do that. They must have some motive other than the presentation of an objective discovery--for they have not discovered the nature of the protobiont or any other useful fact, but merely decided it by unjustified fiat. This is subjective, not objective, and thus most prone to error and bias, deliberate or not.

There are about 10 authors that I consider to produce bogus statistics, in order to make an argument against some form of natural creation (Yockey, Hoyle, Barrow, Tipler, Coppedge, Bradley, Thaxton, Schroeder, Morris, and Overman), only one (Yockey) presented his material in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. He actually believes in natural causes for life's origin, as does Hoyle; the rest are creationists. He professionally qualifies himself in his book to the extent of admitting that a natural origin is possible (e.g. by allowing that a 56-amino-acid replicator is possible, and that uniform chirality could be deterministic).

[*]Creationists are often fond of pointing eagerly to "respected" scientists who are believers in god, whether it be Newton or Paul Davies, saying "see, these smart, educated guys believe, so you should, too!" The rationale is that such men have examined the evidence much more closely and with greater knowledge and skill than anyone else, so "naturally" their conclusions should be respected.

The fallacy lies in supposing that the study of any science, even physics, grants someone authority in the matter of theology, and that they have actually thought seriously, correctly and at length on the subject--neither assumption is justified. It also sets up a double-standard. There are actually many more respected scientists who are atheists. If we are supposed to respect their opinion as better informed than ours, then we should be atheists, not theists. But as it happens, the whole "appeal to reverence" is a fallacy--these men's opinions are not guarantees of truth. Even their peer-reviewed, carefully-controlled research can end up wrong, and their belief in God is a far cry from the conclusion of peer-reviewed, carefully controlled research. For example, Einstein is often cited by creationist as supporting belief in a "creator" but he never declared the idea of a creator to be a necessary conclusion from anything, and has stated point blank that it as likely as not that there is no intelligent creator. Einstein said that there is in "the scheme that is manifested in the material universe...neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being" (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1979, pp. 69-70) and declared that "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of 'humility'" (ibid. p. 39). Finally, he declared that "to inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or of creation generally has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view," thus denying that anyone, least of all him, can conclude that a creator exists (The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 1-2). Elsewhere in that same book he writes, "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves." This soundly refutes the creationist misrepresentation of Einstein as supporting belief in a creator, as weak as such an argument from authority already is.

These are the two arguments that come to mind right now - sorry about the quotes, but wanted to address the ones I hear most often. Maybe I'll start another thread on this someday as we've taken this thread pretty far from "the bible and it's many flaws".

__________________
DizzyDee

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

GloryB

They don't have to make up their minds, because scientists are willing to change it based on facts and evidence. While Christians (and those of other religions) refuse to change their minds based on a book written thousands of years ago when they still thought the world was flat and you could fall off if you went too far. A rock that refuses to move out of the way of the tide will eventually wear down into nothing. Or it can go along with the tide for the ride of its life.

Here are a few other oddities in your Big Book of Everything: who else did God create besides Adam and Eve? Unless he created some other people that the Bible forgot to mention, everyone is a result of incest between Adam and Eve's children. Then again, after Noah and his family were the only ones left after the big flood, unless there were some stowaways not mentioned in the Book, incest again lead to the refueling of the population.

GloryB

Bfpri

So what?

So what?

George

Scientifically proven fact that inbreeding causes birth defects and mutations.

That's so what.

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.