Come on, Creationists!

[Audie]

Einstein also struggled with relativity because he couldn't imagine black holes being real. But they are.
The lesson here, is that it matters not what people believe or imagine. What matters is what the evidence tells us - no matter how counter intuitive it may seem.



Right. In other words, man doesn't dictate to reality how it should work. The evidence of reality must reveal it to us instead. If we go by our intuitions instead, chances are rather likely that we will end up with the wrong answer.

This is the moment where you should reflect on your "intuition" motivated beliefs concerning things like causality, origins etc. Then try taking an honest look at the actual evidence.

It's okay to be wrong. There's no shame in that. Einstein was a genius and he made the exact same "mistake". And it even concerned his own theories, his own equations. But they felt counter-intuitive so he thought he had to be wrong somewhere because "black holes are absurd". And then we found blackholes.

That was pretty good logic you are trying to
dispoil.
Einstein speaking of how intuition failed him
is a splendid argument for an amateur to trust
his own intuition on theoretical physics AND
life's deepest mysteries!

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. You can't. You are incapable of telling the difference between something that you find incomprehensible, and something that is incomprehensible.


But that is irrelevant to you claim you claimed that God is incomprehensible. F you claim that something is incomprehensible and then claim that you comprehend something about it, then you are full of it. Incomprehensible means not goddam comprehension.

This is what I mean that theists don't think their claims though.

Lol, and I get accused of being too literal. Atheists either have no imagination or they don't allow themselves to go outside the boundaries of what they think must be.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What an interesting thought. Are you claiming that everything that we imagine to be true is actually true ? Or is this some cheesy bait and switch where only the stuff that you claim to be true is real?

Do I have to explain the obvious? We are obsessed with the supernatural because we have an internal prompt telling us there's something beyond the physical. That should not be if we live in a universe created by chance. We should not even care about music and art and love.

 

[ppp]

Lol, and I get accused of being too literal. Atheists either have no imagination or they don't allow themselves to go outside the boundaries of what they think must be.

I don't recall accusing you of being too literal. If it wasn't me, I don't care.
What I do think that you do is parrot what you have been told without thinking what you are told through. Then when someone else thinks it through and points out the problems in reasoning they suddenly have "no imagination"

 

[wellwisher]

For sure it's way past time for the creationists to up their game a little.

But

Its impossible.

If you look at Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is based on a form of science determinism. Natural selection does not roll dice, when it makes selections, according to Darwin. A concept like survival of the fittest, as a basis for selection tells us an anticipated cause and affect this is not random.

The random approach to life, by modern biology; mutations, is not consistent with Darwin and is what makes the expanded theory wrong. Darwin never assumed the random approach that was added to his theory.

If you know anything about the history of science, alchemy came before the age of reason. The Alchemists used a type of whim of the gods approach similar to modern biology. They would mix thing together to see what happened, not expecting things to be rational. They thought, they could turn lead into gold since they lacks the logic of modern science and would bet on wishful odds like winning a lottery.

The rise of the age of enlightenment and the age of reason slowly phased out this whims of the gods approach. By the time of Darwin in the middle 1800's, reason was the way of science. Darwin believed in a deterministic view of selection, based on laws of science that would be discovered in the future. He never envisioned a version of modern alchemy, regressing his theory back to whim of the gods.

One key piece of proof, in nature, that Darwin's determinism approach was correct and random addendum are wrong are the proof reader enzymes that move along the DNA correct the improper base pairs, that modern biology needs and uses for its random mutations. If the natural selective at the nanoscale was random, why did it select enzymes that can proof read and correct mistakes on the DNA and thereby minimize random? This is consistent with Darwin's future of science determinism POV; Age of reason.

The modern problem appears to stem from 20th century Atheism which is a contrary mirror philosophy defined by its antagonistic relationship with religion. Religion assumed a type of determinism, so atheism had to pick random to define itself in its mirror world.

Darwin also chose a type of determinism, but he used the term natural selection; Mother Nature, as way to differentiate this from divine selection of religious creationism. That was enough for the atheists. However, they did not consider the bigger picture implied by determinism, in general. Science is teaching bad science, with proofreader enzymes nature's way of putting modern alchemy science on notice.

 

[ppp]

Do I have to explain the obvious?

It would be nice. But you are not explaining at all. Explanations begin with a foundation of what is accepted by both parties, then build on that foundation step by step to your conclusion.

We are obsessed with the supernatural because we have an internal prompt telling us there's something beyond the physical.

I wouldn't phrase it that way, but I agree that we naturally engage in magical thinking; seeing will and intent whether it is there or not.

That should not be if we live in a universe created by chance.

I see no evidence for that assumption. I suspect that you believe it for no other reason than that it is necessary for your conclusion.

We should not even care about music and art and love.

Again. An unevidenced assumption. I predict that instead of making the effort to provide that evidence, you will make a futile attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Despite the constant false refrain from creationists, there is nothing in the Big Bang Theory that either says or implies that the universe came from nothing.

If you, a Young Earth Creationist, were able to demonstrate that the Big Bang Theory was incorrect, and that both Common Descent and the Theory of Evolution by natural selection were impossible, that would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that there is a god.

There are not enough water molecules on Earth for there to have been a worldwide flood.

If the Earth were 6000 years old, it would be either a blob of molten rock or a cloud of dispersing plasma.

Beware the blue wire.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.

In science, a law is not a higher level than a theory.

The second law of thermodynamics does not preclude life.

Evolution has been observed.

You are a great ape.

To Serve Man is a cookbook.

Calling you a numbskull is not an ad hominem fallacy. Saying that you are wrong because you are a numbskull is.

Your value as a human being is not a function of your composition.

The animal world is not all tooth and claw.

If you think that ancient peoples did not know that an embryo at the mudghah stage looks like a wad of gum, then you did not grow up on a farm.

Onan's sin is not about masturbation.

I do agree with some of what you wrote--other items are misstatements of born again doctrine, showing you may want to learn some more about us.

I think Big Bang does align with the Genesis narrative, sure. And a layman term "there wasn't, then there was" is a great description of spacetime and light incepting at the BB.

 

[ppp]

The modern problem appears to stem from 20th century Atheism which is a contrary mirror philosophy defined by its antagonistic relationship with religion. Religion assumed a type of determinism, so atheism had to pick random to define itself in its mirror world.

This is a goofy claim. It falsely assumes that modern evolution is demarcated by some sort of theist/atheist boundary. This is not the case. Not even remotely.

 

[Audie]

If you look at Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is based on a form of science determinism. Natural selection does not roll dice, when it makes selections, according to Darwin. A concept like survival of the fittest, as a basis for selection tells us an anticipated cause and affect this is not random.

The random approach to life, by modern biology; mutations, is not consistent with Darwin and is what makes the expanded theory wrong. Darwin never assumed the random approach that was added to his theory.

If you know anything about the history of science, alchemy came before the age of reason. The Alchemists used a type of whim of the gods approach similar to modern biology. They would mix thing together to see what happened, not expecting things to be rational. They thought, they could turn lead into gold since they lacks the logic of modern science and would bet on wishful odds like winning a lottery.

The rise of the age of enlightenment and the age of reason slowly phased out this whims of the gods approach. By the time of Darwin in the middle 1800's, reason was the way of science. Darwin believed in a deterministic view of selection, based on laws of science that would be discovered in the future. He never envisioned a version of modern alchemy, regressing his theory back to whim of the gods.

One key piece of proof, in nature, that Darwin's determinism approach was correct and random addendum are wrong are the proof reader enzymes that move along the DNA correct the improper base pairs, that modern biology needs and uses for its random mutations. If the natural selective at the nanoscale was random, why did it select enzymes that can proof read and correct mistakes on the DNA and thereby minimize random? This is consistent with Darwin's future of science determinism POV; Age of reason.

The modern problem appears to stem from 20th century Atheism which is a contrary mirror philosophy defined by its antagonistic relationship with religion. Religion assumed a type of determinism, so atheism had to pick random to define itself in its mirror world.

Darwin also chose a type of determinism, but he used the term natural selection; Mother Nature, as way to differentiate this from divine selection of religious creationism. That was enough for the atheists. However, they did not consider the bigger picture implied by determinism, in general. Science is teaching bad science, with proofreader enzymes nature's way of putting modern alchemy science on notice.

How on earth you manage to make
the cause and (e)ffect of natural selection
"deterministic" is itself a Marvel of Nature.

Atheism, and your agenda loaded notions
about it have zero to do with evolution.

The only "alchemy" in biology, which
also has nothing to do with religion, is on
the part of those religionists who keep trying
to inject "giddidit" one way or another.

It would be terrif if you condensed your
posts, skipping " science" lessons and
irrelevant side issues such as gratuitous
swing- and- miss at atheists.

Oh and puh- lease. ""Proof"? Spare me the need to
offer a lesson in basic science.

 

[Audie]

This is a goofy claim. It falsely assumes that modern evolution is demarcated by some sort of theist/atheist boundary. This is not the case. Not even remotely.

That is a creationist perspective, though
In China, for one place, such a notion barely
registers as dimly amusing.

 

[ppp]

I do agree with some of what you wrote--other items are misstatements of born again doctrine, showing you may want to learn some more about us.

That sounds like a no true creationist argument. No?

I think Big Bang does align with the Genesis narrative, sure

I don't know why you think that. The orders of events are in direct conflict with one another.

And a layman term "there wasn't, then there was" is a great description of spacetime and light incepting at the BB.

The fact that the bullet point below was necessary and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, would say that you are demonstrably wrong about that.

Despite the constant false refrain from creationists, there is nothing in the Big Bang Theory that either says or implies that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't recall accusing you of being too literal. If it wasn't me, I don't care.
What I do think that you do is parrot what you have been told without thinking what you are told through. Then when someone else thinks it through and points out the problems in reasoning they suddenly have "no imagination"

Oh I think about it a lot. I don't just blindly accept anything.
You on the other hand...

 

[ppp]

Oh I think about it a lot. I don't just blindly accept anything.

Hmmm. That is good to hear. Would be better to see.

 

[cladking]

Perhaps God needs bad souls to go to hell, to separate them from the good souls who return to heaven?

With all due respect it seems an awful lot of scientists now days take the low road. Obviously this doesn't apply to you nor does the fact most scientists now days have little or no understanding of metaphysics and epistemology. Most scientists don't know what they know but more importantly they have no clue to the vastness that they do not know.

Karma gets us all in the end. Children should be taught to be careful what they believe because it all comes back in the short or the long run. When you're rude to people you disagree with and call them names you are setting yourself up for the fall. That's a lot more lecturing than I've ever done and a lot less than people give me in their every post.

 

[metis]

Most scientists don't know what they know but more importantly they have no clue to the vastness that they do not know.

And you do, I suppose?

BTW, do you understand quantum theory and how that may relate to the Big Bang?

 

[cladking]

And you do, I suppose?

!

I know virtually nothing but I believe I'm the only person who "knows" science and religion are describing two sides of the exact same coin.

While science is holiest than all thou's, they are probably far less right than those who wrote the "holy books".

 

[metis]

I know virtually nothing but I believe I'm the only person who "knows" science and religion are describing two sides of the exact same coin.

Then isn't it just a tad hypocritical for you to say what you did?

While science is holiest than all thou's, they are probably far less right than those who wrote the "holy books".

Scientists in general don't take "holier than thou" positions as that's largely reserved for theists.

Also, which "holy books" have it right, iyo? I used to teach comparative religions course several decades ago, and I don't remember any of them dealing with quantum theory, black holes, etc.

My point is that science is not the enemy of theism, nor do we rely on just previous beliefs and evidence. And I am a theist, btw, but we have limitations there as well as do my fellow scientists.

IMO, if done right, both can fit quite well together hand-in-glove.

 

[cladking]

Then isn't it just a tad hypocritical for you to say what you did?

Are you suggesting scientists can believe in the laws of nature, creationists can believe in the laws of God, but I'm not allowed to believe in a wholly random reality?

 

[cladking]

Scientists in general don't take "holier than thou" positions as that's largely reserved for theists.

Good scientists are not "holier" than anybody but humans each have flaws and this applies even to the best scientists.

 

[cladking]

IMO, if done right, both can fit quite well together hand-in-glove.

....Even two sides of the same coin?