Do creationists have anything new?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science is in a quandary, they can't explain the big bang.

If that's a quandary, it's the permanent state of science. Even more so, religion.

Based on logic, God is the only plausible explanation because no one but God can create something from nothing.

Based on logic, there is no reason to believe that any gods exist, and less reason to believe that whichever specific one you mean by "God" exists.

For us in a material world God is nothing, we cannot see the supernatural world. It is only when God reveals the supernatural world can we see it. God created a material universe from nothing (supernatural essence), now we have something from the supernatural world.

These are all unshared premises. This is all faith based belief. It has no value to me. Nothing derived from a premise I haven't accepted is meaningful to me. How about if we try this discussion again from the position that vampires exist. They would have turned any gods into other vampires and eliminated the realm of the supernatural.

I am sure you won't like my explanation, but I don't care, I don't like your criticism.

How do you like the comment above? I'm guessing that you feel the same way about it as I do explanations of reality that begin with a god premise.

 

[Thumper]

Science is in a quandary, they can't explain the big bang. Based on logic, God is the only plausible explanation because no one but God can create something from nothing. For us in a material world God is nothing, we cannot see the supernatural world. It is only when God reveals the supernatural world can we see it. God created a material universe from nothing (supernatural essence), now we have something from the supernatural world. I am sure you won't like my explanation, but I don't care, I don't like your criticism.

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know." ~ Isaac Asimov

 

[Repox]

A lecture? A little over three lines of text constitute a lecture. Really?


Sure you are. When you say

"Evolutionist can't explain how something (universe) came from nothing."
​

you're attacking their supposed competence: they are incapable of doing X. Forget that evolution has nothing to do with origins, you assail them none the less.


It does? If so, I'm sure the theists' answer is, "God did it." And the scientists answer would be, "We very seriously doubt that anything comes from nothing." Two very diametrically opposite positions that leave little ground for argument, which makes it an uninteresting question and one better left to those in high school to ponder.


Actually, there are those who believe in god and also believe in science. AND, those who don't believe in god and don't give a fig about science.


Interesting that god needs the help of evolution to explain how he did it. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it has no need for god, which is quite apparent to those who are familiar with it.


Forgive me for not taking your word for it. After all, a lot on Earth has gone awry that I'm sure wasn't on his drawing board.


Got an example? An example of knowing god's original purpose for the design of the universe* that has led to a better understanding of it.
*The universe as science recognizes it.

.

I don't believe science knows the real purpose of the universe.

Science could use a creationist explanation for the design of the universe. Science has no idea except for theories related to physical laws or advanced science. I have a degree in science, so I don't need a lecture about science. What if God created the universe for Satan? Would science consider the possibility? Probable not, but what if it is true? It would explain a lot about the universe. Then, science might ask, why would God do that? Well, He did it as a prison for Satan. Well, of course, no reputable scientist would entertain such a possibility. However, knowing the purpose of the universe may give him insight into its design. As example, it may give him a better understanding of dark matter and energy. I am working on a theory for how dark entities relate to Satan's prison.

You state, "Interesting that god needs the help of evolution to explain how he did it. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it has no need for god, which is quite apparent to those who are familiar with it."

How is that possible? God the creator of the universe, now humans don't need him! God doesn't need evolutionists to explain his creation. Humans on earth are on their own because God has assumed a policy of nonintervention. God is eternal, humans are mortal creatures. Unless you have an understanding of God's purpose you are stuck with secular theories for everything.

Have a nice day.

 

[Repox]

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know." ~ Isaac Asimov

I don't have to say I don't know just to make atheists happy. If I know, it shouldn't bother anyone, you know without me knowing anything. I will continue to know what I know with or without anyone's approval. We can agree or not, but I still know what I know.

 

[Altfish]

Science is in a quandary, they can't explain the big bang. Based on logic, God is the only plausible explanation because no one but God can create something from nothing. For us in a material world God is nothing, we cannot see the supernatural world. It is only when God reveals the supernatural world can we see it. God created a material universe from nothing (supernatural essence), now we have something from the supernatural world. I am sure you won't like my explanation, but I don't care, I don't like your criticism.

But science thrives on the unknown, the unsure. It is not a problem
If we knew everything or accepted "god did it" as an answer, then science could wrap up and go home. But that is not the case; science has lots to discover, explain, or confirm.
I find that fascinating and exciting. Don't you?

 

[Altfish]

I don't believe science knows the real purpose of the universe.

Neither does religion!

 

[Repox]

If that's a quandary, it's the permanent state of science. Even more so, religion.



Based on logic, there is no reason to believe that any gods exist, and less reason to believe that whichever specific one you mean by "God" exists.



These are all unshared premises. This is all faith based belief. It has no value to me. Nothing derived from a premise I haven't accepted is meaningful to me. How about if we try this discussion again from the position that vampires exist. They would have turned any gods into other vampires and eliminated the realm of the supernatural.



How do you like the comment above? I'm guessing that you feel the same way about it as I do explanations of reality that begin with a god premise.

Based on logic, God exists because He is the only explanation for something coming from nothing.

 

[Repox]

Neither does religion!

I don't need religion to know the purpose of the universe. And I don't need lectures from atheists to tell me how to think.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So']Piltdown man as I understand and remember it WAS an interesting phenomenon. Two wrinkles are especially interesting:

[1] It's day was that of the hunt for the "missing link," a term which I believe for most meant the creature in between a man and ape (forget for a moment that man IS an ape and that according to the theory. there ought to be a continuum of forms connecting them). Apparently, the British were so keen on this missing link being a Brit that they were less skeptical than they should have been.[/quote]

I agree. The article I linked to discussed the desire and pressure to find a missing link* that normal safe guards seemed to be brushed aside. Piltdown's fossil's were presented by amateur antiquarian Charles Dawson, and the Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum of Britain. His name was Arthur Smith Woodward.the man that found (made) it and his professional team intentionally did not ask questions when they should have. *(the Missing Link referenced here was 1900's terminology for a man to common ancestor so called transitional fossil)

[2] The other interesting wrinkle is that at that time, a key question was which of the many differences between the other apes and man appeared first in evolution. The Piltdown fraudsters guessed that it was the larger brain, so their fraudulent fossils featured a bigger brained quadriped ape.Eventually, Lucy (Australopithicus afarensis) was unearthed, a small-brained bipedal ape. Apparently, bipedalism came before bigger brains.

Well also the scientific community might have been a bit racist generally speaking during those early days. For example Osborn who championed the Australopithecus fossils experienced difficulty securing Australopithecus an accurate dating and place on the fossil record. Piltdown looked more European than the other 'monkey like' representations that were being promoted. Australopithecus belonged in Africa and was not a good candidate for Osburn*** Out of Asia theory. Piltdown man was made for the part though! Pun intended! ***(OSBORN = One of piltdowns major supporter and partner in crime with the fraud)

This episode, along with Haeckel's drawings, is frequently offered by science's critics as reasons to not trust science. But doesn't it say just the opposite? They might have been slow to uncover the fraud, but it was science that did it, and collectively, performed ethically by ferreting out the fraud, exposing it, and correcting the error. This inherent honesty of the collective, it's desire to uncover the truth, and its mechanism for self-correcting when necessary, are considered virtues by people like me.

Yes they did just that, but my friend in this case the truth took far too long to be admitted. Over forty years! That's a lifetime for some! Add to the fact that the truth was known by a substantial number of scientists etc decades before that Piltman was exposed. It was said that the extent and length of this fraud made the Piltman fraud an American tragedy. Lastly its not that I or many of my fellow christian peers don't trust science. We do to an (large) extent. Neither do I think the majority of scientists and their community taken as a whole is evil, unethical. I do not beleive they don't Christians or God and many are church goers among scientists. Science should open up and go back to the heady days of the Vienna circle where they grudgingly accepted all questions and debated with metaphysics and others such as brilliant theists logicians that set the world of theoretical science and mathematical concepts on its ear. UI doubt today that those that ask the wrong questions or support non-pure empirical science that today would not even get an invitation to the circle. Right Kurt?

Thanks for your reply

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Based on logic, God exists because He is the only explanation for something coming from nothing.

Can I suggest another way that gives your and my detractors a more difficult time when attempting to rebut our claims! I would change your wording only a bit to say; 'God is the best explanation for why the universe began to exist.'

: {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Does the Universe need a purpose to exist?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

do you have any new arguments?

Plenty of new arguments.
More than you have time or inclination to read.
So watch this little looped animation:

Not a Big Bang, instead a 'Big Unwind'.
More details here:
The Big Unwind

In brief:
Dark Energy is Spin: The 5th fundamental force.

Credit: Aquinas and Jesus.

 

[Repox]

Can I suggest another way that gives your and my detractors a more difficult time when attempting to rebut our claims! I would change your wording only a bit to say; 'God is the best explanation for why the universe began to exist.'

: {>

Thanks for the suggestion. I need to attend atheist manner school.

A semantic argument then? You won't mind if I make one then, will you? I never mentioned explaining.

If I know because I've had revelations from dreams and visions. It has nothing to do with religion. However, even though I know, I have researched what I know to understand it better. It may have been a mistake to come onto this thread. I don't have bullet prove vest.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Thanks for the suggestion. I need to attend atheist manner school.

If I know because I've had revelations from dreams and visions. It has nothing to do with religion. However, even though I know, I have researched what I know to understand it better. It may have been a mistake to come onto this thread. I don't have bullet prove vest.

Forget the body armor. Most of the Christian fundamentalists around here carry a Kalashnikov or a AR, or worse knives standard armor don't help~ Just kidding ...

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Plenty of new arguments.
More than you have time or inclination to read.
So watch this little looped animation:

Not a Big Bang, instead a 'Big Unwind'.
More details here:
The Big Unwind

In brief:
Dark Energy is Spin: The 5th fundamental force.

Credit: Aquinas and Jesus.

Hello Mr Jonathan, hope you are well~

 

[Repox]

Hello Mr Jonathan, hope you are well~

Thanks for the reference, it has tons of material to digest. I am working on a theory whereby dark energy and dark matter constitute the sticky force holding Satan inside the universe. It is a real puzzle because Satan is a spirit. I know it all sounds crazy, but it stems from dream I had about God creating the universe to imprison Satan.

 

[arthra]

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated."

Disagree. Neither has anything to do with the other, and religion brings nothing to science. How could it?

Thanks for your post "It Aint Necessarily So"... I was wondering if you had ponderedome of insinstatements regarding science and religion... I offer a brief quote here:

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described...."

One of the participants in our local Inter-Faith Council was a Muslim physician who was on a committee at the Loma Linda University Medical Center served on a standing committee of the Medical Center dealing with ethics and medical science... so it seems to me there is already a recognition of a need for reflection on issues that can arise between medical science and religious ethics and values that Einstein hinting at in the quote cited above.

 

[arthra]

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated."

Disagree. Neither has anything to do with the other, and religion brings nothing to science. How could it?

Thanks for your post "It Aint Necessarily So"... I was wondering if you had pondered on some of the statements regarding science and religion composed by Einstein... I offer a brief quote here:

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described...."

One of the participants in our local Inter-Faith Council was a Muslim physician who was on a committee at the Loma Linda University Medical Center served on a standing committee of the Medical Center dealing with ethics and medical science... so it seems to me there is already a recognition of a need for reflection on issues that can arise between medical science and religious ethics and values that Einstein hinting at in the quote cited above.

 

[arthra]

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated."

Disagree. Neither has anything to do with the other, and religion brings nothing to science. How could it?

Thanks for your post "It Aint Necessarily So"... I was wondering if you had pondered on some of the statements regarding science and religion composed by Einstein... I offer a brief quote here:

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described...."

One of the participants in our local Inter-Faith Council was a Muslim physician who was on a committee at the Loma Linda University Medical Center served on a standing committee of the Medical Center dealing with ethics and medical science... so it seems to me there is already a recognition of a need for reflection on issues that can arise between medical science and religious ethics and values that Einstein hinting at in the quote cited above.

 

[arthra]

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated."

Disagree. Neither has anything to do with the other, and religion brings nothing to science. How could it?

Thanks for your post "It Aint Necessarily So"... I was wondering if you had pondered on some of the statements regarding science and religion composed by Einstein... I offer a brief quote here:

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described...."

One of the participants in our local Inter-Faith Council was a Muslim physician who was on a committee at the Loma Linda University Medical Center served on a standing committee of the Medical Center dealing with ethics and medical science... so it seems to me there is already a recognition of a need for reflection on issues that can arise between medical science and religious ethics and values that Einstein hinting at in the quote cited above.