The Danger of Creationism

[BPPLEE]

Sure, why not.

The basic components of cells are self-organizing and/or self-replicating molecules like RNA, lipid capsules, amino acids, etc. A lot of progress has been made in origin-of-life research.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[BPPLEE]

The Steady State theory was clearly wrong, so it was discarded.

The Big Bang is *not* a theory of something from nothing. It is not even a theory of the origin of the Universe. It is a theory of the expansion of the Universe from an earlier, high density state.

There is only one Big Bang Theory?

 

[Occams Barber]

But life began through some process no one controlled? It started on its own?

Yes - from a secular point of view it originated out of a variety of chemical processes going on in the waters of a pre-biotic Earth. At some stage a set of combinations resulted in a self replicating blob of chemicals - the first life.

Abiogenesis is an 'hypothesis' which means it's one step down from a Theory (like Evolution). While bits and pieces of the process have been duplicated it is proving difficult to recreate from go to whoa. One of many problems is knowing the exact conditions in an early Earth.

Conversion of non-life to life isn't as amazing as it sounds. You do it all the time when the food you eat is converted by your body into living cells by a process which is well understood and not miraculous.

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is only one Big Bang Theory?

Were you expecting more?

 

[BPPLEE]

Were you expecting more?

My understanding was there had been several models

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes - from a secular point of view it originated out of a variety of chemical processes going on in the waters of a pre-biotic Earth. At some stage a set of combinations resulted in a self replicating blob of chemicals - the first life.

Abiogenesis is an 'hypothesis' which means it's one step down from a Theory (like Evolution). While bits and pieces of the process have been duplicated it is proving difficult to recreate from go to whoa. One of many problems is knowing the exact conditions in an early Earth.

Conversion of non-life to life isn't as amazing as it sounds. You do it all the time when the food you eat is converted by your body into living cells by a process which is well understood and not miraculous.

OB

Okay thanks so it happened by chance

 

[Hans Blaster]

My understanding was there had been several models

Do you have a specific version of the Big Bang model in mind? (No variant of the Big Bang model is about the origin of the Universe from nothing.)

 

[Occams Barber]

Actually the Big Bang Theory was moving closer to the Biblical account because it admitted there was a beginning. The Steady State suggested the universe had always existed. So something out of nothing does apply to the Big Bang I agree

It's a common misunderstanding but science doesn't claim that the Big Bang was the 'beginning'. Nor does it claim that there was a beginning. The Big Bang describes a state of the universe micro seconds into the Universe as we know it. We have no specific idea what state things were in pre Big Bang.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you have a specific version of the Big Bang model in mind? (No variant of the Big Bang model is about the origin of the Universe from nothing.)

So how did the universe come to be?

 

[BPPLEE]

It's a common misunderstanding but science doesn't claim that the Big Bang was the 'beginning'. Nor does it claim that there was a beginning. The Big Bang describes a state of the universe micro seconds into the Universe as we know it. We have no specific idea what state things were in Ohpre Big Bang.

OB

Oh so there was no beginning? Like the Steady State

 

[BPPLEE]

Oh so there was no beginning? Like the Steady State

I thought it was like first there was nothing then it exploded

 

[Occams Barber]

Okay thanks so it happened by chance

It may have been the conjoining of a random collection of chemicals, but life is actually a certainty.

I know that because the odds that it happened are 1 (certainty). Its a certainty because it actually happened.

(probability can be a bit mind blowing )

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

It may have been the conjoining of a random collection of chemicals, but life is actually a certainty.

I know that because the odds that it happened are 1 (certainty). Its a certainty because it actually happened.

(probability can be a bit mind blowing )

OB

So it was a random event with no one causing it or controlling it?

 

[Occams Barber]

So it was a random event with no one causing it or controlling it?

There was no one 'causing or controlling it' although there were (and still are) laws of physics and chemistry dictating what was possible.

The problem you're probably having is that you see life as a special outcome. There is no reason to assume this. Life is only special to you because you're familiar with it. There is no scientific reason to assume that the universe was designed specifically to allow for the existence of life. Life is simply one of many consequences arising from the particular set of conditions obtaining in the Universe.

 

[Occams Barber]

So how did the universe come to be?

When you work out the answer there'll be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Oh so there was no beginning? Like the Steady State

Steady State said the Universe was always in the state its in now. Everything had existed forever and was unchanged in the macro sense.

Big Bang says that from some point in the past the Universe was tiny and expanding and is still expanding.

I thought it was like first there was nothing then it exploded

There was no 'explosion'. Big Bang was an unfortunate, and possibly derogatory, name given to the process by Fred Hoyle - the originator of Steady State. There was, and still is an expansion of space. What existed prior to the Big Bang is not known.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

When you work out the answer there'll be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.



Steady State said the Universe was always in the state its in now. Everything had existed forever and was unchanged in the macro sense.

Big Bang says that from some point in the past the Universe was tiny and expanding and is still expanding.



There was no 'explosion'. Big Bang was an unfortunate, and possibly derogatory, name given to the process by Fred Hoyle - the originator of Steady State. There was, and still is an expansion of space. What existed prior to the Big Bang is not known.

OB

Good information.

 

[BPPLEE]

Good information.

I thought it had since been found that the universe is not expanding

 

[BPPLEE]

There was no one 'causing or controlling it' although there were (and still are) laws of physics and chemistry dictating what was possible.

The problem you're probably having is that you see life as a special outcome. There is no reason to assume this. Life is only special to you because you're familiar with it. There is no scientific reason to assume that the universe was designed specifically to allow for the existence of life. Life is simply one of many consequences arising from the particular set of conditions obtaining in the Universe.

So life came to be with no purpose. It just happens to be what happened

 

[SLP]

One thing:

Creationism is better than atheism.

No it isn't.

 

[SLP]

Hackneyed copypasta is not impressive.

Fun fact: Jews make up 0.25% of the world population and get 23% of Nobel Prizes.

Fun fact: Nearly all modern technology and advances in science are thanks to Christians. Here are 34 Christian scientists:

34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians

Thank Christianity for science, chemisty, advanced mathematics (including calculus), universities, hospitals, electricity, computers, electronic communication, the airplane (but a Jew invented the blimp), genetics, telescopes, batteries, geology, physics, civil rights, just a few examples.

So what great achievements have atheists done in the name of science? Oh right, they murdered Australians and put their dead stuffed bodies on display in museums:

Centuries Of Slaughter: Genocide In The Australian Outback

Ok ok. Maybe I just cherry picked that as a biased example. Let's not forget what else atheists are famous for:

Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia

So they murdered over 100,000,000 people. Ok ok. Surely there are some other famous atheists that did other stuff:

EVIL ATHEISTS / EVILS OF ATHEISM / ATHEIST EVIL ACTS AND IDEAS/EVIL PHILOSOPHERS

In the past 100 years, atheist regimes murdered up to 259,432,000 people. So how does that compare to Christianity?

Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia

Oh ok. So the annual murder rate for atheists is only 182,716 times worse than Christianity's worst evil act in it's 2,000 year history, the Spanish Inquisition:

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.

So much for the "Danger of Creationism".

Conservapedia as a source? Might as well use Alex Jones, too.

But do tell us all - these Christian scientists - did they pray for their results? Or did they actually do research?
Because if they did actual research, then their supposed religion is irrelevant.