For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[Audie]

Ima come back to comment.

What is atheist science? I never heard of such a thing in books nor spoke in person with anyone using that phrase.

It is just made up. I find it unproductive to talk to
someone who makes things up as needed.

Or play chess, for that matter. I beat the reigning
chess champion of 8th grade, he had his king behind
a row of pawns, of all things, so I moved a rook down
there and it was all over.

But! he had a way out, said he was playing by
Czech rules, or some such thing. Made it up, as needed.
Something like that the king can jump, as in checkers,
when in gravest extreme.

Who cares, I just beat him to show I could.

When you are right, you dont need to make up
an atheist law of science, misrepresent anytting
or do any of the other like things that are the
creationist's only arguments.

Though, if one would like to show I am wrong,
I would be most interested.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry, but this is only one of many different possibilities. It isn't even the most prevalent one among cosmologists.

For one, it is quite uncertain whether there was a 'before the Big Bang', but if there was, then there were physical laws.

The mere claim of Planck time already betrays the existence of natural laws: the Planck time is only meaningful in the context of quantum gravity.

When you mention 'rapid expansion', you are more likely referring to the inflationary epoch, which is many Planck times after the beginning.

Now, in most versions of quantum gravity, there *is* time before the Big Bang and there *are* physical laws that apply *through* the beginning of the expansion of our universe.

Now, *deteministic* laws did not exist then, but the probabilistic, quantum laws did.

You are right, no one knows what if anything existed before the BB. That includes ANY laws, or any laws that we would even remotely recognize. ANY, means any. If you believe anybody knows the laws that existed before the BB you are incorrect. All universal laws are laws of the universe ANYTHING that existed before the universe was, or outside the universe now, is not or cannot be known

No, I am not talking about the Planck epoch. I am talking about specific units of Planck time.

Planck time is just a system for measuring miniscule amounts of time.

Time was created when the alleged singularity "exploded", or the point where rapid expansion began. There were no fundamental physical laws of the universe till after approx.one Planck unit had elapsed. ( as a recall, about 1./54 of a second). Going backwards, beyond that point is unknown, because using physical laws tools stops working.

This is as far as they can be used to approach the alleged singularity. An extremely tiny amount of time that cannot be bridged to the alleged singularity. As far as knowing ANYTHING about what may or may not have been is pure speculation, guesses. good ideas, possibilities, plausible concepts nothing more

 

[shmogie]

Ima come back to comment.

What is atheist science? I never heard of such a thing in books nor spoke in person with anyone using that phrase.

Atheist science is science that will not and cannot consider any possibility that might take God into account.

It is now in vogue. Many of the foundational scientists we venerate didn't practice it, Newton, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Tycho Brae, Galileo, Leonardo if you consider him a scientist, and many more. There are many scientists today that don't slavishly follow this dogma

 

[shmogie]

Why? We are talking about the creation of man, not the creation of the universe. If we asked how lightning was created would you start talking about the Big Bang? If we were asking about the cause of infectious diseases would you start talking about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe?

We don't have to know ultimate origins in order to understand proximal causes, so why avoid the question in the opening post? We are asking where humans came from, not where the universe came from.

God created man. Period. I hope that is clear

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

God created man. Period. I hope that is clear

What we are asking for is evidence that supports that claim.

 

[Jose Fly]

Atheist science is science that will not and cannot consider any possibility that might take God into account.

Can you name a single field of science that "takes God into account"? And can you show exactly where and how the folks in those fields "took God into account"?

There are many scientists today that don't slavishly follow this dogma

Such as?

 

[Polymath257]

You are right, no one knows what if anything existed before the BB. That includes ANY laws, or any laws that we would even remotely recognize. ANY, means any. If you believe anybody knows the laws that existed before the BB you are incorrect. All universal laws are laws of the universe ANYTHING that existed before the universe was, or outside the universe now, is not or cannot be known

No, I am not talking about the Planck epoch. I am talking about specific units of Planck time.

Planck time is just a system for measuring miniscule amounts of time.

Time was created when the alleged singularity "exploded", or the point where rapid expansion began. There were no fundamental physical laws of the universe till after approx.one Planck unit had elapsed. ( as a recall, about 1./54 of a second). Going backwards, beyond that point is unknown, because using physical laws tools stops working.

This is as far as they can be used to approach the alleged singularity. An extremely tiny amount of time that cannot be bridged to the alleged singularity. As far as knowing ANYTHING about what may or may not have been is pure speculation, guesses. good ideas, possibilities, plausible concepts nothing more

The Planck time is about 10^(-44) second.

To say there was 'rapid expansion' already means there was time and laws of physics, so your description is internally inconsistent.

But even the limitation of a Planck time is only a relic of one particular model and is far from being universal among current proposals. Whether we will eventually be able to measure information from before that time is yet to be determined. It may well be knowable. We just don't know at this time.

Finally, the Planck time is a theoretical time period where quantum gravity becomes important. The physical laws would certainly still deal with that time.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Atheist science is science that will not and cannot consider any possibility that might take God into account.

Can you name a single scientific theory that you accept? Do you accept the Germ Theory of Disease?

It is now in vogue. Many of the foundational scientists we venerate didn't practice it, Newton, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Tycho Brae, Galileo, Leonardo if you consider him a scientist, and many more. There are many scientists today that don't slavishly follow this dogma

Can you show us how Newton incorporated God into his theory of gravity?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is atheist science?

There are christian scientist, christian prison gaurds, christian abortionist, christians everywhere!

Where'd you get that idea that science and atheism co-relate???

So what if creation scientists "have a Christian slant" ? Atheist scientists have an "atheist slant". What you are saying is that one set of biases are "Gospel" (no pun intended) and another set are categorically unacceptable.

Science and any type of science should not be bias to a belief system (no hindu and no muslim; christians arent special).

Atheist scientists????

There is no atheist slant to the results I got from google. Those who mentioned atheism are christians.

Christians try to prove atheist wrong. Christians trying to disprove a nonchristian topic. Its like you guys need to varify the validity of your beliefs by telling everyone else we are wrong.

It's the science that counts, not perceived biases isn't it

If you treat science as an antichrist, no, its not like that. Its just the study of the natural world. There is nothing anti religious about it. Science isnt the opposite of theism. Makes no sense.

Forgive me for bringing up abiogenesis, but that and cosmology are where I do most of my science reading.

That convo wasnt with me. Im not familar with it but I did aee you brought it up without referring to the topic already brought up.

A very prominent atheist biochemist, I forget his name now, but I remember his words verbatim he said this " I know abiogenesis is impossible, but I believe it because to con

He is loyal to the atheist law of science. Believe the impossible, rather than consider something else.

Wow. Um. What education do you have about science?

Different countries may see it or define it differently in relations to religion. Im trying to say it nicely. I think, going by your convo in general, read up on studying the natural world and what its about. It has nothing to do with specific people. There are many scientists who discover different things.

Its easier to talk about a topic you are more familar with generally not in the bias and lens of your faith.

Edited.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheist science is science that will not and cannot consider any possibility that might take God into account.

It is now in vogue. Many of the foundational scientists we venerate didn't practice it, Newton, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Tycho Brae, Galileo, Leonardo if you consider him a scientist, and many more. There are many scientists today that don't slavishly follow this dogma

No, it cannot consider any possibility that isn't ultimately testable in some form. If God is untestable, then that hypothesis is rejected as viable. If God *is* testable, please provide a test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? We are talking about the creation of man, not the creation of the universe. If we asked how lightning was created would you start talking about the Big Bang? If we were asking about the cause of infectious diseases would you start talking about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe?

We don't have to know ultimate origins in order to understand proximal causes, so why avoid the question in the opening post? We are asking where humans came from, not where the universe came from.

Extreme moving of the goalposts as a desperation move.

 

[shmogie]

No, you only supplied a quote out of context and my interpretation has been confirmed by someone that understands physics better than either of us. Demanding a proper sources is not weaseling.

Instead of attacking others you should be asking questions when you don't understand.

Provide the context you think is missing, I told you where to look, lets see if he was talking about the fundamental laws of nature, as he said, or the nautical laws of the LA harbor as you said.

Weaseling is weaseling. You'r good at it. Provide the entire lecture, if you must, You won't, you can't weasel with it.

You won't know who Allen Guth is, but people who follow cosmology do. He agrees with Hawking, who agrees with me. After that I can give you more.

Why don';t you just give up, you are so confused now you don't even know what you are arguing about. You just have to keep say "you are wrong, I am right": for your fragile ego and lack of self respect.

Let the weasel give up the struggle, he is covered with mud. let him go to his dem and rest, his struggle is futile and only makes him muddier

 

[Subduction Zone]

Provide the context you think is missing, I told you where to look, lets see if he was talking about the fundamental laws of nature, as he said, or the nautical laws of the LA harbor as you said.

Weaseling is weaseling. You'r good at it. Provide the entire lecture, if you must, You won't, you can't weasel with it.

You won't know who Allen Guth is, but people who follow cosmology do. He agrees with Hawking, who agrees with me. After that I can give you more.

Why don';t you just give up, you are so confused now you don't even know what you are arguing about. You just have to keep say "you are wrong, I am right": for your fragile ego and lack of self respect.

Let the weasel give up the struggle, he is covered with mud. let him go to his dem and rest, his struggle is futile and only makes him muddier

No need, Polymath already corrected you. And since no one can tell whether the quote was in context of not that is a failure on your part. Once again the Bible says at least twelve times "There is no god". Demanding that you find all twelve would be a failure on my part.

Allen Guth clearly does not agree with you since Hawking did not agree with your misinterpretation.

 

[shmogie]

No, it cannot consider any possibility that isn't ultimately testable in some form. If God is untestable, then that hypothesis is rejected as viable. If God *is* testable, please provide a test.

Tell me, how can you believe in the alleged singularity, it was outside the universe and totally untestravle.

You have FAITH that it existed because if your dogmatic interpretation of the evidence.

he Bible says God instantly created the universe, you say something of infinite energy and density the size of the period at the end of this sentence or much smaller created the universe. You can't test that any more than God can be tested.

So, why one over the other ? I have faith in one possibility,you the other., I have thoroughly considered where you place your faith, can you say the same for where I place mine ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Atheist science is science that will not and cannot consider any possibility that might take God into account.

It is now in vogue. Many of the foundational scientists we venerate didn't practice it, Newton, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Tycho Brae, Galileo, Leonardo if you consider him a scientist, and many more. There are many scientists today that don't slavishly follow this dogma

There is no such thing as atheist science.

The study of the natural world has nothing to do with god no more does mathematics and psychotherapy. Atheism is specific to some-one, a person, who doesnt believe god exist.

Science does not use god to study the natural world. Whether god exists or not is irrelevent to the study of water on venus or why pluto no longer exists as a planet. Going to the moon isnt a god topic no more than finding out how to prolong the affects of AIDS. It has nothing to do with god. Its not a threat to god just doesnt need god to formulate cures for deadly illnesses.

Thats western science. Some science overseas incorporate spirituality in their medical sciences. But observation of the natural world is void of that.

Science cant "disbelieve" just christian scientists dont use god to solve the equations of the natural world. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Provide the context you think is missing, I told you where to look, lets see if he was talking about the fundamental laws of nature, as he said, or the nautical laws of the LA harbor as you said.

Weaseling is weaseling. You'r good at it. Provide the entire lecture, if you must, You won't, you can't weasel with it.

You won't know who Allen Guth is, but people who follow cosmology do. He agrees with Hawking, who agrees with me. After that I can give you more.

Why don';t you just give up, you are so confused now you don't even know what you are arguing about. You just have to keep say "you are wrong, I am right": for your fragile ego and lack of self respect.

Let the weasel give up the struggle, he is covered with mud. let him go to his dem and rest, his struggle is futile and only makes him muddier

The only weaseling I have seen is people who try to change the discussion to the origin of the universe when asked about the origin of man.

 

[Jose Fly]

@shmogie

Can you name a single field of science that "takes God into account"? And can you show exactly where and how the folks in those fields "took God into account"?

And can you name the scientists who you claim incorporate God into their work?

 

[Audie]

What we are asking for is evidence that supports that claim.

Here is the evidence beyond any need for more:

That the oldest human remains be shown to be no
more than 6000 yrs old.

 

[shmogie]

There is no such thing as atheist science.

The study of the natural world has nothing to do with god no more does mathematics and psychotherapy. Atheism is specific to some-one, a person, who doesnt believe god exist.

Science does not use god to study the natural world. Whether god exists or not is irrelevent to the study of water on venus or why pluto no longer exists as a planet. Going to the moon isnt a god topic no more than finding out how to prolong the affects of AIDS. It has nothing to do with god. Its not a threat to god just doesnt need god to formulate cures for deadly illnesses.

Thats western science. Some science overseas incorporate spirituality in their medical sciences. But observation of the natural world is void of that.

Science cant "disbelieve" just christian scientists dont use god to solve the equations of the natural world. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

Who says God has nothing to do with the study of science?

Is there a universal master controller somewhere that decrees that God cannot be considered when practicing science ?

There are hundreds maybe more of well qualified scientists who believe that the natural evidence leads to intelligent design of everything. They use science, and it leads them to God

They are rebels to the great controller, if he exists, and they reject his dogma.

Other than shunning and harassment, is there any other penalty for rejecting the dogma ?

Of course God can be considered as a possibility, just as all the unknowable processes and theories the dogmatists accept as possibilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who says God has nothing to do with the study of science?

Is there a universal master controller somewhere that decrees that God cannot be considered when practicing science ?

There are hundreds maybe more of well qualified scientists who believe that the natural evidence leads to intelligent design of everything. They use science, and it leads them to God

They are rebels to the great controller, if he exists, and they reject his dogma.

Other than shunning and harassment, is there any other penalty for rejecting the dogma ?

Of course God can be considered as a possibility, just as all the unknowable processes and theories the dogmatists accept as possibilities.

Then how would you bring God into any equation?

By the way, there is no "atheistic science" not is there any " creation science ", there is only science. And many of the so called "creation scientists" have sworn not to use the scientific method. That means calling them any sort of scientist is a misnomer.