Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[DMagoh]

You can keep on asking "where did that come from" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't ever mean that there must be a god, or that everything we know about events in history is wrong. All it means is that there comes a point where we can't say for certain.

Of course, everything we know so far about the universe is better supported by real evidence than your god, or your creation story, so why on earth would you pay them any heed if you don't believe stuff with really strong evidence?

We don't know. Which is, as I said before, a perfectly valid answer. Goddidit is not. If you don't know why then perhaps you should brush up on a few things before you continue posting.


I haven't the slightest idea. My guess, which is likely wrong or a huge distortion of what current ideas suggest, is that there was none to begin with but shortly after the "Big Bang" and the expansion of space-time the energy originally present began to "change" into matter of various types.

Interesting. It "just happened" and you dont know how. You are super intelligent but you dont know how... and yet you are positive that God did not do it. That sounds like "unintelligence" to me. "I can unequivocally say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deity had anything to do anything, but I have no idea how everything started." Maybe you understand physics, but you sure dont understand logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, obviously you dont understand logic. I am simply making you play by your rules. Your rules state matter cannot be created or destroyed.... so now explain where the original matter came from using your rules.

Perhaps you should brush up on your logic as well. Nature does not have to follow what humans write down. I could write down the Law of Conservation of Cheese, but it really doesn't matter what I write down because cheese still breaks down in the digestive tract.

A scientific law is supposed to describe reality. When the law no longer describes reality as we know it then it is discarded. Upon the discovery of radioactivity the law of conservation of mass was thrown in the rubbish pile.

You have your logic completely backwards. Science discovers how reality works. Reality does not conform to the wishes of scientists.

 

[Elduran]

Interesting. It "just happened" and you dont know how. You are super intelligent but you dont know how... and yet you are positive that God did not do it. That sounds like "unintelligence" to me. "I can unequivocally say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deity had anything to do anything, but I have no idea how everything started." Maybe you understand physics, but you sure dont understand logic.

Point out anywhere where I stated that "I can unequivocally say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deity had anything to do anything"

I challenge you to do that!

Then I ask you to consider the multitudes of christians worldwide who accept evolution and big bang theory without any problem whatsoever, and ask yourself why these nonsense questions of yours have any bearing whatsoever on reality!

 

[Loudmouth]

Interesting. It "just happened" and you dont know how. You are super intelligent but you dont know how... and yet you are positive that God did not do it. That sounds like "unintelligence" to me.

What evidence supports the claim that God did it? None. So why claim that God did it in the first place?

We simply don't know how the universe started. Period. This is no different than in previous generations. At one point no one knew how lightning was created. People (incorrectly) attributed lightning to the actions of gods (eg Thor, Zeus). You are doing the same with the beginnings of our universe. You are inserting your god into the gaps in our knowledge. Once that gap is filled, like it was for lightning, then your god disappears. Is that really what you want to happen?

 

[Logic_Fault]

Interesting. It "just happened" and you dont know how.

That pretty much sums up what we are certain of at this point.

You seem to be implying that there's something inherently wrong with saying that, though I can't see why.

You are super intelligent but you dont know how... and yet you are positive that God did not do it.

I'm not "super intelligent." As you may recall I even stated a few times that I wasn't sure about a few things and could possibly be wrong which is far more than you seem willing to do.

I also never said I was positive that a god didn't do it. Anything, I suppose, is possible. Particularly when you start throwing omnipotent entities into the mix. What I can say is that I see no reason why a deity should be needed.

That sounds like "unintelligence" to me. "I can unequivocally say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deity had anything to do anything, but I have no idea how everything started."

As I said above, a "god" of some sort certainly could have created everything but I see no reason nor evidence to suggest that. Just because something may be possible does not mean it's probable or certain.

Maybe you understand physics, but you sure dont understand logic.

Says the guy waving the "God of the Gaps" flag around.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Scientists - but all that means is that they have to admit they are wrong yet again. Now there is nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. But there is something wrong with making eternal decisions based on information that may or may not be proven wrong. Atheists decide not to believe in God, because science can't prove His existence, when science is constantly having to admit they are wrong.



I dont claim to know the answer to that question. Depends on whether you read a literal six days or a symbolic six days. I'm content to wait until I see God face to face and let Him explain to me how He did it then.



Meaning?????




A few questions for you....

How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

There is a fundamental disconnect here.

You are claiming we are foolish for using science as the best means for discovering truth and reality because science has been wrong (and is wrong, and will be wrong). However often science is wrong though isn't the point, its that science is self correcting and improving. We may be wrong today, but we are less wrong tomorrow.

In contrast, the bible is stagnant and unchanging. It is also wrong (a bat is not a bird, we don't stone people for adultery, its ok to work on sunday) but it will never admit its wrong. You're stuck with a manual on life that is being increasingly shown as outdated and incorrect (especially inregards to scientfic claims, like the age of the earth and the origin of species), and all you can do is desperately try to poke holes in the theories that threaten your belief.

 

[Skaloop]

Scientists - but all that means is that they have to admit they are wrong yet again. Now there is nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. But there is something wrong with making eternal decisions based on information that may or may not be proven wrong. Atheists decide not to believe in God, because science can't prove His existence, when science is constantly having to admit they are wrong.

By being wrong about something, we get closer to being right. Example:

You are asked to guess the price of an item. The actual price is between 0 and 100 dollars. You can narrow it down by halves before you guess.

You ask "Does it cost between 50 and 100 dollars?" Yes it does!

Then you ask, "Does it cost between 50 and 75 dollars?" No it doesn't! You are wrong. But in being wrong, you have still focussed your findings down to a closer range of being correct.

Finding errors within a broad concept actually makes the concept more precise by eliminating error.

 

[consol]

There is a fundamental disconnect here.

You are claiming we are foolish for using science as the best means for discovering truth and reality because science has been wrong (and is wrong, and will be wrong). However often science is wrong though isn't the point, its that science is self correcting and improving. We may be wrong today, but we are less wrong tomorrow.

In contrast, the bible is stagnant and unchanging. It is also wrong (a bat is not a bird, we don't stone people for adultery, its ok to work on sunday) but it will never admit its wrong. You're stuck with a manual on life that is being increasingly shown as outdated and incorrect (especially inregards to scientfic claims, like the age of the earth and the origin of species), and all you can do is desperately try to poke holes in the theories that threaten your belief.

We all know creationists don't believe in creationism because there is nothing to believe,
what they try to do is disprove evolution, while they are doing that creationism is alive,
they can not extol the virtues of creationism because there aren't any,
so they attack the thing that makes their religion look stupid, evolution.

I can say this with all honesty, I feel sorry for creationists, it is not their fault
they were brought up to believe as they do, they were given no choice in the matter,
now they are stuck with something they cannot defend, but they are still trying.

I give them points for that alone, put yourself in their position, what would you do?
you have been indoctrinated to believe in creationism, (the craziest religion man ever devised)
and you know deep down it's garbage, but every one you know believes it, even if you decided
to denounce creation as rubbish, where would you live? you would be forced to leave home,
your whole life would need to change, I might just decide to go with the flow, it's a lot easier.

They so much want it to be true, and I think I would as well if I were in their shoes,
I firmly believe it has nothing to do with them.

 

[Brennin]

We don't know. Which is, as I said before, a perfectly valid answer. Goddidit is not. If you don't know why then perhaps you should brush up on a few things before you continue posting.

To the contrary, attributing the creation of the cosmos to God is a valid answer

 

[Brennin]

"The Law of Conservation of Matter" states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Was energy conserved in the big bang?

Probably not!

General relativity is the premier theory that we have for accurately describing gravity and spacetime. From this theory we get big bang cosmology. General relativity also discriminates between the things we measure in 'local' reference frames such as those defined in special relativity, and what we should expect to see happen in larger more 'general' frames of reference.

Conservation of energy is a measure of the total energy of a system and how it 'doesn't' change over time, but the problem is that operationally it only makes sense to define it in a spacetime that is flat...or as the theorists say, asymptotically flat. This means that, today, we can calculate the energy of a system, but if we make the same calculation when the gravitational field is very strong, or changing its curvature rapidly, we cannot mathematically define total energy any longer because the spacetime is not at all flat, nor, can you find an 'asymptotic' approximation to it within which you can define the total energy.

This means that, at the big bang, conservation of energy MAY have been badly violated, and that the gravitational field and its fluctuations introduced more energy into the system than what we might extrapolate from today's geometry for spacetime working backwards to the big bang.

Until we have a fully quantum mechanical theory of gravity, we can only estimate and guess how badly energy conservation was violated back then. It was clearly enough to create our physical world almost literally out of nothing!

(source)

Big Bang Cosmogony is very favorable to creation ex nihilo.

 

[Liquefied]

By being wrong about something, we get closer to being right. Example:

You are asked to guess the price of an item. The actual price is between 0 and 100 dollars. You can narrow it down by halves before you guess.

You ask "Does it cost between 50 and 100 dollars?" Yes it does!

Then you ask, "Does it cost between 50 and 75 dollars?" No it doesn't! You are wrong. But in being wrong, you have still focussed your findings down to a closer range of being correct.

Finding errors within a broad concept actually makes the concept more precise by eliminating error.

That's a good analogy.

I suppose the Biblical Literalist's way of doing it would be to simply state that the price is $34.98 and insist that it is $34.98 even if the price is factually shown to be $76.05. You can show them the price tag, ring it up and show them the readout on the machine, show them the receipt, even ask the store manager about it. No amount of evidence will sway them from thinking the price is $34.98.

 

[Liquefied]

To the contrary, attributing the creation of the cosmos to God is a valid answer

If you're willing to say that Godidit is completely the same as 'We don't know and don't care' then yes, God is a fine answer.

 

[Brennin]

Even the 95% overstates the degree of difference. Where chimpanzees and humans have similar sequence, they differ by 1.2%. In addition, each species has ~1.5% of sequence not present in the other. Thus a little less than 3% of human DNA differs from chimpanzee DNA.

The lack of rigor and consistency in biology gives me pause.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

The lack of rigor and consistency in biology gives me pause.

You don't understand what's being measured and I don't have time to educate you in upperdivision genetics. My suggestion go and get a four year degree in Biology, come back and ask questions then.

 

[DMagoh]

Perhaps you should brush up on your logic as well. Nature does not have to follow what humans write down. I could write down the Law of Conservation of Cheese, but it really doesn't matter what I write down because cheese still breaks down in the digestive tract.

A scientific law is supposed to describe reality. When the law no longer describes reality as we know it then it is discarded. Upon the discovery of radioactivity the law of conservation of mass was thrown in the rubbish pile.

You have your logic completely backwards. Science discovers how reality works. Reality does not conform to the wishes of scientists.

Except it doesnt matter whether it's matter or energy - it had to come from somewhere. So where??????

 

[Brennin]

You don't understand what's being measured and I don't have time to educate you in upperdivision genetics. My suggestion go and get a four year degree in Biology, come back and ask questions then.

I would not deign to be 'educated' by a teenager on upper-division genetics.

 

[Logic_Fault]

To the contrary, attributing the creation of the cosmos to God is a valid answer

No, it isn't. Surely you can see why.

 

[DMagoh]

Point out anywhere where I stated that "I can unequivocally say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deity had anything to do anything"

So.... are you saying God might exist?

Then I ask you to consider the multitudes of christians worldwide who accept evolution and big bang theory without any problem whatsoever, and ask yourself why these nonsense questions of yours have any bearing whatsoever on reality!

The "multitudes of christians worldwide who accept evolution" do NOT accept atheistic evolution, and there is a HUGE difference. My questions do not even come into play, because Theistic evolution HAS an answer - God started it.

Those that believe in atheistic evolution are who I am addressing, because THEY have a serious problem. There is no answer to the question. Which is why when the question is asked, they get defensive and start calling people stupid and ignorant and doing the "superior dance". It's all a distraction, but it doesnt work with me. I still want to know the answer. How do you explain the original matter/energy?

 

[Logic_Fault]

Except it doesnt matter whether it's matter or energy - it had to come from somewhere. So where??????

We keep telling you: we don't know.

Now, hurry along and type up your post that says, "Ah ha! Goddidit!"

 

[Skaloop]

To the contrary, attributing the creation of the cosmos to God is a valid answer

As valid as attributing it to IPU, FSM, the gnome on my shoulder, Santa, a giant space turtle, an orbiting teacup, or anything else the human mind can imagine. Which is, barely valid at all.