An atheists world (2)

[Subduction Zone]

so what was changed? All I seen was that part of the question was removed. Whats the big deal about that? Is not the answer the same? What I mean is that the whole answer is given....

No, what he did was to take an answer to one question and use it as an answer for another. And we do not know if the complete answer was given. Odds are it wasn't.

That is about as dishonest as you can get.

That is why many politicians demand an uncut version of any interview, in case someone tries to pull something like this.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, what he did was to take an answer to one question and use it as an answer for another. And we do not know if the complete answer was given. Odds are it wasn't.

That is about as dishonest as you can get.

That is why many politicians demand an uncut version of any interview, in case someone tries to pull something like this.

I disagree, I would have to see the transcript to even see as much as your saying. You tube is not a very reliable source. In my case he stated the entire sentence, regardless of what answer was given. It is a gold mine for any creationist looking for ammunition. Most won't buy what your selling.

 

[lasthero]

so you admit it's correct! Thats a start.

Thanks

Nope, fruitloops. I tackled them both, if you look. But pretend I didn't if it makes you happy.

 

[lasthero]

I disagree, I would have to see the transcript to even see as much as your saying. You tube is not a very reliable source. In my case he stated the entire sentence, regardless of what answer was given. It is a gold mine for any creationist looking for ammunition. Most won't buy what your selling.

Pathetic.

 

[createdtoworship]

so you've just said that you'd have to see it, meaning that unless it fits your particular taste, it's either a quote mine, or an illegitimate source....you don't at all feel guilty of dishonesty here?

"It is extremely improbably that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Ye it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glace, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." - Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol 271 October 1994

"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth's atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."

"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun hay have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."

"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculation, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth."

above from "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American meteorological society, vol. 63 (November 1982, pp 1328-1330

I think it is aptly speaking of the "electrocuted mud puddle"
Here is another one:

"Although biologists concerned with the origin of life often quote and early atmosphere consisting of reduced gases, this stems as much from ignorance of recent advances as from active opposition to them. This important conclusion is reached by Ann Henderson-Sellers, of Liverpool University, and A. Benlow and Jack Meadows of Leicester University, after a study of how the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth and other planets may have influenced surface temperatures since the planets formed."

"...The more we have learnt about Venus and Mars the harder it is to explain how all three planets --two of them apparently lifeless--could have converted primeval reducing atmospheres into the oxidized atmospheres seen today."

"The time has come, it seem , to accept as the new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial planets, and the biological primers which still tell of life on Earth starting out from a methane/ammonia atmosphere energized by electric storms and solar ultraviolet need to be rewritten."

from:"Smaller Planets Began with Oxidized Atmosphere," New Scientist (July 1980), p.112

 

[lasthero]

How do those two even speak against evolution?

Will you just post your whole stupid list and and save us some time?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wouldn't say that "creation" has zero evidence. What it needs is evidence that does not have far more parsimonious explanations.

Its pretty simple.

No, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. - wiki

yes? You are disagreeing that it is not the most popular theory existing today?

It is about the origin of this current instantiation of the cosmos, but does not speak to events prior to the expansion of the cosmos, or even if such questions even make sense.

Agreed, and your point?

 

[Davian]

Its pretty simple.

Yet curiously absent. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. I inferred from your post that you think such evidence exists.

yes? You are disagreeing that it is not the most popular theory existing today?

I would say that the theory best fits the observations, based on the current scientific consensus. Its popularity with the general public is not directly indicative of its validity. Look at religions, for example.

Agreed, and your point?

My point is that the BB theory does not support your statement, where you said: "The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist". You are using it in error.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yet curiously absent. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. I inferred from your post that you think such evidence exists.

I would say that the theory best fits the observations, based on the current scientific consensus. Its popularity with the general public is not directly indicative of its validity. Look at religions, for example.

My point is that the BB theory does not support your statement, where you said: "The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist". You are using it in error.

Strange how a hebrew wrote about the creation of the Universe, thousands of years ago saying God sent down a light from his realm into the lowest depths where nothing else existed, and he told the light to release itself. Perhaps this light was energy, remembering it was a vision given to a man who nothing about modern physics.

 

[Davian]

Strange how a hebrew wrote about the creation of the Universe, thousands of years ago saying God sent down a light from his realm into the lowest depths where nothing else existed, and he told the light to release itself.

Why would this be strange? Were there not gods-o-plenty back then?

Perhaps this light was energy, remembering it was a vision given to a man who nothing about modern physics.

Perhaps a far more parsimonious explanation is that someone just wrote down a popular myth. No "visions" required.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet curiously absent. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. I inferred from your post that you think such evidence exists.

I do indeed.

I would say that the theory best fits the observations, based on the current scientific consensus. Its popularity with the general public is not directly indicative of its validity. Look at religions, for example.

Ah, and there you are. What best fits the observations is what we "know" at present which can and does change. I totally agree that popularity is not an indicator of validity.

My point is that the BB theory does not support your statement, where you said: "The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist". You are using it in error.

I agree and disagree. I do agree that the BB theory doesn't actually prohibit our universe existing prior to the expansion. However, the BB theory supports the Bible narrative and the Bible is what is doing the predicting. The Bible claims that God created the heavens and earth. We don't know what the singularity held or what came before either by the Bible or science.

 

[Davian]

I do indeed.

Ah, and there you are. What best fits the observations is what we "know" at present which can and does change. I totally agree that popularity is not an indicator of validity.


I agree and disagree. I do agree that the BB theory doesn't actually prohibit our universe existing prior to the expansion. However, the BB theory supports the Bible narrative and the Bible is what is doing the predicting.

It doesn't even look like it supports your interpretation of it.

The Bible claims that God created the heavens and earth.

Explain how we are to test that claim. Or is it of no significance?

We don't know what the singularity held or what came before either by the Bible or science.

You appear to be claiming to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strange how a hebrew wrote about the creation of the Universe,

What Hebrew would that be?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Sight is not our only sense. And we can see things fall, we can feel the wind, all of the things that science treats as correct can be observed in one fashion or another.

Yet you cannot provide objective evidence for your god.

And again.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I can show empirical evidence for each and every one of those things except God.

Is there empirical evidence for God or is his existence supposed to be taken on faith?

Please show your empirical evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

continued:

5. And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.
The creation narrative predicts that early earth had water on its surface.
Science: It was once thought that earth was too hot for any water to be on early earth. NASA - NASA Scientist Confirm Liquid Water on Early Earth

6. And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.
The creation narrative predicts that early earth would have grass, herb seed, fruit trees.

Science: There is no scientific evidence in support of this narrative. There is also no evidence of the earliest time period on earth as that has been mostly destroyed.

7. And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years
and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.
The creation narrative predicts that there would be stars, sun and moon in the heavens after earth was created.

Science: Dating of the sun, moon and earth are very close. The earth's age has been somewhat elusive. Based on information we have presently, we can surmise that it is at least 4.5 billion years old. However, the oldest materials of earth have never been found...until recently. It will be very interesting to find out what these new discoveries will tell us about the age of earth.

8. And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.'nd God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The creation narrative predicts that life began in the water and that there should be swarms of life found there. After life in the waters then God moved His attention on land. There we see birds are multiplying on earth. Then we move on to the later mammals.

Science: We know that life did indeed start in the water and that according to the Cambrian explosion it swarmed with many living creatures.
Evolution 101: The Big Issues
We know that birds were present prior to the mammals listed in the narrative.

9. And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
The creation narrative predicts that man would be late on the scene of creation.

Science agrees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, we know when grass appeared on the Earth. It was after when birds appeared.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I didn't realize that SIGHT was the only measurement that counted!

The Devil gives me a new toaster with every successful year of service.

Puhleeze.

I'll tell you what I "serve": I serve the search for understanding of what is going on around me the best that I can. I can do no other.

Don't DARE tell me who or what I serve until you understand a fraction of what I do and know.

Thankyouverymuch.

You can only serve one.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "An atheists world (3)"