• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence for an ancient earth

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
precisely! 'religious psuedoscience' is verbatim what atheist Hoyle called the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom, explicitly because it didn't fit his preferred atheist beliefs

What on earth is "preferred atheist beliefs"? Strawman fallacy.

An atheist has no belief--- because an atheist is willing to change his mind if presented with evidence.

Contrast to a goddite, who will never change his mind, in spite of evidence-- he must preserve belief against everything.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
? That sounds like Darwinism,

"darwinism". A BS term coined by True Believers™ every time they cannot muster up even ONE (1) counter-argument against the FACT OF EVOLUTION.

The fact you use this BS term, as if it was some sort of Ace Card? Destroys much of your credibility.

So much so, I think I'm done, here. Evolution is a fact-- it happened. If you are trying to imply that it did not?

There is nothing else you can say that is worth reading...
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a pretty long book, but starts with 'WELL, PRINCE, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family'

The universe is a book, a story that can only be read by humans, page one, in our recorded history has a fully formed Earth and life and resources in place as needed for our story. it's not clear that there ever were any pages before chapter one.

In a nut shell; he's God, he can make the world last Thursday, or 50k years ago, or 4 billion, just as any author is not bound by the rules of his own premise, there is a logical place to begin the story for the intended reader

Yes, the logical place to begin the story i universe began. That was about 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, so is only 1/3 the age of the universe. Anatomically modern humans arose about 1-400,000 years ago, so the earth is around 1-40,000 times as old as when humans arose.

There have been many, many pages to the story before humans came on the scene. Of that, there is no doubt. If you want to only start reading the book at that point, that is your choice. But you will then miss a big part of the overall story.

Your decision to bring a mythical deity into the mix that can do anything, and is thereby not verifiable nor able to give any valid tests, a desperate move to hold onto your superstition. Again, your choice, but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
What on earth is "preferred atheist beliefs"? Strawman fallacy.

An atheist has no belief--- because an atheist is willing to change his mind if presented with evidence.

Contrast to a goddite, who will never change his mind, in spite of evidence-- he must preserve belief against everything.

Blind faith which does not recognize itself, it's impossible to question a belief you don't even acknowledge having!

Which is why atheist Hoyle never changed his mind his entire life, once you have ridiculed other peoples beliefs, it makes it very hard to change your mind, no matter the evidence, or you become all the things you called others
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That has long been the explicit atheist rationale that supported many debunked models- static, eternal, steady state, big crunch (no creation = no creator) all were meant to make God redundant

Even Hawking conceded the big crunch theory was bogus. As far as we can possibly tell, the universe had a very specific beginning, a creation event, the literal creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it.


First, the different theories were proposed to explain the evidence available at the time. As we gained more evidence, we were able to show some of them to be wrong. That is how science works.

And the *reason* we were able to show some of them wrong is that they were clearly defined and gave testable predictions of what would be observed. These predictions were clear enough that when they didn't come to be true, we could reasonably eliminate that theory.

Religion, on the other hand, is NOT clearly defined enough to be testable. There is no way, even in theory, to show it to be wrong or right. That is why it is not science.

When a figure, even a religious one like Lemaitre, presents a theory that can be tested and it passes the observational tests, then that theory can be adopted by science. The religion, because it cannot be tested, is beside the point. Lemaitre even called out the Pope for claiming his ideas supported religion.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Wow....just... wow. It's 100% or 0% with you, isn't it?

News Flash: not everything is a binary decision.

News Flash: the brain is capable of free will-- even dogs exhibit free will.

Notebook: google Emergent Properties. The brain is an excellent example of Emergent Property.

Notebook: there is zero reason to presume magic-- as you would require to have a soul.

What is the difference between Hitler's brain and your brain? can your brain do the same as what Hitler did?
please explain your view according to science.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
First, the different theories were proposed to explain the evidence available at the time. As we gained more evidence, we were able to show some of them to be wrong. That is how science works.

And the *reason* we were able to show some of them wrong is that they were clearly defined and gave testable predictions of what would be observed. These predictions were clear enough that when they didn't come to be true, we could reasonably eliminate that theory.



When a figure, even a religious one like Lemaitre, presents a theory that can be tested and it passes the observational tests, then that theory can be adopted by science. The religion, because it cannot be tested, is beside the point. Lemaitre even called out the Pope for claiming his ideas supported religion.

Exactly my point, Lemaitre went out of his way to disassociate his science from his personal beliefs- because he could, he acknowledge he had such a thing, which we all do- that's how science should work.

Atheists in stark contrast- based their theories explicitly, by their own arguments, on their own personal beliefs, and continue to. The fact that they try to frame those beliefs as merely 'disbelief of the alternative' only ingrains the dogma further.

Religion, on the other hand, is NOT clearly defined enough to be testable. There is no way, even in theory, to show it to be wrong or right. That is why it is not science.

but 'religion' was right, the universe did begin in a specific creation event. If you don't think this had any implications of theism, you could have argued that with atheists at the time, since again this is exactly, by their own arguments, why they didn't like it.

The Bible also depicted the Earth being entirely ocean at one point, then one great land mass and one ocean, that animal life began in that ocean and advanced in pronounced developmental stages, not smooth steady increments. Credit where it is due, it's has a better track record of validated predictions so far than academic atheists!
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Blind faith which does not recognize itself, it's impossible to question a belief you don't even acknowledge having!

Which is why atheist Hoyle never changed his mind his entire life, once you have ridiculed other peoples beliefs, it makes it very hard to change your mind, no matter the evidence, or you become all the things you called others
Exactly my point, Lemaitre went out of his way to disassociate his science from his personal beliefs- because he could, he acknowledge he had such a thing, which we all do- that's how science should work.

Atheists in stark contrast- based their theories explicitly, by their own arguments, on their own personal beliefs, and continue to. The fact that they try to frame those beliefs as merely 'disbelief of the alternative' only ingrains the dogma further.

Guy Threepwood. You are cherry picking again.

You are ignoring that Fred Hoyle wasn't the only atheist involved in cosmology. And atheists didn't flock under his banner of (debunked) Steady State model.

Alexander Friedmann was a Russian theoretical physicist who migrated to the US, was an atheist. Friedmann independently came up the idea of expanding universe model (1922), 5 years before Georges Lemaître made public his own hypothesis (1927).

Both Friedmann and Lemaître used Albert Einstein's General Relativity as a framework on how their respective models work.

Einstein around this time, did agree with Lemaître hypothesis, because he had his own hypothesis about cosmology, which turned about to be a dud. Once he realised his model couldn't work, he followed the Big Bang cosmology. Einstein wasn't religious but he was exactly atheist.

Another physicist, Edwin Hubble, American astronomer, not only supported Friedmann-Lemaître expanding universe model (before it was called the "Big Bang"), Hubble discovered the way to detect and measure galaxies moving away from each other, in 1929, known as Redshift. This was the earliest evidence for the Big Bang.

And guess what, Guy?

Hubble was an atheist (or agnostic).

I don't know about the religious status, American physicist, Robert Herman, but his colleagues, another American Ralph Alpher and Russian George Gamow, were atheists, and they were involved in the expanding universe model (Big Bang model), in 1948.

Gamow with some assistants with his former student, Alpher, wrote the paper on the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), which is major contribution to Lemaître's model.

Alpher and Herman were responsible for the hypothesis and predictions of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) with some assistance from Gamow. This radiation wasn't discovered until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

Fred Hoyle is an idiot. His only major contribution to astrophysics was Stellar Nucleosynthesis. You are the one who making Hoyle's atheism a big deal.

Are you going to ignore Friedann, Hubble, Gamow and Alpher?

Four known atheists and four physicists involved in the Big Bang, but none of them made a big deal about being atheists, because their atheism had nothing to do with their works in physics.
 
Last edited:

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
What is the difference between Hitler's brain and your brain? can your brain do the same as what Hitler did?
please explain your view according to science.

We are what we choose-- potentialities are all that we are, when we are born. But as we grow up? We choose-- sometimes it's little things, sometimes it's big things-- but choose we do.

A man (or a woman) isn't what they were born as; they are what they choose to be.

So the principle difference between me and Hitler? Is the choices I made, versus the choices he made.

There was no magic involved.

Indeed. If we delve into a purely theistic world-view? Hitler--- and all that he did-- is 100% the fault of any and all gods that may or may not have (or do) exist.

Why? Because of Responsibility. Gods have Godly Responsibility.

It's a damn good thing they are all just myth-- or else they have a Lot of Explaining to do-- starting with Hitler...
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
We are what we choose-- potentialities are all that we are, when we are born. But as we grow up? We choose-- sometimes it's little things, sometimes it's big things-- but choose we do.

A man (or a woman) isn't what they were born as; they are what they choose to be.

So the principle difference between me and Hitler? Is the choices I made, versus the choices he made.

There was no magic involved.

Indeed. If we delve into a purely theistic world-view? Hitler--- and all that he did-- is 100% the fault of any and all gods that may or may not have (or do) exist.

Why? Because of Responsibility. Gods have Godly Responsibility.

It's a damn good thing they are all just myth-- or else they have a Lot of Explaining to do-- starting with Hitler...

Why Hitler's brain made different choices and become a dictator while he has the same hardware that you have.
Why we have different choices while having the same brains?
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Why Hitler's brain made different choices and become a dictator while he has the same hardware that you have.
Why we have different choices while having the same brains?

Who said we have the same brains? That is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long, long time.

It's obvious that each human's brains are slightly different. The variety of artistic content is ample proof of that.

You keep asking deliberately misleading questions, while you IGNORE THE POINT: without magic? You cannot sustain the idea of soul.

I'm getting pretty sick of your blatant attempt to entrap with your off-topic questions while IGNORING MY questions!

I'm done until you answer.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Why Hitler's brain made different choices and become a dictator while he has the same hardware that you have.
Why we have different choices while having the same brains?

You keep ignoring the Lion In The Room: If there was a god? Hitler's actions are 100% the fault of said god--for permitting Hitler to be born in the first place.

Until you address this? I'm ignoring any further attempts at entrapment from you.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Blind faith which does not recognize itself, it's impossible to question a belief you don't even acknowledge having!

Here? We see what is known as Self-Righteous Judgemental Attitude. I'm kinda tired of it, myself.

The above post presumes to not only read my mind? It presumes to know everything about what I think... !
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Who said we have the same brains? That is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long, long time.

It's obvious that each human's brains are slightly different. The variety of artistic content is ample proof of that.

You keep asking deliberately misleading questions, while you IGNORE THE POINT: without magic? You cannot sustain the idea of soul.

I'm getting pretty sick of your blatant attempt to entrap with your off-topic questions while IGNORING MY questions!

I'm done until you answer.

So you believe that Hitler wasn't a bad guy but his brain was.
How you explain that some bad people who have a bad brains become a good people?
Your answer was poor and meaningless.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
So you believe that Hitler wasn't a bad guy but his brain was.
How you explain that some bad people who have a bad brains become a good people?
Your answer was poor and meaningless.
Why not ?, the brain is what we are, if your brain isn't working, then we have a problem, if you are born with a heart problem, then who is to blame ????.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
You keep ignoring the Lion In The Room: If there was a god? Hitler's actions are 100% the fault of said god--for permitting Hitler to be born in the first place.

Until you address this? I'm ignoring any further attempts at entrapment from you.

Yes exactly, that was even the opinion of the Angels when they said that such humans will do bad and
they'll murder each other, God said I know what they're going to do.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Why Hitler's brain made different choices and become a dictator while he has the same hardware that you have.
Why we have different choices while having the same brains?

Because we *don't* have the same brains! Each individual brain has a different pattern of connections between the neurons. Those connections are formed during development, and are not determined genetically.

So Hitler's brain was different than yours or mine.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Because we *don't* have the same brains! Each individual brain has a different pattern of connections between the neurons. Those connections are formed during development, and are not determined genetically.

So Hitler's brain was different than yours or mine.

Which means that connection is a matter of randomness, but it works for all regardless of one
being good or bad but all can think and memorize, amazing randomness in making a complex connections.
 
Top