What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[solid_core]

Everything might not need a cause though. In fact, just reading up on quantum mechanics and examples of things that violate classical causality is fascinating.

But you still need the probability wave to collapse. And the collapse needs a cause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bible actually does not teach anything about it. Human writers just non-systematically used what they liked, for the center of thinking and emotions - heart, reins, kidneys. They simply did not know.

Bible actually teaches only theological truths. That God is one, that God is Creator of everything, that we sin etc.

Which is why it is an error to treat the Bible as "inerrant" when it comes to the sciences. People not knowing what they are not expected to know does not refute the Bible, unless one tries to claim that everything in the Bible is correct. Biblical inerrancy is a quick road to atheism if one reasons rationally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not familiar with his work,,,but this is the same type of work that James Tour is familiar with. I believe he's a bio-chemical scientist.

So far, no life has been produced in a lab.
There are only 4 chemicals that are needed to make life, and yet it cannot be done.

I'll post a video of James Tour that I like:
It starts at about 6 min. the beginning is his personal life....

Oh boy. In that video he lied so badly about Szostak that he extended a rather false apology to him. Tour got caught lying again and again in that video. Not the best source to use. I can post a video by another chemist that explains the obvious falsehoods that Tour made. A lay person could have made those claims without lying since they do not know better. Tour could not make the same claim. He had to know better. He knew that he lied.

 

[GodsGrace101]

This is not true on a quantum level. On a quantum level events are statistical and not "cause and effect". Cause and effect is a result of large numbers. There is no "Law of cause and effect" in the sciences. It is still a very useful concept almost all of the time, but it is not written in stone the way that many people think that it is.

And it is a special pleading fallacy to rely on a God for a first cause. One could just as easily claim that the cosmos has always been here in one form or another. If one can claim that their deity needs no cause then by the same logic one can claim that the cosmos needs no cause either.

Except that the cosmos has NOT always been here.
Pre 1960 that was believed and so it was easier to believe that it just existed. After the 60's when it became proven that the universe had a beginning, the problem did begin for those scientists that are not willing to accept that there might be a creator.

I think it's rather lazy on both sides to believe that the other side cannot be right.
Lazy to believe that God created everything...
and lazy to believe that the universe just happened somehow.

Maybe we should just wait and see what turns out?
We may not know within our life time...I think it's a long time coming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you still need the probability wave to collapse. And the collapse needs a cause.

Why?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Everything might not need a cause though. In fact, just reading up on quantum mechanics and examples of things that violate classical causality is fascinating.

Right.
Particles that are observed act differently than when they are not.

It's all very fascinating.
I think we should be open to any solution of this great question.

 

[eleos1954]

Bible actually does not teach anything about it. Human writers just non-systematically used what they liked, for the center of thinking and emotions - heart, reins, kidneys. They simply did not know.

Bible actually teaches only theological truths. That God is one, that God is Creator of everything, that we sin etc.

they were men inspired by the Holy Spirit of God ... and some actually experiencing the presence of God

You do not know what they knew. Maybe they knew more than what you think they knew. Likely!

 

[GodsGrace101]

Oh boy. In that video he lied so badly about Szostak that he extended a rather false apology to him. Tour got caught lying again and again in that video. Not the best source to use. I can post a video by another chemist that explains the obvious falsehoods that Tour made. A lay person could have made those claims without lying since they do not know better. Tour could not make the same claim. He had to know better. He knew that he lied.

Please post it.
Sometimes he asks if there are chemists in the audience and looks for affirmation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that the cosmos has NOT always been here.
Pre 1960 that was believed and so it was easier to believe that it just existed. After the 60's when it became proven that the universe had a beginning, the problem did begin for those scientists that are not willing to accept that there might be a creator.

I think it's rather lazy on both sides to believe that the other side cannot be right.
Lazy to believe that God created everything...
and lazy to believe that the universe just happened somehow.

Maybe we should just wait and see what turns out?
We may not know within our life time...I think it's a long time coming.

No, the Big Bang Theory only says that the universe as we know it had a beginning. There could be a larger universe. There may have been a "before the Big Bang". And if not even if the Big Bang was the start of our universe since time started then the idea of a "before" may be nonsensical. No one has shown any need of a deity or any logical reason to believe in one. And even if you come up with a deity then the same objections occur against him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please post it.
Sometimes he asks if there are chemists in the audience and looks for affirmation.

So what if he asked the audience. Do you think that there were any there?

It has clips from Tour and explanations of how he had to know that he was lying.

 

[solid_core]

Why?

The Schrödinger's cat - the cat is both dead and alive until you look - at that moment the Universe will present one single result.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, the Big Bang Theory only says that the universe as we know it had a beginning. There could be a larger universe. There may have been a "before the Big Bang". And if not even if the Big Bang was the start of our universe since time started then the idea of a "before" may be nonsensical. No one has shown any need of a deity or any logical reason to believe in one. And even if you come up with a deity then the same objections occur against him.

Sure. There could be a multiverse...
but we still have the same problem. It does not solve the question.

Right now science cannot get BEFORE the BB.
If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) I do believe science has confirmed that time did not exist before the BB and this is why they cannot get to that split nano second just before the explosion...which should have imploded, BTW, but it didn't. Another good question to answer...why did it not implode?

Having a deity create everything is just as mysterious as having everything come from nothing.

 

[solid_core]

Which is why it is an error to treat the Bible as "inerrant" when it comes to the sciences. People not knowing what they are not expected to know does not refute the Bible, unless one tries to claim that everything in the Bible is correct. Biblical inerrancy is a quick road to atheism if one reasons rationally.

I went through various churches and never read a creed saying "we belive that our Bible is scientifically inerrant". But its maybe because I live in Europe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please post it.
Sometimes he asks if there are chemists in the audience and looks for affirmation.

I barely skimmed that video and saw that question. There were none in the audience. What Tour did was quite often an argument from ignorance. He could not understand how a particular step occurred so he assumed it was impossible. He does not seem to realize that the works that he was criticizing went through peer review. That means that at least some of the people that checked it had the knowledge that he thinks he holds a patent on. The processes were explained in a way that did not violate chemistry. Then after publication the same works would have been checked by countless other scholars. If they saw flaws they would have brought them up.

Tell me, if Tour is so sure that he is correct why doesn't he approach this properly? One does not do science in front of a an audience of lay people and then claim "There! I disproved it.". If Tour was so sure of himself he would refute the papers by publishing papers himself in well respected peer reviewed scientific journals. That is how one does real science. That he did not is rather damning.

 

[Speedwell]

The truth of it is that creationists don't have a scientific case to make for creationism. They don't want to make a scientific case for creationism. They don't think they need to make scientific case for creationism because they believe they already have the truth of our origins from another, more reliable source. They are convinced that all they have to do is impeach the scientific explanations of our origins. Look at the posts in this thread: all are either defenses of their reading of scripture or attacks on science. No attempt has been made to offer a scientific case for creationism, nor ever will be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, I'm not enamoured of the KJV.
But, in this case, every version uses the word SNAKE.

Assuming it BECAME a snake...it was still an animal before it tempted Eve. I do not believe it was another person or an angel. There was no other human type being around at that time....

I don't think it's very important to know what the snake was....just that Eve was tempted and Adam broke his covenant with God and caused the fall of humankind with his disobedience.

And, I do agree about the root words,,,but only in very few cases. I believe we can take the bible in its present translation and it tells us all we need to know about God and about salvation.

You have to put the whole story together from various places in the bible. For example, the serpent/devil/Lucifer was telling Eve to do the same things that it had done in the original rebellion, that is to take what one sees and desires over revelation (God's words). Snakes don't do that.

Eve was created from the 'substance' of Adam, not from the dust of the ground, just as Lucifer was specially created, and clearly was superior to the other angels. The (re)creation of the (surface of) earth and that of man mirrors the creation of the original Eden and that of the angels. And implicit in that are worlds of understanding about our nature and history.

 

[solid_core]

they were men inspired by the Holy Spirit of God ... and some actually experiencing the presence of God

You do not know what they knew. Maybe they knew more than what you think they knew. Likely!

Well, its obvious they did not know much about the universe, anatomy or biology.

They knew enough to express theological thoughts and to live in nature. Not enough to help you to win the evolution issue.

To experience the presense of God will not make you a scientist, it will make you a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. There could be a multiverse...
but we still have the same problem. It does not solve the question.

Right now science cannot get BEFORE the BB.
If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) I do believe science has confirmed that time did not exist before the BB and this is why they cannot get to that split nano second just before the explosion...which should have imploded, BTW, but it didn't. Another good question to answer...why did it not implode?

Having a deity create everything is just as mysterious as having everything come from nothing.

You do not seem to understand, having a deity does not answer any more questions. It only raises new ones. It has no explanatory powers.

And no, science can go back only so far before the sciences as we know them break down. The last I saw they can calculate to roughly 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that is a big unknown. I just watched a physicist explaining that yesterday. I don't know if I could find that. But he si not the only one that I have heard make that claim. He pointed out that there are speculations about the time before that, but that is what they are at this point. Mostly speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I went through various churches and never read a creed saying "we belive that our Bible is scientifically inerrant". But its maybe because I live in Europe.

Sadly it is mostly an American problem. So much so that leaders that believe that from other countries flock to the U.S.. Ken Ham and Ray Comfort for example. Many U.S. Christians have a hard time believing that most Christians accept the theory of evolution.

 

[46AND2]

Old question.

If everything MUST have a cause....
then the FIRST CAUSE CANNOT have a cause.

Re-read what you just wrote. It's internally inconsistent. By stating there is a first cause, it automatically means "not everything requires a cause."

Reminds me of what I used to ask myself:
What's easier to believe?
That God made everything
or
That everything came from nothing.

I decided on the first.

Those aren't the only two options.