Spirituality
15 May 08
22 May 08
Originally posted by JirakonThe reason it's not going anywhere is that your argument is based on both a misunderstanding of biology and a misappropriation of biological facts. It's all well and good that you believe god made the earth and you're entitled to your view (mad as I might think it), but to come to the scientific table armed with nothing more than faith and falsities just highlights how much faith is really needed to believe in creationism. Your creationist beliefs certainly cannot stand up to a rational discussion from a scientific approach, because creationism is scientific nonsense, plain and simple.
Like every other organism each individual whale has only one genome. You don't even understand this word!
Excuse me. I meant to say genotypes.
This argument is not leading anywhere. It doesn't seem as though either side can convince the other, as we're not just disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts, but on the facts themselves. As such ...[text shortened]... . You may not like this, but I'll be praying the He does just that for all of you.
~~~
23 May 08
Originally posted by StarrmanFaith is needed to believe in creationism.
The reason it's not going anywhere is that your argument is based on both a misunderstanding of biology and a misappropriation of biological facts. It's all well and good that you believe god made the earth and you're entitled to your view (mad as I might think it), but to come to the scientific table armed with nothing more than faith and falsities just h ...[text shortened]... ion from a scientific approach, because creationism is scientific nonsense, plain and simple.
Faith is needed to believe in the Big Bang.
I, being a Christian evolutionist can see that quite clearly. Why others who are so deeply entrenched on one side, I cannot imagine.
23 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydMy main problem with that is that you're equivocating faith despite the facts and faith based on the facts.
Faith is needed to believe in creationism.
Faith is needed to believe in the Big Bang.
I, being a Christian evolutionist can see that quite clearly. Why others who are so deeply entrenched on one side, I cannot imagine.
Creationism (at least young earth creationism) just flies in the face of all facts that we know.
Of course, you could say god just triggered the big bang and then you can believe in both 🙂
The problem with the creationism view is that it just inserts the paranormal into it where science is frankly looking for natural reasons that explain the evidence. The "god did it" theory by default can explain anything just by saying "well, god just did it that way" or by assuming you know the mind of god and suggest that "of course god would do it that way" - that just replaces one unknown with another.
23 May 08
When the physicists come up with a natural scientific answer for what initiated the Big Bang, I'll be all ears. But now, they fon't have a clue. They can trace back to a bi-zillionth of a second BEFORE the singulatity occured, but that and a dollar MIGHT fill your push lawn mower. 🙂 So it boils down to--"I believe the big bang happened, but I can't precisely prove it", then substitute God for big bang for the other faith-based hypoyhesis.
23 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydBut, if you understand the physics, you will understand that time is a dimension of the universe, not something which is independent of the universe. Trying to use the word "time", or any time dependent words relating to "before" the big bang is completely illogical. It's like trying to taste sunshine, or smell black.
When the physicists come up with a natural scientific answer for what initiated the Big Bang, I'll be all ears. But now, they fon't have a clue. They can trace back to a bi-zillionth of a second BEFORE the singulatity occured, but that and a dollar MIGHT fill your push lawn mower. 🙂 So it boils down to--"I believe the big bang happened, but I can't precisely prove it", then substitute God for big bang for the other faith-based hypoyhesis.
23 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnz...the latter of which has been done. People smell colors, hear numbers and know what color they are, etc.
But, if you understand the physics, you will understand that time is a dimension of the universe, not something which is independent of the universe. Trying to use the word "time", or any time dependent words relating to "before" the big bang is completely illogical. It's like trying to taste sunshine, or smell black.
If time were THAT irrelevent to the Big Bang, why do they spend so much time trying to trace it back to the nanosecond it occured? I've herad they have figured out how many milliseconds after the BB that it was the size of a basketball, a city, a planet, a solar system...etc..
They also claim to know how long (from the origin of the BB) it took for elements heavier than Helium to form. Time appears to be quite relevent in those cases.
23 May 08
Originally posted by JirakonFrom the very start you said you would argue it based solely on scientific evidence and asked us to leave your faith in God out of it. Now you appear to be admitting that you do not have any scientific argument but rely entirely on your faith in God.
This argument is not leading anywhere. It doesn't seem as though either side can convince the other, as we're not just disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts, but on the facts themselves. As such is the case, I think it's best if I humbly and respectfully bow out of this argument.
A statement like "It is generally acknowledged that ..." cannot be arrived at by pure logic and your information must have been obtained from somewhere - or you made it up. have asked you several times to tell us your source and you have ignored my request. I on the other hand have provided links to sources contradicting your claims.
If your faith requires you to support it with lies that you make up as you go along then you should think long and hard about the validity of your faith.
If they are not lies then you should have no problem telling us where you get your information.
Whether or not mutations of addition can or do take place really has nothing to do with the existence of God. The existence of mutations of addition doesn't prove evolution and it doesn't prove that God does not exist. So what are you so afraid of?
23 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou're missing the point. The big bang is the most likely event given the evidence we have. Whether it is indeed the right event is not the issue. Until we have a better, more accurate description of the origin of the universe we go with what fits the evidence best. Scientists are constantly trying to improve that description and eradicate parts of the theory that show a weakness, paradox or inconsistency. Believing in creationism does none of these things. It does not produce a theory given the available evidence. It does not attempt to improve the theory given new knowledge, nor eradicate weakness, paradox or inconsistency. It doesn't even give two hoots about falsifiability.
...the latter of which has been done. People smell colors, hear numbers and know what color they are, etc.
If time were THAT irrelevent to the Big Bang, why do they spend so much time trying to trace it back to the nanosecond it occured? I've herad they have figured out how many milliseconds after the BB that it was the size of a basketball, a city, a ...[text shortened]... k for elements heavier than Helium to form. Time appears to be quite relevent in those cases.
In short it takes the presumption that god did it and then makes the rest up. It is bull and cannot be considered anything like science. The big bang is a justified, falsifiable, evidence based probability choice and if it turns out some day to be wrong, not only will scientists accept that, they will also be sure that they at least went with the best answer they had at the time.
23 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydNot many people actually 'believe' in the big bang. I certainly don't. Until about 10 years ago, scientists said that the universe was expanding but that its expansion was decelerating with time. Now they say its acceleration is accelerating. If I had faith and truly believed in the first claim, I would deny the newer one or have some sort of break down when I realized my faith was placed in a falsehood. Instead, I simply accept the new idea as the best explanation for the information available.
Faith is needed to believe in the Big Bang.
If some scientist tomorrow says that the best explanation for the observed data is that there was no singularity but that the universe somehow started off fairly big then contracted then exploded again, I would see if his explanation made sense and if it did, I would no longer think the big bang took place.
23 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloyd...the latter of which has been done. People smell colors, hear numbers and know what color they are, etc.
...the latter of which has been done. People smell colors, hear numbers and know what color they are, etc.
If time were THAT irrelevent to the Big Bang, why do they spend so much time trying to trace it back to the nanosecond it occured? I've herad they have figured out how many milliseconds after the BB that it was the size of a basketball, a city, a ...[text shortened]... k for elements heavier than Helium to form. Time appears to be quite relevent in those cases.
No. Their brain merely plays a trick on them, but they don't actually smell anything. A colour is a photon with a specific wavelength. A smell is a chemical odour interacting with chemoreceptors in the nose and mouth.
Time is not irrelevant to the Big Bang, it's just that time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang. Cause and effect have no place when discussing the Big Bang.
Anyhow, we often cannot directly measure things in science, and rely on proxy measurements to infer actually what happenned.
23 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadLooking up steady state theory (now discredited), I found this enjoyable overview of cosmological theory, which ends thus:
Not many people actually 'believe' in the big bang. I certainly don't. Until about 10 years ago, scientists said that the universe was expanding but that its expansion was decelerating with time. Now they say its acceleration is accelerating. If I had faith and truly believed in the first claim, I would deny the newer one or have some sort of break down w ...[text shortened]... if his explanation made sense and if it did, I would no longer think the big bang took place.
The only thing that is certain is that there is still much to be learned — surely as amazing as any of the wondrous things we have learned already — as cosmologists continue their cosmic journey.
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/journey.htm
Faith versus science arguments are so unproductive.
23 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's why we should treat religion with religious arguments, and science with scientific arguments.
Faith versus science arguments are so unproductive.
When trying to prove religious matters with science, then things begin to go wrong.
When trying to learn science with faith, then things begin to go wrong.
Science is science, religion is religion. Don't mix them together. Because they are non-intermixable.
23 May 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree. Such a claim is almost a claim that religion has nothing to do with reality. Almost all religions make direct claims about reality and those claims can often be investigated by science.
Science is science, religion is religion. Don't mix them together. Because they are non-intermixable.
I also believe that if a religions claims cannot be investigated in a scientific manner then the person should admit that his reasons for believing are not based on evidence by his own personal desires.
23 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou are saying two things there. There's a difference between accepting the big bang happened and thinking god caused it and just not accepting the big bang happened at all.
When the physicists come up with a natural scientific answer for what initiated the Big Bang, I'll be all ears. But now, they fon't have a clue. They can trace back to a bi-zillionth of a second BEFORE the singulatity occured, but that and a dollar MIGHT fill your push lawn mower. 🙂 So it boils down to--"I believe the big bang happened, but I can't precisely prove it", then substitute God for big bang for the other faith-based hypoyhesis.
We have evidence the big bang happened (i.e. the theory seems to explain the reality), but I don't know if we'll ever be able to know what happened before that.
The problem with creationism (at least YEC), is that you have to not only say you believe in it and you can't prove it, but that you believe in it and you are ignoring reality in order to maintain that belief. You don't have to do that with the big bang theory and that's a big plus.
23 May 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnNot just ignoring reality but actively inventing an alternate reality. YECs will frequently make up something if they think it contradicts some aspect of science that contradicts YEC.
The problem with creationism (at least YEC), is that you have to not only say you believe in it and you can't prove it, but that you believe in it and you are ignoring reality in order to maintain that belief. You don't have to do that with the big bang theory and that's a big plus.