Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[Monk Of Reason]

That doesn't seem absurd to you, something coming out of nothing? So this "place" beyond the Big Bang which could very well have been nothing, which this nothing has no attributes at all (even without time), something which is nothing that is completely without any representation (qualities) at all could produce the universe? So a completely irrational argument is sound thinking to you?

No. Its not irrational. I haven't stated that "nothing" created the universe. Your bastardization of what the science said is obviously irrational. But what the actual argument and science *is* is not.

Abiogenesis does not explain the very moment of life's conception; where dead matter becomes living matter. What you're doing is the old birdie trick, where you say look at the birdie (science), look at the birdie (science) to distract from the idea of life's very conception.

I very clearly explained how. And there is no "birdie" and there is no "life's very conception". There is no fine line between life and non-life. And don't say "dead" as dead actually means something that was once living and is dead. Life wasn't resurrected it was forged out of pre-existing materials through processes.

But to continue on with the explanation as it seems it wasn't sufficent.

With RNA and now DNA replicating they are able to hold information and replication of cells. Lipids or as you may know them as "fats" exist in an unusual way. The heads are hydrophilic and the tails are hydrophobic. What this means is that when put in water the fats begin to arrange themselves, without any intervention of man or god, into the most effective state. What it ends up doing is creating a wall called a bilipid layer. Bi meaning 2 and lipid meaning fat. The lipids arrange themselves where the head of the molecule faces the water and the tails are tucked in the middle away from the water. Then from there you find the strongest shape that also just so happens to have the highest volume per surface area which is a sphere. Now a bilipid layer will form a sphere which has water on the inside and water on the outside. What does that sound like? Well I'll give you a spoiler, its a cell wall. From there you have the nucleus of DNA which replicates and has the first cell. If you consider this to bet he very first life then this is the simplest form of life.

From there alternative additions developed through he same process of random "mistakes" during replications where only the positive mistakes survive. Early cells also show signs of having absorbed one another. Mitochondria for example often have different DNA than the rest of the cell.

But there is no evidence of a single moment in which there was life where there was only non-life prior to that moment. It was a slow change and development to the point that there was no hard line.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There is absence of evidence in evolution.

Spoken like a true apologist. The evidence is plentiful.

Anything done without guidance is blind. For instance, the theory that natural selection may be made through mutations is exactly how evolution is blind guidance. So the universe came out of nothing. Life is blind in its living process...These are all the claims that science makes. Anyone with any intelligence would know this is all wrong.

"Intelligence" can go as "intelligent" people believe many things. However, "rational" people do not accept a given claim without evidence to back it up. So far, there is no evidence, beyond subjective "Ooooh, ahhhhh" that supports intelligence guiding evolution.

That doesn't seem absurd to you, something coming out of nothing?

If you have an area of space and remove "everything" from that space, what is left is a vacuum. And a vacuum is vacuum energy. That, in itself, is a "something".

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

You are wrong, sir. Science does not claim that the universe came from nothing. We don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim.

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

What SEEMS absurd to us is irrelevant. Have you read up on quantum physics? The Universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities. It is full of things we may even never be able to truly comprehend, but they are still tangibly true.


Monk already explained that what came "before" the big bang (were such a concept valid) is unknown. They never claimed this was true, just that it was currently unknown and we have no way (currently) to know.


That's exactly what it's attempting to explain.


And what you're doing is called obfuscation. It's what people do to avoid the arguments being made because they lack the ability to actually debate them in a meaningful fashion. Monk gave you a thorough explanation of the current position with regards to abiogenesis - instead of playing the fool, perhaps you could read and respond to it, or at least show some grace.

The universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities? And yet there is enough order within the universe to perceive it as order.

And to you you're lack of knowledge about the beginning of the universe appears as a sound argument within a sound mind?

Abiogenesis is ATTEMPTING to explain life's conception. You failed to mention that it actually hasn't explained and isn't even close to explaining. You believe an argument within science that doesn't explain anything to be a sound argument?

There is no obfuscation here. I asked a question. What is the scientific process behind life's moment of conception? The very moment where dead matter turns into what is living? You can't answer it. Your excuses are to say "well science doesn't know that". And that is sound thinking to you? You have a perhaps a meager concept of God (I know this because you obfuscate the argument anytime He is mentioned, by saying, things like we don't know if God exists), even though you don't have the science to understand (and you will never have the science to understand because the knowledge doesn't exist without the thought of God), you refuse to even take what your meager understanding of God is and to apply it to the Holy Conception of Life. So basically, you know you don't have science on your side when understanding Conception, this is from lack of understanding Truth. So you know what you don't know, that being science. But you don't know what you do know, that being God. This is sound thinking to you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities? And yet there is enough order within the universe to perceive it as order.

There's plenty that we perceive and which makes sense for our brains to comprehend, but there is also an awful lot that we don't perceive and our brains find difficult - if not impossible - to comprehend. Again, I suggest you look into quantum physics.

And to you you're lack of knowledge about the beginning of the universe appears as a sound argument within a sound mind?

Lack of knowledge isn't an argument - it's just a position. As of now, I do not know exactly how or why the Universe began. It's called being honest.

Abiogenesis is ATTEMPTING to explain life's conception. You failed to mention that it actually hasn't explained and isn't even close to explaining. You believe an argument within science that doesn't explain anything to be a sound argument?

Again, abiogenesis is a particular field of scientific study which is looking into the possibility of life being generated from non-living organic matter. That's all it is. I don't "believe" it because there's not that much to believe aside from what they have discovered already, and no absolute claims are made by abiogenesis - just some hypotheses and experiments which need to be confirmed.

There is no obfuscation here. I asked a question. What is the scientific process behind life's moment of conception?

And Monk provided a very thorough and simplified explanation of the current leading theory on the process. You just completely ignored their answer.

The very moment where dead matter turns into what is living? You can't answer it. Your excuses are to say "well science doesn't know that". And that is sound thinking to you?

Erm... Yes. When we don't have an answer for something yet, the correct answer is "we don't know yet". What is unsound about that thinking? Is it more sound to pretend you DO know?

You have a perhaps a meager concept of God (I know this because you obfuscate the argument anytime He is mentioned, by saying, things like we don't know if God exists), even though you don't have the science to understand (and you will never have the science to understand because the knowledge doesn't exist without the thought of God), you refuse to even take what your meager understanding of God is and to apply it to the Holy Conception of Life. So basically, you know you don't have science on your side when understanding Conception, this is from lack of understanding Truth. So you know what you don't know, that being science. But you don't know what you do know, that being God. This is sound thinking to you?

Now you're just talking jibberish. If you want to claim God made life, you have the demonstrate that it is true. That is what you are claiming, so you have to demonstrate it. Meanwhile, we haven't made any absolute claims whatsoever other than "we don't know" and "science is working on it" and "here is a possible answer that we don't know for sure". Meanwhile, you're just throwing caution to the wind and claiming God did it despite a complete lack of rational argument or evidence of any kind.

We are being reasonable, you are not. We are remaining open-minded, you are rejecting anything that may contradict your belief in God. We are not jumping to conclusions or using unsound thinking, you are jumping to conclusions and ignoring any and all possibilities that may not agree with what you want to believe.

So yes, we are engaged in sound thinking. You are clearly not.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

The universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities? And yet there is enough order within the universe to perceive it as order.

And to you you're lack of knowledge about the beginning of the universe appears as a sound argument within a sound mind?

Abiogenesis is ATTEMPTING to explain life's conception. You failed to mention that it actually hasn't explained and isn't even close to explaining. You believe an argument within science that doesn't explain anything to be a sound argument?

There is no obfuscation here. I asked a question. What is the scientific process behind life's moment of conception? The very moment where dead matter turns into what is living? You can't answer it. Your excuses are to say "well science doesn't know that". And that is sound thinking to you? You have a perhaps a meager concept of God (I know this because you obfuscate the argument anytime He is mentioned, by saying, things like we don't know if God exists), even though you don't have the science to understand (and you will never have the science to understand because the knowledge doesn't exist without the thought of God), you refuse to even take what your meager understanding of God is and to apply it to the Holy Conception of Life. So basically, you know you don't have science on your side when understanding Conception, this is from lack of understanding Truth. So you know what you don't know, that being science. But you don't know what you do know, that being God. This is sound thinking to you?

"Not knowing" does not invoke God. Throughout the ages, this has been done; and throughout the ages, the "gaps" that "God" filled have systematically since been filled with knowledge.

 

[Shad]

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

Incorrect. There are two theories often combined into one. The Big Bang Theory is the inflation and expansion of the universe in which the singularity is a not a thing or object but a placeholder or unknown. In the Big Bang Singularity Theory the singularity is an object or thing. No one said the singularity began since there is no before time nor does anyone claim it comes from nothing, apologists strawman. There is not before the singularity since there is not time, it is an incoherent statement.

I do not know is better than assertions back by nothing and incoherent statements such as "before time". Think about it. Before is a time reference, before time is a reference to a time before time. It is nonsensical

 

[gnostic]

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

Gee. Why do people who don't understand science, always make things in what they think science is saying?

If you don't understand something, ask. don't make things up.

No, TheInfiniteLight. They don't have enough information or data of what to decide what happen before the Big Bang, just mean exact that. they can speculate, make educated guess, but one thing is certain, there is "nothing" before the Big Bang (BB).

Most Big Bang cosmologists, now accept the early observable universe began very hot and very dense, since George Gamoz (the Hot Big Bang), but was cooling down as the universe and "space" expand. Which mean before the expansion (or the Big Bang), the singularity was even hotter and denser than after BB.

If you learn anything from fundamental science in order for there to be density, there need to be "something" there, some sort of mass. Meaning, the singularity can't be "nothing", if singularity is very dense.

Likewise, there cannot be "nothing", if there are heat. Heat required a source for such energy. So if the singularity is very hot, there cannot be "nothing".

The problem is that no scientists can say what this singularity is, because we currently don't have the technology the singularity.

you are either misunderstanding what the scientists are saying, or you are making things up, or worse, both.

But please, if you seriously think BB cosmologists are say there is NOTHING before the BB, then by all me to prove what you are claiming, by providing sources.

So sources, please?

 

[Riverwolf]

Religion is a belief system. Evolution is a belief system in which men believe that nature is "blind".

No it isn't.

Unless you think that linguistic, cultural, and technological evolution are guided thousands of years in advance, as well, and not simply reactions to given environments. Evolution, per se, is not limited to living things.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities? And yet there is enough order within the universe to perceive it as order.

And to you you're lack of knowledge about the beginning of the universe appears as a sound argument within a sound mind?

Abiogenesis is ATTEMPTING to explain life's conception. You failed to mention that it actually hasn't explained and isn't even close to explaining. You believe an argument within science that doesn't explain anything to be a sound argument?

There is no obfuscation here. I asked a question. What is the scientific process behind life's moment of conception? The very moment where dead matter turns into what is living? You can't answer it. Your excuses are to say "well science doesn't know that". And that is sound thinking to you? You have a perhaps a meager concept of God (I know this because you obfuscate the argument anytime He is mentioned, by saying, things like we don't know if God exists), even though you don't have the science to understand (and you will never have the science to understand because the knowledge doesn't exist without the thought of God), you refuse to even take what your meager understanding of God is and to apply it to the Holy Conception of Life. So basically, you know you don't have science on your side when understanding Conception, this is from lack of understanding Truth. So you know what you don't know, that being science. But you don't know what you do know, that being God. This is sound thinking to you?

I just went into slight detail of this process of abiogensis. We have a theory and we have an explanation. We don't know if its true or not because we don't have the evidence to support it as a fact. But it is a theory and its a theory that fits rather well without any holes as of yet.

 

[leibowde84]

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

A singularity is not nothing. And, science does not claim to know what existed before the singularity, or where that singularity came from. If you disagree, please provide a citation to a source that proves this.

 

[Yerda]

I think we agree on something here! evolution would have to acknowledge it's own faith to rise to qualify as a religion, as is it's more of a superstition, pop science.

Which aspects of evolutionary biology do you feel are based on superstition? Have you studied the biosciences?

 

[Yerda]

It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim.

That's one claim. Some cosmologists posit an eternal uiniverse where the big bang is just a single instance of inflation in a universe that is constantly growing and changing (see Andre Linde). Others having noted the apparent creative powers of the void have suggested that something really can come from nothing (Lawrence Krauss has abook on the subject, and Michio Kaku talks about it his pop science books and shows).

Please, take a course or read a textbook or something. I'm sure there are video lectures and notes online for every academic subject.

Here's one from Yale that covers evolution: Open Yale Courses | Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior

Here's Krauss giving a lecture on his universe from nothing tour:

Here's a link to astronomy and cosmology courses: Online Astronomy Courses - AcademicEarth.org

The intro to cosmology one looks like a good starting point.

 

[Shad]

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

No the singularity is like a brick wall we can not see beyond. No one credible says it came from nothing. If you follow the standard BB model there is no before the BB, the BB would be time=0 thus there is no time= -1. If you follow a non-standard model such as Hawking's ideas then time and the BB are repeating event type, not a repeating of the same event. Picture a circle, the top of the circle is the BB. From this point follow the circle until it gets back to the BB point. Continue following the circle over and over. This is a simplified version of Hawking's idea. The BB is just an event type that repeats over and over with expansion and collapse phases. There is no true beginning but rather a repeating of event types.

Your argument is incoherent and a strawman since you are not talking about any model we have. You are talking about a model based on a misunderstanding since you most likely gained your knowledge of the theory from a creationist website rather than the theories themselves. We have no example of nothing, as in the absences of something. We have the singularity, which is something, and that's as far as we can go without getting into theoretical models based on pure math. Keep in mind the BB is about inflation from a point, not about the origins of said point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which aspects of evolutionary biology do you feel are based on superstition? Have you studied the biosciences?

The main aspect- that species evolved through millions of small incremental lucky random changes- this has not been observed- it is assumed

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms" Gould

"It's as if they were just planted there with no evolutionary history" Dawkins.


We can invent consequences for walking under ladders also, to acknowledge faith in our beliefs is one thing.

To insist they are fact regardless of evidence, is blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself, superstition

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The main aspect- that species evolved through millions of small incremental lucky random changes- this has not been observed- it is assumed

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms" Gould

"It's as if they were just planted there with no evolutionary history" Dawkins.


We can invent consequences for walking under ladders also, to acknowledge faith in our beliefs is one thing.

To insist they are fact regardless of evidence, is blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself, superstition

Are you capable of using quotes honestly and in context?

 

[Shad]

All of history can not be observed in modern times. Yet we do not dismiss Rome, China, etc due to this. Pieces of evidence create a chain of information from which to draw a conclusion. You focus on observation directly thus only attack a strawman of science rather than science itself. If we used Thrrepwood's method he could not prove Jews were in Canaan at any point of time since he can not observe them with his eyes being there

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities? And yet there is enough order within the universe to perceive it as order.

And to you you're lack of knowledge about the beginning of the universe appears as a sound argument within a sound mind?

Abiogenesis is ATTEMPTING to explain life's conception. You failed to mention that it actually hasn't explained and isn't even close to explaining. You believe an argument within science that doesn't explain anything to be a sound argument?

There is no obfuscation here. I asked a question. What is the scientific process behind life's moment of conception? The very moment where dead matter turns into what is living? You can't answer it. Your excuses are to say "well science doesn't know that". And that is sound thinking to you? You have a perhaps a meager concept of God (I know this because you obfuscate the argument anytime He is mentioned, by saying, things like we don't know if God exists), even though you don't have the science to understand (and you will never have the science to understand because the knowledge doesn't exist without the thought of God), you refuse to even take what your meager understanding of God is and to apply it to the Holy Conception of Life. So basically, you know you don't have science on your side when understanding Conception, this is from lack of understanding Truth. So you know what you don't know, that being science. But you don't know what you do know, that being God. This is sound thinking to you?

Many cosmologists, atheists included, have remarked on how extraordinary it is, that the universe lends itself to our understanding- testing our curiosity and ingenuity to it's limits to learn about and marvel at creation- the best way to appreciate anything

As a product of ID, this makes perfect sense, it's what we would expect. But for an accident to achieve the same thing.. must be chalked up to yet one more staggering coincidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you capable of using quotes honestly and in context?

Sticks and stones..
Here's the larger context if it helps

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Dawkins

 

[jonathan180iq]

Science does claim that the Big Bang came from a singularity. But how did the singularity come to be? It does claim to come out of nothing because that is the direction in which science points to. Before the Big Bang what was there? Nothing--that is the claim. How could nothing have any attributes? How could anything without attributes, possibly, produce the singularity in which the Big Bang came from. You just don't want to admit what is logically deduced and claimed by science (that nothing preceded the universe). If you are so wise in science then tell me what preceded the big bang? You say, "we don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim", so all you truly are left with is a NOTHING answer. So I rest my case the universe came out of nothing according to you pretend scientists on here.

In physics there is no such thing as nothing... The Universe is everything and came from everything.

Here's the larger context if it helps

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Dawkins

Are you seriously still doing this quote-mine charade?
Do you expect anyone to respect anything you say, given how many times you've been called on this?