Creationists and science

Page 3 of 7 [ 107 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

15 May 2009, 11:39 am

Evolution tells us that before the big bang, the entire known universe was reduced down to a point they call singularity, which is defined by evolutionists as a starting in which the laws of physics break down. And since the evolutions are starting from a point where the very laws of physics break down, it's easy to see that evolutionists are not basing their theory of evolution on science at all. Evolution is just something written on a piece of paper, with a pencil with a very big eraser because it changes everyday.

_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 May 2009, 12:06 pm

JetLag wrote:

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang at all. The theory of evolution advances a hypothesis on how life changed and developed after its origin. The main "mechanism" is Natural Selection. The Big Bang theory has to do with the origin of matter and energy and does not address life in any way.

ruveyn

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

15 May 2009, 1:56 pm

JetLag wrote:

Evolution tells us that before the big bang

"Evolution" without anything following, like "the evolution of [something]" is usually short for "the theory of biological evolution". Biological evolution was also the context of your previous post. I know there are places, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some parts of the USA where even someone intelligent can be ignorant enough of the theory of biological evolution to think it includes cosmology. That is OK. None of us can know more than a tiny fraction of all the scientific knowledge that is there. But I find it useful to know how ignorant I am. When it comes to evolution, you don't seem to be aware of your ignorance. And so you are like someone who is convinced he knows what Christian theology has to say about the ethics of stock futures, even if all he's been told about Christianity is that Jesus Christ is one of Santa's little rein deers. Are you happy with that?

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

15 May 2009, 2:17 pm

JetLag wrote:

Evolution is just something written on a piece of paper, with a pencil with a very big eraser because it changes everyday.

Please, the very definition of science is that it changes if contradicting evidence is shown. As opposed to faith, you know?

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

15 May 2009, 11:16 pm

PIG PILE!

JetLag wrote:

And since the evolutions are starting from a point where the very laws of physics break down, it's easy to see that evolutionists are not basing their theory of evolution on science at all.

lolwut?

_________________
* here for the nachos.

JoJerome
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 261
Location: Lake Powell/Page AZ

16 May 2009, 11:19 am

Shadowgirl wrote:

There is science in Christianity. It helps us to figure out things in the world and evidence of God that things didn't happen by accident and God was the one that did it all.

I'd like to see this science. Because I've looked for a lifetime and each time Christianity claims 'science,' it is fantasy wrapped in pseudoscience language. What I mostly find is a fundamental lack of understanding of what science even is.

I've yet to see a single scientific basis for the existence of your god.

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

16 May 2009, 5:11 pm

Reminds me of a thread I wrote a year ago. ^^

Quote:

Oxidationism is just a theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am getting sick of the ignorance displayed on this board! The sheer number of people who believe in this heathen nonsense makes me so appaled I want to throw up!

When you burn, for example, a bush, there is a lot of smoke. That smoke is the fifth element called Phlogiston. The unbelievers of this site claim that so-called "oxygen" is magically reacting with the burning material. Don't they see how silly that seems? Excuse me, have you actually seen oxygen with your bare eyes? No, all you have seen is phlogiston being released when an object is burned!

There is no such thing as "oxygen". The thing that we breathe is good old-fashioned Air, one of the five elements. Fire and Phlogiston are the only reactants, Air only encourages Phlogiston to flee.

Now, a lot of heathens claim that oxidation is true because objects gain weight when objects burn. This is true, but objects gain weight because Phlogiston has negative mass. Think about it, if Phlogiston had mass it would be pulled down to the ground, right? But it doesn't, which proves that it has negative weight.

Oxidationism is conspiracy by the so-called scientists (who clearly know nothing about the world, I bet they haven't even read the Bible) who infiltrate our schools and steal our tax money! It all started when that stupid frenchman Lavoisier pulled the biggest lie ever, he was clearly possessed by a demon. Oxidationists are liars for Lavoisier!

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

16 May 2009, 5:18 pm

Good one!

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

16 May 2009, 7:42 pm

Henriksson wrote:

Reminds me of a thread I wrote a year ago. ^^

Quote:

That still hemorrhages all over the place, just like the dragon in your garage. Your talking about the tactile and tangible in one area, and your talking about oxygen in the other which clearly you can test, measure its amounts in organic and inorganic compounds, we know what it is, what it reacts with, its not in the realm of philosophy or metaphysics. No one's claiming that you're likely to be able to weigh, measure, burn, chemically combine or react God in the sense that you can pick up an object and even knowingly define it as 'God'. Someone could argue that you are every second of your life but that's purely a personal guess rather than a scientific measurement. At least at this point in our realm of current available technology science is science, metaphysics is metaphysics. Evidence of God or no God is anecdotal, science says nothing either way. If you have a personality clash with people who believe for the very fact they believe - deal with it, toughen up enough to handle a world where admittedly other people will have opinions and outlooks different from yours. Trying to shin-kick believers to death won't make them believe any less.

The only problem you and Sand have is that you lay out this ultimatum, pretty much that you will keep shin kicking anyone who talks about faith - until they agree with you that there's no God just to make you go away. Good luck on that.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

16 May 2009, 8:00 pm

Henriksson wrote:

Well, maybe I am playing devil's advocate here, but the ideas of gradualism leave a lot to be desired. I think sometimes evolution gets it's pace up, just look at the Cambrian Evolution and a lot of other instances in prehistory.

The Cambrian Explosion or Revolution happened in period of 70 Mio. years - Our species is just a few million years old and how much we developed with in this period form apes. But there was an acceleration of the evolutionary process. But there are different theories around which explain this without "divine intervention" quite well.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

16 May 2009, 8:08 pm

Shadowgirl wrote:

There is science in Christianity. It helps us to figure out things in the world and evidence of God that things didn't happen by accident and God was the one that did it all.

This is not science: Science does not start to prove anything or an idea, but starts without a philosophical goal. It looks into the evidence not to find "god's will", but just how it happened. Unfortunately for religious people the evidence just does not point it the direction of any god. So there is no reason to introduce such a thesis.

---

Or to use metaphor: A scientist is not a lawyer in court only looking only for evidences in favour of his client, but he is more a judge in court of Roman Law, how makes without any favour in any direction his investigation to figure out the genuine truth; even regardless what the lawyers present.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 May 2009, 8:10 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Reminds me of a believe for the very fact they believe - deal with it, toughen up enough to handle a world where admittedly other people will have opinions and outlooks different from yours. Trying to shin-kick believers to death won't make them believe any less.

The only problem you and Sand have is that you lay out this ultimatum, pretty much that you will keep shin kicking anyone who talks about faith - until they agree with you that there's no God just to make you go away. Good luck on that.

You are right. Believers will Believe. What needs to be stopped is the Believers presenting their beliefs as facts or propositions strongly supported by empirical evidence. In a free country people should be free to believe (and even worship) the Great Purple Unicorn In The Sky. As long as the belief is voluntary and has nor force of law, there is no problem.

ruveyn

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

16 May 2009, 8:18 pm

JetLag wrote:

The law of physics do break down in the Big Bang, we just do not have yet a reliable theory about the laws of physics in the "moment" of the big bang. There some ideas around - waiting to get tested.

JetLag wrote:

And since the evolutions are starting from a point where the very laws of physics break down, ...

The evolution on earth started rough 10 bio. years after the Big Bang ...

JetLag wrote:

Evolution is just something written on a piece of paper, with a pencil with a very big eraser because it changes everyday.

The evidence of evolution is so strong that it is hardly to think to "erase" this. We see evolution happens - Day-by-day: In the body of HIV positive people, in bacteria becoming resistant against antibiotics, we can even describe with therm of evolution the development of culture and religion.

If you have information, which mute and reproduce itself in an environment of limited resources than evolution must happen as mathematical law. There is no difference here between DNA or human ideas.

JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

16 May 2009, 8:19 pm

I think that scientific proof is based on showing that something is indeed a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the people questioning the fact. I believe it is an event done in a controlled environment where observations can be made, data are drawn, and the theory in question verified as a fact.

The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things, though; it is by its very nature incapable of answering questions about historical events as "Where did the Universe come from?" or "Did Michelangelo create sculptures?" because none of these events can be observed and repeated in the controlled laboratory. Historical proof, then, must be based on written testimony, oral testimony, or exhibits, such as used in the court of law.

_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

16 May 2009, 9:40 pm

JetLag wrote:

I think that scientific proof is based on showing that something is indeed a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the people questioning the fact.

The fact is never questionable (except in cases of fault), but the interpretation of facts.

JetLag wrote:

I believe it is an event done in a controlled environment where observations can be made, data are drawn, and the theory in question verified as a fact.

No always - this is sometime the case, but astronomy or biology does normally not use this method - we can't just start a super nova in the laboratory ... at least not yet.

JetLag wrote:

The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things, though; ...

No - observable thinks. We can observe a super nova only one time and we can't reproduce it. For the next time we had to wait till the next one happens

JetLag wrote:

Historical proof, then, must be based on written testimony, oral testimony, or exhibits, such as used in the court of law.

... or archaeological evidences: When we read e.g. in Suetonius that on the order of emperor Nero big building were erected than we had to look in the archological evidences. This is the common way to distinguish between fairy tails teller and trustworthy historian of ancient times. With historical artefacts there are a long list of methods of figuring out origin and age: Alloys changed antique silver/gold is rarely purely refined, the side metals changed from time to time, because of different mines, the way paper is processed changed over time, the way stone is handle changed, we can make C14-dating etc. etc.

We can't reproduce that Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, besides the historical records we can look into paints he used, the composition of the plaster, typical techniques used at this time and by other painting contributed to him, etc. etc. etc. Putting all together we can say that this piece of art is his. Scientist will publish their finding, other scientist will look into the evidence and so on.

The scientific method at work.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

17 May 2009, 4:07 am

JetLag wrote:

The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things, though; it is by its very nature incapable of answering questions about historical events.

That isn't exactly true. Science also works like forensic examination. By looking at what exists now and how it is configured it is often possible to use that information in association with other information to work backwards. Thus the very idea of the big bang itself came about by scientists observing the universe is expanding, and by the nature of the expansion of each galaxy and their speeds (as measured by red-shifts) it is clear the universe is exploding outwards from a point (but this does not indicate the size of the point - singularity or otherwise). Other evidence such as the background microwave radiation and its density variations also adds information about the early universe and the distribution of matter. Lots of clues, lots of evidence and scientists ask "What does this tell us?".

So while science may not have witnessed the murder itself, it sees a body on the floor with a bullet in it and a man standing over it holding a smoking gun.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

Page 3 of 7 [ 107 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Creationists and science Post Reply New Topic

Creationists and science