Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Nietzsche]

it was a matter of science v atheism,

not all scientists are atheists, thank staunch skeptics of atheism like Lemaitre, Planck and Einstein for most of our scientific progress,
Pop scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, Tyson may do pretty well in book sales and TV ratings, but lag the inventor of the Chip Clip in terms of actual scientific contributions

Albert Einstein- It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then, I do not understand what your point is.

Science changes its mind when the evidence is there. The BB teory is proof of that.

And?

Ciao

- viole

other than atheism holding science back with the BB, the underlying dogma/preferred conclusion did not change.
it was forced to morph around the BB while maintaining the same atheist rationale- that there was no creation hence no creator
That was not just Hoyle's explicit rationale for steady state- , but it was also the rationale in Hawking's Big Crunch which 'make God redundant' in his words by circumventing the creation event with cyclical model- till that too was debunked.
The rationale has now retreated off the scientific field altogether with multiverses, etc- utterly untestable philosophical speculation.


Meanwhile the only observed reality is of a very specific creation event, the only things that changed in the atheist mindset- are the theistic implications they had used to resist it, which mysteriously vanished once it was proven

 

[metis]

despising sin, for what it does to a person is the opposite of despising the person

That's not what I was saying. The reality is that I have seen and experienced far more condemnation of myself and others from theists than atheists.

 

[metis]

unless we're talking about multiverses, string theory, M theory, etc right? Athiest dogma provides a waiver for scientific testability if the theory supports a preferred conclusion. If, like the primeval atom, it does not conform, THEN it has to be not only testable, but proven beyond all reasonable doubt before being accepted. A tiny bit of a double standard.

re. evolution, like Hoyle, no amount of evidence would change Dawkins' mind, because he explicitly despises the alternative.

I seem to see far more untestable and unproven "facts" being posted by theists than non-theists. The concept of the "primeval atom" has some evidence for it but is not considered a slam-dunk fact. The idea of a divine creator is only found in the area of speculative belief-- not science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pop scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, Tyson may do pretty well in book sales and TV ratings, but lag the inventor of the Chip Clip in terms of actual scientific contributions

I would suggest you review their contributions and achievements in the world of science. Sagan and Tyson are perhaps the most famous and popular of the "pop-science" realm, Tyson has served on multiple advisory boards, And we even have Hawking Radiation because of Hawking's contributions to the study of black holes.

 

[viole]

other than atheism holding science back with the BB, the underlying dogma/preferred conclusion did not change.
it was forced to morph around the BB while maintaining the same atheist rationale- that there was no creation hence no creator
That was not just Hoyle's explicit rationale for steady state- , but it was also the rationale in Hawking's Big Crunch which 'make God redundant' in his words by circumventing the creation event with cyclical model- till that too was debunked.
The rationale has now retreated off the scientific field altogether with multiverses, etc- utterly untestable philosophical speculation.


Meanwhile the only observed reality is of a very specific creation event, the only things that changed in the atheist mindset- are the theistic implications they had used to resist it, which mysteriously vanished once it was proven

There is no need to invoke multiverses in order to make a case for atheism. Even if our Universe was the only one, that would not entail God. Invoking multiverses to make a case for atheism would be like deploying a nuclear device to kill an ant. Scientists postulate multiverses because they are consequences of some equations that describe this Universe, not because they are atheists. As if the multiverse would help in rejecting the God most people pray to in order to get a better job, a boyfriend or a sit in Heaven.

But I am a curious girl, what makes you think that BB cosmology provides any evidence towards a conscious creative act?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The idea of a divine creator is only found in the area of speculative belief-- not science.

again, Hoyle and many other atheists would have debated you on that, the idea of a divine creator is exactly what they saw in the primeval atom.. which very much became science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no need to invoke multiverses in order to make a case for atheism. Even if our Universe was the only one, that would not entail God. Invoking multiverses to make a case for atheism would be like deploying a nuclear device to kill an ant. Scientists postulate multiverses because they are consequences of some equations that describe this Universe, not because they are atheists. As if the multiverse would help in rejecting God.

But I am a curious girl, what makes you think that BB cosmology provides any evidence towards a conscious creative act?

Ciao

- viole

Multiverses make the case for atheism by the rationale that if you had enough random universes, ours would be bound to occur eventually- (once again) making God redundant were it true. that's Hawking's argument, not mine.

same reason atheists like Hoyle did, a static uncreated universe implies no creator, and vice versa- which is why he never accepted it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would suggest you review their contributions and achievements in the world of science. Sagan and Tyson are perhaps the most famous and popular of the "pop-science" realm, Tyson has served on multiple advisory boards, And we even have Hawking Radiation because of Hawking's contributions to the study of black holes.

Hawking Radiation- an entirely theoretical idea that was never actually observed to exist in reality.. that's it?

 

[metis]

again, Hoyle and many other atheists would have debated you on that, the idea of a divine creator is exactly what they saw in the primeval atom.. which very much became science.

But could they supply any objectively-derived evidence for this, and if supposedly so, what was it? And even using basic logic, how could they possibly know or even have any evidence for? How could they possibly "see" a deity in the primeval atom? Sure it wasn't "deities"? How could they possibly tell?

 

[viole]

Multiverses make the case for atheism by the rationale that if you had enough random universes, ours would be bound to occur eventually- (once again) making God redundant were it true. that's Hawking's argument, not mine.

same reason atheists like Hoyle did, a static uncreated universe implies no creator, and vice versa- which is why he never accepted it.

I did not ask Hawking. If he feels the need to justify the structure of our universe because it looks somehow designed, it is his business. I do not have the habit to delegate my arguments to someone else, do you? Maybe he likes to use nuclear weapons to kill ants, who knows?

I am asking you a direct question, without invoking any multiverse.

What makes you think that BB cosmology, assuming that this is the only Universe existing, entails a conscious creative act?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nietzsche]

Multiverses make the case for atheism by the rationale that if you had enough random universes, ours would be bound to occur eventually- (once again) making God redundant were it true. that's Hawking's argument, not mine.

same reason atheists like Hoyle did, a static uncreated universe implies no creator, and vice versa- which is why he never accepted it.

It is becoming painfully obvious that you've not done much, if any, actual research into these fields and are instead just parroting arguments levied against people who are recognized as some of the best in their field. You would do us all a favour if you actually started trying to learn about these topics and stopped assuming that modern theories are wrong just because other theories have been wrong in the past.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I did not ask Hawking. If he feels the need to justify the structure of our universe because it looks somehow designed, it is his business. I do not have the habit to delegate my arguments to someone else, do you? Maybe he likes to use nuclear weapons to kill ants, who knows?

I am asking you a direct question, without invoking any multiverse.

What makes you think that BB cosmology, assuming that this is the only Universe existing, entails a conscious creative act?

Ciao

- viole

You asked how multiverses would support atheism, this is Hawking's own opinion on his own theories so I gave you that.

likewise you asked how the BB would support God, this was Hoyle's opinion and I agree with him, that just as no specific creation event implies no specific creator, the opposite applies and I am willing to accept that implication also

 

[viole]

You asked how multiverses would support atheism, this is Hawking's own opinion on his own theories so I gave you that.

likewise you asked how the BB would support God, this was Hoyle's opinion and I agree with him, that just as no specific creation event implies no specific creator, the opposite applies and I am willing to accept that implication also

Well, I did not ask Hoyle, either.

Do you have the habit of delegating your thoughts to someone else?

If not,then I would like to hear your words and your very own defense of your arguments. What makes you think that this one Universe and the big bang entail a conscious creative act?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is becoming painfully obvious that you've not done much, if any, actual research into these fields and are instead just parroting arguments levied against people who are recognized as some of the best in their field. You would do us all a favour if you actually started trying to learn about these topics and stopped assuming that modern theories are wrong just because other theories have been wrong in the past.

it's theoretical speculation as you say, not a scientific field at all by your own definition. I used to believe in the Big Crunch till it was disproven not so long ago by supernova measurements. That was the last scientifically testable atheist theory and it failed.

I agree with Krauss on multiverses [ it's not even clear that it's a theory at all]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, I did not ask Hoyle, either.

Do you have the habit of delegating your thoughts to someone else?

If not,then I would like to hear your words and your very own defense of your arguments. What makes you think that this one Universe and the big bang entail a conscious creative act?

Ciao

- viole

those were their thoughts we were discussing, as I said I agree with both of them, that a single BB universe implies a creator-
I disagree that there are any good alternatives.

It's the same rationale as most of humanity, and I share that too- that chance alone is not enough to account for the world we see around us, the probabilities are just too low to compete with creative intelligence.

 

[viole]

those were their thoughts we were discussing, as I said I agree with both of them, that a single BB universe implies a creator-
I disagree that there are any good alternatives.

It's the same rationale as most of humanity, and I share that too- that chance alone is not enough to account for the world we see around us, the probabilities are just too low to compete with creative intelligence.

Chance?

What makes you think that we think that our Universe is the product of chance? Maybe you need to define what you mean with chance, if that is the alternative to a creator.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nietzsche]

It's the same rationale as most of humanity, and I share that too- that chance alone is not enough to account for the world we see around us, the probabilities are just too low to compete with creative intelligence.

But it's not rationale. You're assuming it only because we do not yet understand it. At best it's a filler-answer, at worst it's an imperative to simply stop looking for the actual answer.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Chance?

What makes you think that our Universe is the product of chance? Maybe you need to define what you mean with chance, if that is the alternative to a creator.

Ciao

- viole

Chance as opposed to purpose, intent, will,

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Evolution is true because God told me.