Creationists: Here's your chance

[The_Evelyonian]

You fit that description perfectly.

Nice ad hom.

Ok, I am going to hit this at a different angle now. Let’s assume genesis MEANT it was OLD (even though I don’t believe that, but some do) ok, so who cares at the moment about young earth creationism. Ok, God made the earth OLD. Case shut, your now still accountable to God.

Well, see, this is part of the problem in believing that the bible is the perfect word of god. The book is so damned vague that people have been struggling for eons to understand it. I would think that god would be a little better able to make his word clear so that all of the interpreting would be unnecessary.

Maybe I overestimate god's abilities?

Capitalizing the words I did does not show me as having not been objectively listening to both of them debate. Actually, I listened to the debate TWICE. I actually plan on listening to it again a third time because I thought it was SO good. I was listening to both sides objectively. Peter did a TERRIBLE JOB, but I am sure he represented your side correctly, he is both a scientist and a believer in your side of this. But putting myself OUTSIDE both their positions, he did a TERRIBLE job, debate wise. Just by the standards and principles of debate, I think he did a terrible job. Personally I wish there would have been someone more better to debate Stephen then peter.

I’m not lying to you, I really thought he did a bad job, and it’s NOT because of what he believed, but because of his debate skill just was bad. Now true enough, a wrong believe will DAMPEN a person’s ability to debate, perhaps that was the reason he was so terrible at it, but again I won’t assume anything, it could have been just simply because he was not very good at debating. Either way, I just wish IF it happened to be that it was a issue of low debate skill that they would have gotten someone better for Stephen. I do think that an evolutionist could do better then what he did. I don’t think they could win, but I do think they could have done better. At least a little bit better.

Yes, but to say that he represented my side of the argument correctly was unnecessary. I wouldn't point you to the Ray Comfort Banana illustration and then say that Ray represented your side correctly. I would at least be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't as big an imbecile as Ray is.

You could have merely asked me to watch the video and comment on it. Instead you chose to poison the well.

Ok, your hopping all over the place, first you say it’s unique, now you go back to saying it’s not chance nor intelligence. Ok, what is it then?

There isn't a one word answer to this question, AFAIK. I can't say, "Natural selection is an X process." largely because I don't know of a single word that would apply in that sentence. (Other than "natural" but I know that isn't what you're looking for)

Natural selection is a process that is governed neither by intelligence nor chance. It is governed solely by the rule "survival of the fittest". Those animals best equipped to survive, do survive.

I find your sentence laughable, how’s that? You saying my sentence is laughable does not address my actual sentence, which seems to be a standard tactic of yours. Never answer any of my questions or arguments. Nice job.

Another ad hom, beautiful.

Here is a question for you, if evolution can create intelligence (people) why can’t it create intelligence on a biological level with the micro machines? There’s one for ya.

Complex brains are a requirement for intelligence at the level the article was talking about (Knowing exactly what it needs to adapt and somehow willing that adaptation into existence). Micro machines don't have them.

It bewilders me why you don’t laugh at the idea that evolution could create intelligent beings like ourselves, but yet you laugh at the idea of it being so on a smaller level.

Might be because I know how evolution works.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Hold on there, intelligence does not mean GENIUS, it just means intelligence. At the moment I am not arguing that God is a GENIUS (although I believe he is, and I can make arguments to back that up too) but at the moment I am just arguing that there is intelligence. Bad work is still intelligence BEHIND the work. BAD DESIGN is STILL DESIGN. You see?

Examples of "poor design" cited include:

​

* The existence of the blind spot in the human eye​

* In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials.

​

The human reproductive system​

includes the following:

​

* In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.​

* In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.​

* In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.

​

Other arguments:

​

* Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case.​

* Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.​

* The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.​

* The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.​

* The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.​

* The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.​

* The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.​

* The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.​

* The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species ​

This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot.​

Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.​

* Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.​

* Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primatesguinea pigs, but is functional in most other higher animals. and​

* The enzyme rubisco has been described as a "notoriously inefficient" enzyme,as it is inhibited by oxygen, has a very slow turnover and is not saturated at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The enzyme is inhibited as it unable to distinguish between carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen, with oxygen acting as an competitive enzyme inhibitor. However, rubisco remains the key enzyme in carbon fixation and plants overcome its poor activity by having massive amounts of it inside their cells, making it the most abundant protein on Earth.​

* The enzyme nitrogenase actually preferentially binds with acetylenebacteria and archaea. over di-nitrogen, despite it being the key enzyme used in nitrogen fixation in many​

* The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this oversight.​

* The unstable hollow bones built for flight in birds like penguins and ostriches, and the Sturdy bones built for non-flight in animals like bats.​

* Vestigial third molar (Commonly known as wisdom teeth) in humans. Some other primates with differing jaw shapes make use of the third molar.​

* The vestigial Femur and pelvis in whales, the ancestor of whales lived on land.​

* Turritopsis nutricula and Hydra genus have Biological Immortality​

If god is responsible for this many screw-ups then we aren't just talking about a bad designer, we're talking about a total idiot.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Let me give you my take on bias. A person who believes something IS BIAS. That means EVERYONE on the planet is biased about something. I am biased because I believe in God, an atheist is biased because he don’t believe in God. Ok, now that I made that clear, let me explain something else. A person who is biased is NOT necessarily dishonest. You can be biased WITHOUT being dishonest. Let me explain. If the scientist let’s say publishes his discovery, well of course he is going to have his own views on what he discovered or looked into or witnessed. And that is his bias, but for him to remain HONEST, he MUST separate his views from the facts and he must not WITHOLD ANY of the facts, but must show ALL the facts surrounding his discovery or what he witnessed. When he publishes something, he must STATE clearly when he is presenting pure facts, and he must state clearly when he is presenting his VIEWS OF the facts. He must make that known very clearly.

And this is what the majority of scientists do.

However if a person mixes the facts WITH their views and does not distinguish to the reader the fact from the view and thus leaves the reader in confusion or asking questions, THAT person is not only bias, but is DISHONEST.

It’s dishonesty that SUCKS and gets in the way of things. And I absolutely hate that.

Well, at least when can agree on that. I hate dishonesty too, it makes my skin crawl.

There is no reason for anybody to lie or corrupt things.

So to your question, what if there bias and DISHONEST? In that case you really can’t do anything about them, all you can do is try to look at the pure data yourself and not take their word for it.

This is what I advocate doing. However, you must not let your own personal biases get in the way either. Have no ideas that are above reproach. No sacred cows, so to speak.

Personally people who are dishonest with their bias, should be FIRED from their job as a scientist because that is POOR work. Warned them first, then if they continue, fire them. There is no need for blatant dishonesty.

They do this. In fact, the ones who were fired for trying to teach their personal biases as facts got together and made a movie about it. It was called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!

Also here is one more thing about bias. One can be objective even if they believe (bias) something. How can this happen? Simply by putting your belief on the shelf and stepping back and observing and listening to both sides.

I agree. But, as I said before, if you're going to search for truth in a totally unbiased manner then you must allow yourself to question everything you believe in, even god must be on table. I'm not saying that the only way to succeed is to become an atheist, certainly not. All I'm saying is you can't allow any idea to be untouchable.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Ok, and is there any downside to this good mutation? Is there any downside to having a sleeker body? Moving faster in the water may make them hit something harder if they happen to crash. So how is that good?

For a mutation to be considered "good" the benefits of the mutation to the organism must outweigh any negative side-effects. Some "good" mutations do have negligible negative side-effects. However the mutation is still good because, overall, the mutation helps the animal survive.

Even if a good mutation happens, the fish is still a fish. All we ever see is it still being a fish.

Remember, one mutation does not a new species make. Good mutations have to build, one atop the other, for generations until you could reach an animal that could be labeled a new species.

For one, you cannot prove “enough time” like billions of years, which macro evolution needs. And secondly even if it was billions of years, STILL macro evolution would not happen. There are things in the fossil record like (let me job my memory here) bats, those bat fossils are so called millions of years (let’s assume millions of years is correct for the moment) well they are still bats today, therefore that mutation going on all that time DID NOT CHANGE them, they are still bats. And there are many other animals like that in the fossil record.

Animals do not evolve for no reason. They evolve to fill in niches in their environment. As long as their is no pressure on a species to adapt then they'll (usually) stay largely unchanged.

I understand, but there are a few things going against this. First is in the fossil record the bats mutations kept them bats over millions of years, why? Secondly, there are huge gaps in the fossil record, why? Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is macro evolution happening at spurts in time very fast? How can macro evolution happen that fast? Thirdly I still don’t see how “good” mutations are good in themselves, yes good may come from it, just like disasters, good can come from it, but it’s not good in itself. Good can come from a lot of bad things, but that does not make the bad thing good in itself.

Problem 1) Some animals go for long periods without major changes.

Like I said before, as long as there is no pressure on a species to adapt, they will usually stay unchanged.

Problem 2) There are gaps in the fossil record.

Not every animal that dies fossilizes. Fossilization only happens under a very specific set of conditions. We're honestly lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the vast number that we do. Still, even if we had no fossils at all, the evidence for macroevolution would still be incredibly strong. The massive number of similarities between the gene sequences of various animals, similarities that could only be there if those animals shared a common ancestor, is by itself very powerful evidence

From another thread:

The genetic family tree is much, much stronger evidence for evolution than any fossil. See, scientists have sequenced the genome for several different species and discovered, contained within the genetic code, something along the lines of a family tree. Similarities across the genetic code that could only be there if those species shared a common ancestor. A designer would not need to put those similarities there unless he/she/it was trying to be intentionally deceptive. The majority of the genes that contain the genetic family tree are redundant, meaning that those species could get along just fine if they weren't there. A designer would not have had to place those gene sequences there out of necessity. The only reason for their existence, as I said before, is if we shared a common ancestor. Using the genetic family tree we've discovered that all humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor (Most Recent Common Ancestor) as well as discovering what appears to be a universal ancestor shared by all life (Last Universal Ancestor)

As I said before, there is no reason that this tree must be there. We had no right to expect its existence and yet there it is contained in our DNA. The existence of the genetic family tree alone is virtually air tight evidence for evolution.

Problem 3) "Good" mutations

Like as I said before, a mutation is considered "good" if the benefits to the lifeform outweigh the negative side-effects (if any).

What is the origin of information in DNA?

The information contained within DNA likely formed through a process like Abiogenesis. I don't know much about that subject but you might ask Painted Wolf. I'm pretty sure she knows something about it (I'm positive she knows more than I do )

Complexity is derived of VITAL parts and non vital parts, and all those parts make up a complex machine or organism. All that complexity or those parts make the thing function. Take out one vital part and the organism won’t function or live.

Just want to be sure before I answer this: You're referring to "irreducible complexity", right?

So, no, complexity is not in the eye of the beholder, complexity is based on vital parts.

Again, complexity is in the eye of the beholder.
You believe that the Universe is complex. However, complexity is relative to what we can imagine.
The heart would seem complex with nothing to compare it to, but if you compared it to, say, the inner workings of NASA's shuttle, the heart suddenly looks simple by comparison. Complexity is relative.

Pretty is in the eye of the beholder, but not complexity. But then, even pretty is not COMPLETELY in the eye of the beholder either

Oh, really? So you consider what is attractive to you to be universal to every male?

My point is this: Complexity, like beauty, is relative. There are certain features in a woman that you find attractive. However, those same features that you look for may be meaningless to another man. Some men find intelligence to be extremely attractive, others look at physical appearance before anything else. It varies from person to person

In the same way, complexity is relative. How you define complex may not be how someone else does. Simply because you consider a vital organ to be complex doesn't mean that it is. I'll agree that a heart is vital for our survival but vitality and complexity are two different things.

There are many things you KNOW that are not designed? I thought you take the “I don’t know” position? Secondly, tell me one of those things that you “KNOW” are not designed? Not a long list either (I need spoon feeding, thanks). Just one for now.

The eye.

Irrelevant. The canyon is complex BEFORE the river carves it, and the river is complex, before it carves the canyon. So what I said, still stands

“chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented”

Actually, you just shot yourself in the foot....again.

Read your sentence again:

"Chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented."

So, in order for something to create complexity it must be goal-oriented, yes?

And, by your own admission, you consider a canyon to be complex.

So, do you believe that a river is goal-oriented or not?

I don’t see how?

You said that chance doesn't exist, that people just use it to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. I feel exactly the same way about god.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Then apparently you don’t understand the nature of evidence. There is a difference between proof (which is TANGIBLE evidence) and just evidence, but not tangible. There is evidence for God’s existence.

See point #4 of the OP

How is it not designed?

Do you think god is up there with a pair of scissors cutting shapes into each individual flake?

The patterns in snow flakes are the result of the properties of water molecules, not intelligence or design.

Again, how is it not designed, your just asserting. Account for how it can be complex without design?

Evolution by natural selection.

The universe has the hallmarks of design. Now whether you want to call it bad design or not, it still has the hallmarks of design.

What hallmarks?

But, to counter what you said anyway, hear this: God did not design any mistakes. Like any design that humans make, the design runs down and wears out. But it running down and wearing out does not make it designed anymore, it’s still designed, it’s just design wearing out. And if you ask, why does it wear out? Well, I answered this, Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, that brought the curse and ultimately, death.

So, humans are responsible for flipping the retina of the eye around. Those sinful ********!

Still, it seems like a designer as powerful as you claim god is would be able to create something that doesn't wear out. I mean, he created the universe for christ's sake and he can't create an eye without a blind spot or point the retina in the right direction?

Plus we have a Satan who can also manipulate nature to make bad stuff and mess up the human body.

Who created Satan?

Sort of like a computer, a computer is complex and is designed in a GOOD way, but then VIRUSES are designed by BAD people and put into computers, does that now make the computer no longer designed because someone designed a bad virus? Of course not!

 

[Jose Fly]

How did I know this was coming? Oh, right, it usually always comes next. The answer is no, babies and kids did not deserve it.

So now you have your god setting up a system of "justice" whereby people receive punishment that they do not deserve. That my friend, is the opposite of "just".

But they got it because of Adam and Eves sin. God did not give it to them, Adam who held all the responsibility within HIS GENES and in what he passed down to his descendents, HE gave it to us all, both disease and ultimately death itself. There sin, brought about or activated the curse, which consists of many bad things, both disease and death.

But this god created Adam with these "responsibility for all mankind genes" and set up the system which operates according to the rule "one guy disobeys = curse activated = creation of diseases".

IOW, your god is still responsible.

To illustrate, let’s say a person rapes and murders a child. Did the child deserve that? No, of course not, but this bad man who did that to the child, he was irresponsible in his actions, and that effected the child in a negative way.

A more apt analogy to your belief would be where, because the man committed rape, the entire earth would be afflicted with brain-rotting bacteria.

God gave people a measure responsibility and power over other people. Some people have a higher measure of responsibility and power over other people then some others. And each person has a different responsibility and power in different areas. Each person’s responsibility and power over others will affect those others for either good or bad, depending on the persons choices who is in power. In Adams case, he had one of the HIGHEST responsibilities. And his responsibility was in the area of both his relationship to God, and to his descendents.

And that seems reasonable and "just" to you? Give one single man the responsibility for not only humanity as a whole, but the fate of everything in the universe?

Now even though I say this, that does not mean babies go to hell, no, they don’t. God permits them to die (he does not MAKE them die) to spar them growing up in this nasty world.

The world he created. Wonderful.

Also, can we get out of the consequence that Adam put upon us? Yes, BUT it is VERY unlikely that we will. For example, the bible talks about TWO people who did NOT DIE, Enoch and Elijah, they were close enough to God that they escaped the consequence that Adam transferred down the line.

So where are these guys? I'd love to talk to them.

Being that this is the case, you CANNOT PUNISH GOD. You must bow to him. He is wise in doing this. You may not think it’s pleasant, but it’s for the BEST. Let’s see you try being God for one day and see if you can do it any better, I bet you would do it worse.

Oh I guarantee you I could easily come up with a better system of justice that what you're describing.

There is one problem here, God does not INFLICT the children, he gives a measure of responsibility to people, and those people either inflict or activate the curse upon children.

And where did this "curse" come from?

No, I am not that insensitive. And I have a funny feeling, you knew the answer before you asked it. But anyway, if the parents ASKED me? What would I tell them? I would first ask them some questions. Lets say for example, there was some parents they KNEW they had HIV, and they had a child KNOWING they had HIV. Therefore they transferred it to their kid. Then low and behold, there kid gets sick and is facing death. Then they cry and say why is this happening. And they ask do they deserve it? I would say YES they do, because they knowingly transferred death to their kid. The KID did not deserve it, THEY deserve their pain for knowingly doing what they knew was wrong.

LOL! Nice try, but I'm not talking about parents with diseases who ignore the risks and have kids. I'm talking about healthy, normal parents who have kids who are afflicted with terrible diseases.

I can IMAGINE another system, but I don’t agree with any other system. I think God is just.

So again, if I came to you and said, "Your grandfather stole $5 from me 40 years ago, and as a punishment I'm cutting off the right hand of all his descendants", you answer would be, "Yeah, that seems just"?

From my explanations and defense above, tell me how he is not just?

You seriously have no idea? A system where people are punished for something they had absolutely nothing to do with, and you ask "how is that not just"?

Bizarre.

 

[Jollybear]

Boy, I sure got a mountain of posts to respond too.

I plan on responding to every word, but can I ask you all a question. How do you respond so quick?

It's either 1 you don't put enough thought into understanding what I said in order to respond, so you respond very fast. Or two, you are very fast thinkers and have fingers like lightning. Or three, you have desk jobs and you do it on slow days. Or four, you work at home and have lots of time to do it.

May I know?

For me it takes time to read it all, and think about what you all said, and then I put thought into how I will craft my answer. And also I mostly write it up on my off days and perhaps an hour once a day when I’m off work.

But anyway, could you answer this question for me, cause it makes me curious.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Boy, I sure got a mountain of posts to respond too.

I plan on responding to every word, but can I ask you all a question. How do you respond so quick?

It's either 1 you don't put enough thought into understanding what I said in order to respond, so you respond very fast. Or two, you are very fast thinkers and have fingers like lightning. Or three, you have desk jobs and you do it on slow days. Or four, you work at home and have lots of time to do it.

May I know?

For me it takes time to read it all, and think about what you all said, and then I put thought into how I will craft my answer. And also I mostly write it up on my off days and perhaps an hour once a day when I’m off work.

But anyway, could you answer this question for me, cause it makes me curious.

I think pretty quick and I type way too fast. My posts usually have a lot of typos when I first put them up because of the latter.

 

[Jollybear]

Ok, I was just wondering. I will work on my mamoth post in response to your's and everyone elses.

Be prepared for a mamath post now, I bet you can't wait for it, eh?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Be prepared for a mamath post now, I bet you can't wait for it, eh?

I can hardly contain my excitement

 

[Jollybear]

I can hardly contain my excitement

Lol, ok, well, stay tunned, it will come as soon as possible.

 

[painted wolf]

I plan on responding to every word, but can I ask you all a question. How do you respond so quick?

I tend to skim and if the post doesn't appear to pertain to me I just skip them.
Otherwise, I have learned to type and think quickly... mostly to answer essay questions at university. (And I check threads here during breaks in my studying and working.)

If the question requires more research than I have time for... like the question on transitional fossil series... I ask for time to come back to it when I have the time to devote.

wa:do

 

[The_Evelyonian]

An interesting write-up on the "First Cause" argument

First Cause, or Cosmological Argument

The First Cause, or Cosmological Argument, says that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite series of causes stretching into the past, a god must be the first cause — an uncaused cause. This argument was described by Aristotle, and has at least four problems.
The main problem of the First Cause Argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.
I'd like to emphasize that quantum mechanics doesn’t make sense in our experience of the world. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”


The Big Bang

The beginning of the observable universe — of all the matter and energy in it and even of time itself — is called the Big Bang. The science of quantum mechanics has only existed since the early 1900's, and already we've been able to use it to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the observable universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. (Our current knowledge of physics doesn't work before then.) The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive data. Six prominent facts are:

• 
  [*]The red shift of almost all galaxies, getting greater as their distance increases.
  — This shows that the galaxies are flying away from each other, at greater speeds at greater distances.
  [*]The cosmic microwave background radiation.
  — This is a remnant of the radiation from the Big Bang, and has cooled over time to the exact temperature predicted.
  [*]The variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
  — These variations fit theoretical predictions, and were caused by quantum differences near the start of Big Bang.
  [*]The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes.
  — This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the Big Bang are correct.
  [*]The changes in galaxies as we look further away (and thus back in time), with distant galaxies more primitive.
  — This shows some of the changes in the universe since the Big Bang, and confirms the deep time of the universe.
  [*]The change in the apparent speed of type 1a supernova as we look back in time, with distant supernova exploding more slowly.
  — This shows that the light has been stretched out by the expansion of space over billions of years.

The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. We may eventually determine that Inflation Theory is wrong or incomplete, and we may never be able to completely understand the actual beginning. It could be that we're not smart enough or that the physical science necessary is not possible for us to do. But, that doesn’t mean that a god caused the Big Bang — any more than our past lack of understanding of weather meant that a god caused lightning.
There are many well-respected physicists who have created scientific models where the entire universe could arise from nothing (or another universe) via natural processes, such as Lawrence Krauss, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.
Lawrence Krauss has shown that the positive energy of the universe is divided into about 70% dark energy, 30% dark matter, and less than 1% regular matter such as atoms — everything we see. As he noted, “Why such a universe in which we're so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me.”


The Meta-Universe (a.k.a. Multiverse)

The next problem of the First Cause Argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. This argument is made moot by the Big Bang, which negates the need for considering an infinite chain of events in our universe. Because time started with the Big Bang, any question of what happened before is nonsensical — much like asking what is north of the North Pole. Also, many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe. In this meta-universe (a.k.a. multiverse) “baby” universes are created by pinching off from “parent” universes — leaving no way to inquire about the characteristics of a parent universe. We certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events.
Another problem comes from the common definition of God as eternal, perfect and unchanging. If these qualities were true, then why would God need a universe and how could God change from not needing a universe to needing and creating one? This god would have existed for an eternity and then decided to create the universe. Thus, the Creator God that is eternal, perfect and unchanging is impossible.
The last problem with the First Cause Argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused. Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the First Cause Argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic.

Source:Why Atheism?

 

[Peacewise]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - space and matter was created.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.earth wasn't yet a planet but more a coalescing ball of matter, the sun wasn't yet fusing.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. the sun fused and ignited

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. the earth was formed enough to now have both an atmosphere and a liquid

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. the earth became more solid, becoming land

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.vegetation came before animals -not sure if this is scientific?

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." water creatures first, then birds 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. land creatures began to appear - it's sounding very much like the theory of evolution to me as I was taught in high school, if more simply stated

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
then man came along

for consideration

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I appreciate the effort Peacewise but trying to get Genesis to line up with science is like trying to nail jell-o to a tree. It just doesn't work.

 

[Peacewise]

I have no doubt that modern science is far more accurate about such things, but it seems to me that some of the main points of an ancient text match up with modern science.

This strikes me as interesting, that so long ago with no methods of observation, no theories of science, no scientific methodologies - none of the benefits of modern science, that the ancient text can get the various bold points reasonably accurate.

Applying my understanding of science, gleaned from university physics and maths study, i'd call the account of genesis as quoted above an approximation and one that covers the basic order of the formation of the solar system and the basic progression of life from the oceans to humans...

of course that's a bit of a laugh, and I hope you appreciate the irony of a poor physicists talking about biology in the context of religion, but hey I am eclectic!

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I have no doubt that modern science is far more accurate about such things, but it seems to me that some of the main points of an ancient text match up with modern science.

They don't.

This strikes me as interesting, that so long ago with no methods of observation, no theories of science, no scientific methodologies - none of the benefits of modern science, that the ancient text can get the various bold points reasonably accurate.

Again, it's not accurate or really even close. Read the text closer. Plants precede the sun, the moon is a light, each after its own kind. We now know that Genesis is simply wrong on the lot of it.

I know that they did the best they could with the information that they had at the time, but we know enough now to show that Genesis didn't even come close to being an accurate depiction of the world's origin.

Applying my understanding of science, gleaned from university physics and maths study, i'd call the account of genesis as quoted above an approximation and one that covers the basic order of the formation of the solar system and the basic progression of life from the oceans to humans...

of course that's a bit of a laugh, and I hope you appreciate the irony of a poor physicists talking about biology in the context of religion, but hey I am eclectic!

Biology and cosmology, to be precise. It's okay though, I can appreciate the irony. Just a piece of friendly advice, let Genesis go. Don't worry about trying to twist the words to fit modern science, it'll never work. You'd have to twist so hard that the letters would scream.
Let go of the book and the mythology so that you will be better able to appreciate the world for it's natural beauty, better able to appreciate it as it really is.

 

[DarkSun]

Everything that had a beginning had a cause. This is the law of causality and it is the fundamental principle of science.Without this law science would be impossible. Francis Bacon wrote:"True knowledge is knowledge by causes". To deny the law of causality is to deny rationality. David Hume wrote,"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause". Therefore, if all things are caused then behind every cause is a causer.

Before the big bang there was no time, or natural laws. There was nothing, yet the law of causality demands that this nothing caused the big bang. The problem is nothing can cause nothing. Therefore, something or someone caused the big bang. So who or what caused it?

Science doesn't preach causation. That's a personal view.

 

[Peacewise]

They don't.

Again, it's not accurate or really even close. Read the text closer. Plants precede the sun, the moon is a light, each after its own kind. We now know that Genesis is simply wrong on the lot of it.

wtf, plants don't precede the sun in genesis. look at point 3, then move onto point 11. The lights that come after that are more likely to be the stars, rather than the sun, and fair enough that doesn't fit in with cosmology.

I know that they did the best they could with the information that they had at the time, but we know enough now to show that Genesis didn't even come close to being an accurate depiction of the world's origin.

Biology and cosmology, to be precise. It's okay though, I can appreciate the irony. Just a piece of friendly advice, let Genesis go. Don't worry about trying to twist the words to fit modern science, it'll never work. You'd have to twist so hard that the letters would scream.
Let go of the book and the mythology so that you will be better able to appreciate the world for it's natural beauty, better able to appreciate it as it really is.

I appreciate the friendly advice, yet I have already stated that modern science, ie biology and cosmology is more accurate and you can consider that a validation of those fields, not that my validation is needed for those scientists, yet after reflection, both before and after your statement I am content to consider genesis an approximation of the account.

Scientific theories fall down eventually being replaced by more accurate theory, that is the nature of science, as such genesis also falls down somewhere and to my thinking merely reveals the progression of science from ancient text to modern science.

It is accuracy that people want and I applaud that motive - yet where does the layman draw their accuracy line? Shall the layman draw it at the phd level and say, well I really don't know how life and universe began, or shall they draw it at the high school level with appropriate terminology and simplifications, or perhaps back at the ancient text level with dated terminology and some errors.

Each to their own, on my bookshelf is several modern books on Cosmology and Astronomy, physics, mathematics and (biology that's the missuses) so I'm sure you can extrapolate that I have a deep abiding respect for modern science, and indeed ancient science.

Eastern Religions and many parts of the Bible are in front of modern psychology by several thousand years, with the forefront of psychology looking into these ancient sources and finding useful and worthwhile concepts and processes.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Genesis 1:11 - Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so."

Genesis 1:16 - "Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also."

Anyway, I understand what you were saying and I appreciate that you have a respect for science.

As for the layman, I honestly don't mind where he chooses to draw the line, just so long as he doesn't tell me I'll go to hell for not drawing my line there, and so long as he doesn't try to get his ideas of reality taught in schools.