The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't need science to prove anything to me.

I don't need religion for anything at all.

I have made a prediction, the James Webb Telescope should reveal galaxies much farther away than 13.8 billion years. Where is your prediction?

Christianity eventually disappears from the earth.

You would choose a better afterlife? You think you will get your choice, do you? Your ego is absolutely incredible.

Thanks.

you're always looking for the easy answer first.

I'm not the theist here. You are.

How would you know anything about angels?

The same way you do - I make it up.

You trust humans way, way, way too much.

Not the religious ones.

Background radiation was predicted 25 years before it was found? Oh, you mean someone predicted that space is very cold and then 25 years later we found out that it actually is very cold. Wow. Amazing. That's incredible. And you are willing to dump gravity for that?

We're willing to dump religion and faith based thought.

 

[Sapiens]

The definition of racism is: the idea that one race is superior to another race, prejudice, or having an antagonistic attitude towards another race.

Name what thing I said that meets any of the above criteria.

Nothing I said meets the criteria of prejudice because I've been there and studied them. Can't be antagonistic because my comments are not insulting. And, the asian race is superior in numbers, there are more asians on the planet than any other race. If that is racism then population statistics are racist and anyone who thinks that there are more asians than any other race are also racists.

The asians I met tended to be meek and shy, except the guy in the martial arts clothing store was mean and yelled at us for no reason, I think we were supposed to go up and bow to him when we first walked in but we didn't. I don't judge them all by that one guy. Also, a friend of mine's wife lost her wallet on the train to Yokohama. It showed up at the hotel lobby the next morning with all the money still in it and the hotel was 2 miles from the train station. That probably doesn't happen in the US or Europe or any other place in the world.

Somehow I forgot Genghis Khan? Yeah, they have their warriors. I think if you compared european history to asian history you would find that the europeans tended to not only fight with their neighbors but also tried to conquer distant cultures whereas the asians tended to fight amongst themselves and with close neighbors.

I said the black race is backwards? What I said was that having women do most of the family work in tribal society is backwards. It doesn't matter if the women are black, white, asian, amazonian, new guinean, or Kenyan, it's backwards. Men should do most of the work.

You didn't take any philosophy, sociology, or social anthropology courses in college, did you?

Anthropology from both Vince Sarich and Allan Wilson. Philosophy was my initial major and I completed Tussman Tutorials. I think we covered most of the useful material. I am assuming you never had a course in logic, since you show no hint of it, denying your underlying condition or racism just as you clearly exhibit it.

 

[Profound Realization]

You are correct. The Big Bang theory is here to stay. The evidence supporting it will not go away even if a new discovery requires it to be modified to accommodate the new finding. The theory is definitely correct in the main. It would not have been possible to predict the cosmic microwave background or the relative amount of the constituents of the primeval nebulae if the theory were not at least mostly correct.

Why would we ever ditch a theory that unifies observation and makes detailed and specific predictions accurately? What incentive do we have to do that?

The creationists want us to do the same with evolutionary theory, which also unifies observations, has successfully predicted what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature, has explanatory power, and has been successfully applied to practical matters that resulted in improving the human condition. They poke and prod at it, citing what hasn't been explained or found yet, and how they just can't see how it is possible to people that can't see how it's impossible, in the apparent hope that man will abandon the theory for a supernaturalistic claim that does none of those things.

Sorry, but that would be irrational. The reason and evidence based thinker has a different epistemology from that of the faith based thinker. We come to our beliefs using different methods, and not surprisingly, they yield contradictory positions. As I explained earlier, the criterion for truth in the rational, skeptical, and empirical is based on the ability of an idea to accurately predict or beneficially modify outcomes. That is, truth is inferred from evidence properly evaluated and confirmed by the generated conclusion's utility.

The criterion for truth in faith based epistemologies appears to be nothing more than the will to believe and declare an idea true independent of evidence, or despite contradictory evidence. By that method, I can declare anything true as you have been doing regarding the nature of angels.By that method, I can make any statement at all that I want to about angels and declare it true.

You can see why empiricists are not interested in the objections of faith based thinkers. The process generating such objections is flawed.

I disagree. This is fascinating, and I believe will gain more traction heading into the future:

Physicists Warming Up the LHC Accidentally Create a Rainbow Universe — NOVA Next | PBS

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.amp

Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider

 

[Profound Realization]

I should focus? You posted the Wiki on eugenics, not I, and claimed eugenics was racism.

A good case could be made for eugenicists and racists? Sure if you listen to the Nazi's, the Aryan Brotherhood, or the Skinheads. But who is listening to them? They're ideas are not leading humanity into the future.

Mentally disabled people have trouble finding mates who are not mentally disabled. That's eugenics at work. It's always been at work but it's very slow. Doctors one day will be able to fix genetic disease causing genes. You can call that eugenics or whatever but it will be a great day for humanity.

Eugenics and racism are fully occupied by Urantia believers? How so? I don't know any other UB believers so I can't say.

The UB says that the asian race is superior. I don't feel they are superior at all but, as I said, every time I've been there they tend to be meek and shy, not all but more so than the people in Europe. Asians tend to be less outgoing and their history is one of isolation instead of seeking conquest, well, except for the Japanese in the 30's.

The UB says that the black race is backwards. I don't know what that means because they did not elaborate. Women do almost all of the family work in tribal society so maybe that's it. In my opinion that is definately backwards and I think most of humanity would agree. That's why we don't live like that anymore.

If someone were to accept natural selection of evolution, I don't see many ways in why Eugenics and racism wouldn't be accepted. Social Darwinism is a great example. The varied genetics of the various humans would have little choice but to consider superiority or inferiority based on evolution and genetics. Eugenetics would be very parallel with natural selection. The theory is really that cold, but it self-evident amongst many humans that that's not the case.

Many humans are living, self-evident proof that the current accepted mechanism of natural selection is a sham. Many of us are nothing like as we should be "scientifically" if the mechanism were accurate.

 

[Super Universe]

I don't need religion for anything at all.



Christianity eventually disappears from the earth.



Thanks.



I'm not the theist here. You are.



The same way you do - I make it up.



Not the religious ones.



We're willing to dump religion and faith based thought.

You don't need religion? And it does not need you.

Your prediction is that Christianity disappears from the earth? You'll be waiting a very, very long time. Christianity is growing.

Theists are the ones looking for easy answers? There is nothing easy about believing in a God who allows the universe to be the gladiator pit.

You and I both make things up? Except the things I make up just happen to be true. What a coincidence.

You're willing to dump religion? For yourself, not for anyone else.

What was the toy you didn't get one Christmas that turned you against religion?

 

[Super Universe]

Anthropology from both Vince Sarich and Allan Wilson. Philosophy was my initial major and I completed Tussman Tutorials. I think we covered most of the useful material. I am assuming you never had a course in logic, since you show no hint of it, denying your underlying condition or racism just as you clearly exhibit it.

UC Berkeley, now things makes sense.

I actually did take a logic course. It was a requirement. Worst class ever. One assignment none of the students turned in a paper for because none of us really understood it and we all got yelled at and were told we had to do the paper or no grade. The instructor liked my paper because I had a little more life experience than the other younger students.

I always have to explain this to you atheists. You think that logic is truth. That's not what it means. Logic is a valid vs invalid statement. It simply means a valid statement is when your conclusion agrees with your premise, even if your premise is wrong.

What racism have I exhibited?

You're trying to invent things that are not true because you lost the big bang argument and realize that the scientists have been lying to the world and making things up without evidence and violating your own laws and that your arguments about religious people believing things without evidence also applies to scientists.

 

[Super Universe]

If someone were to accept natural selection of evolution, I don't see many ways in why Eugenics and racism wouldn't be accepted. Social Darwinism is a great example. The varied genetics of the various humans would have little choice but to consider superiority or inferiority based on evolution and genetics. Eugenetics would be very parallel with natural selection. The theory is really that cold, but it self-evident amongst many humans that that's not the case.

Many humans are living, self-evident proof that the current accepted mechanism of natural selection is a sham. Many of us are nothing like as we should be "scientifically" if the mechanism were accurate.

Natural selection affects population size, meaning, how many of a species that can be supported by an environment. It does not affect future development or change of a species. All species are built in stability points in DNA. Some exist for shorter periods than other species. This is what I know. I know that's not what the scientists believe. They think that humans are an accident and evolved from chemicals that somehow came to life.

Eugenics is species change by human intervention. We've always chosen our mates, or had them chosen for us, so, to some degree there has always been some level of eugenics.

As far as racism goes, natural selection is not racist, and eugenics can be racist depending on how it's used. I'm not advocating racist eugenics. I'm advocating genetic change that benefits the human race, the removal of disease causing and psychopathic genes.

 

[Super Universe]

Sorry, 250 billion years. My mistake.



I did read your whole reply, and none of it say where you got 250 billion years from.

That’s my question, which I will repeat:

WHERE DID YOU GET THE “250 BILLION YEARS” FROM?​

What is your source(s)?

Please don’t give me another lecture from, and just tell where you got the number from?

Look at my religion. It's in the upper right hand corner of every one of my posts. It says Urantia Book.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I disagree. This is fascinating, and I believe will gain more traction heading into the future:

Physicists Warming Up the LHC Accidentally Create a Rainbow Universe — NOVA Next | PBS

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.amp

Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider

Interesting. Thanks. I had seen other challenges to Big Bang cosmology.

My point is that even if we have to modify the theory - perhaps by saying that there never was a first moment or a singularity, we still have the discoveries of Hubble (the man), and the confirmation of specific predictions based on the idea of an expanding, evolving universe that don't go away whatever else is also discovered. We still will have symmetry breaking, inflation, nucleosynthesis, decoupling of the cosmic microwave background with the universe going dark followed eventually by first starlight and the formation of galaxies and stars, etc..

Whatever else is added to this can need not be called a Big Bang, but the essential characteristics of the universe's history that these findings suggest will still be consistent with most of the narrative of Big Bang cosmology. Remember, the term Big Bang doesn't refer to an explosion, and doesn't require a singularity - just that the universe be expanding rather than in a steady state.

This is what I mean by the theory cannot be toppled, just modified. There is just too much evidence that apparently cannot be explained any other way. What can change are the assumptions that rewinding the timeline imply such as the existence of a first moment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If someone were to accept natural selection of evolution, I don't see many ways in why Eugenics and racism wouldn't be accepted. Social Darwinism is a great example. The varied genetics of the various humans would have little choice but to consider superiority or inferiority based on evolution and genetics. Eugenetics would be very parallel with natural selection. The theory is really that cold, but it self-evident amongst many humans that that's not the case.

Many humans are living, self-evident proof that the current accepted mechanism of natural selection is a sham. Many of us are nothing like as we should be "scientifically" if the mechanism were accurate.

That's another scientific theory that has too much evidentiary support to ever be toppled. At most, it might be necessary to adjust timelines.

Suppose evolutionary theory was falsified. What could account for findings that preceded such a discovery?

Nobody need accept the current scientific narrative, and that narrative may evolve with unexpected discoveries, but no discovery makes the earlier ones go away or no longer require explaining.

And there is nothing in human nature to contradict the theory of evolution. Nor is the theory justification for committing moral crimes. Nature is not responsible for what it has generated, including man. However, with psychological and cultural evolution, man has acquired the ability to make himself and his world in new ways, and given his ability to reason and make moral judgments, can now be held morally culpable for his decision.

Evolution created a vicious arena of animals preying on one another. Zebras on the Serengeti die horrible deaths in the teeth of predatory carnivores after terrifying ordeals vainly trying to elude capture. We make no moral judgment against blind nature for going down that path. But if man had designed the world that way, we would hold him responsible. That's the difference between natural and artificial selection - between survival of the fittest, and survival of who we prefer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't need religion? And it does not need you.

Deal.

What was the toy you didn't get one Christmas that turned you against religion?

I think you're confusing Santa and Jesus. It's an easy mistake to make.

scientists have been lying to the world and making things up without evidence and violating your own laws and that your arguments about religious people believing things without evidence also applies to scientists.

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash." - anon.

Science is also here to stay. Religion is simply the phase man went through between the time when he first wondered how the world worked until he figured it out.

 

[Super Universe]

Deal.



I think you're confusing Santa and Jesus. It's an easy mistake to make.

It was a Tonka truck, wasn't it?

 

[Super Universe]

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash." - anon.

Science is also here to stay. Religion is simply the phase man went through between the time when he first wondered how the world worked until he figured it out.

Science is here to stay? Don't be so sure. Science and religion become the same thing in the future.

 

[Profound Realization]

Natural selection affects population size, meaning, how many of a species that can be supported by an environment. It does not affect future development or change of a species. All species are built in stability points in DNA. Some exist for shorter periods than other species. This is what I know. I know that's not what the scientists believe. They think that humans are an accident and evolved from chemicals that somehow came to life.

Eugenics is species change by human intervention. We've always chosen our mates, or had them chosen for us, so, to some degree there has always been some level of eugenics.

As far as racism goes, natural selection is not racist, and eugenics can be racist depending on how it's used. I'm not advocating racist eugenics. I'm advocating genetic change that benefits the human race, the removal of disease causing and psychopathic genes.

That is why I see flaws in natural selection as presented.. there is no logic, no intent, no choice, no awareness, no ethics. Humans are said to evolve from such, which I see as a large problem. Humans are many things contrary, as seen by our ability to artificially select and oppose the racist forms of natural selection and racist forms of eugenics, also seen by our logic, intelligence, having intent, awareness, choice, ethics. Also as you've mentioned, choosing our mates and/or having them chosen for us. Natural selection allows for no choice/no intent yet would state that humans evolved from such.

I understand that you're not advocating for such. However, many humans have done so in the past and still do today (Social Darwinism.) The problem with Eugenics are that the social class with the most power and control will deem whatever they want as disease and psychopath.... so for instance, anyone believing or thinking an alternate way from them (Ie: believing in God) can be used as an example to label one genetically flawed. The reality is that the social class in power and control will advocate for whatever they think is best.

 

[McBell]

Science is here to stay? Don't be so sure. Science and religion become the same thing in the future.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Profound Realization]

Interesting. Thanks. I had seen other challenges to Big Bang cosmology.

My point is that even if we have to modify the theory - perhaps by saying that there never was a first moment or a singularity, we still have the discoveries of Hubble (the man), and the confirmation of specific predictions based on the idea of an expanding, evolving universe that don't go away whatever else is also discovered. We still will have symmetry breaking, inflation, nucleosynthesis, decoupling of the cosmic microwave background with the universe going dark followed eventually by first starlight and the formation of galaxies and stars, etc..

Whatever else is added to this can need not be called a Big Bang, but the essential characteristics of the universe's history that these findings suggest will still be consistent with most of the narrative of Big Bang cosmology. Remember, the term Big Bang doesn't refer to an explosion, and doesn't require a singularity - just that the universe be expanding rather than in a steady state.

This is what I mean by the theory cannot be toppled, just modified. There is just too much evidence that apparently cannot be explained any other way. What can change are the assumptions that rewinding the timeline imply such as the existence of a first moment.

You're welcome, potential alternatives and/or modifications/additions are always very intriguing.

Perhaps it's perceptive based. I'm under the impression that the Big Bang Theory is in regards to the starting point and/or starting event of the universe 13.7/8 billion years ago.

Indeed, while we still have all of what you mentioned.... all of what you mentioned would carry on as they are without the Big Bang. If a starting point/beginning were removed, how is the Big Bang itself any longer relevant?

 

[Profound Realization]

That's another scientific theory that has too much evidentiary support to ever be toppled. At most, it might be necessary to adjust timelines.

Suppose evolutionary theory was falsified. What could account for findings that preceded such a discovery?

Nobody need accept the current scientific narrative, and that narrative may evolve with unexpected discoveries, but no discovery makes the earlier ones go away or no longer require explaining.

And there is nothing in human nature to contradict the theory of evolution. Nor is the theory justification for committing moral crimes. Nature is not responsible for what it has generated, including man. However, with psychological and cultural evolution, man has acquired the ability to make himself and his world in new ways, and given his ability to reason and make moral judgments, can now be held morally culpable for his decision.

Evolution created a vicious arena of animals preying on one another. Zebras on the Serengeti die horrible deaths in the teeth of predatory carnivores after terrifying ordeals vainly trying to elude capture. We make no moral judgment against blind nature for going down that path. But if man had designed the world that way, we would hold him responsible. That's the difference between natural and artificial selection - between survival of the fittest, and survival of who we prefer.

In my opinion, you've already proven my point. If Nature is not held accountable, from Nature which humans came, humans should not be held accountable for anything. Point proven due to it being evident that humans defy from which it came. Natural selection, from which humans came... leaves zero room for any intent/choice.

Humans came from natural selection(no logic) yet have logic. Also a contradictory.

Nature, natural selection from which humans came is blind as you've said. Humans are not blind-they are aware.

There is no mechanism of anything "psychological" with natural selection. Humans have psychological ability. The acquisition of that ability cannot be from natural selection. (At least in its current state.) I would think it more plausible that the species undergoing natural selection all the way to the path of humans would have some psychological abilities/intent/choice.

Humans came from that same cold,vicious, no intent/non-choosing path, non-logical, non-ethical path as its alleged.

 

[Polymath257]

You're welcome, potential alternatives and/or modifications/additions are always very intriguing.

Perhaps it's perceptive based. I'm under the impression that the Big Bang Theory is in regards to the starting point and/or starting event of the universe 13.7/8 billion years ago.

Indeed, while we still have all of what you mentioned.... all of what you mentioned would carry on as they are without the Big Bang. If a starting point/beginning were removed, how is the Big Bang itself any longer relevant?

Well, the term 'Big Bang' is, frankly, ambiguous. It can mean the initiation 'event' or it can mean the expansion subsequent to that. The *tests* we have are for the subsequent expansion and cooling, as well as the hot, dense stages early on. Those have been well-established and are why there is a uniform background radiation, for example. This is the aspect of the 'Big Bang' model that has HUGE scientific support. Any changes to the model will happen prior to the age of nucleosynthesis, which means that the basic BB model will still be valid and useful.

Think of it like this. When Einstein's description of gravity was validated, that didn't mean that Newton's was completely eliminated. It is still useful and accurate enough for many situations. In a similar way, if there was NOT a singularity, the BB description would still be useful and accurate for times *after* about a millisecond into the current expansion phase.

 

[Profound Realization]

Well, the term 'Big Bang' is, frankly, ambiguous. It can mean the initiation 'event' or it can mean the expansion subsequent to that. The *tests* we have are for the subsequent expansion and cooling, as well as the hot, dense stages early on. Those have been well-established and are why there is a uniform background radiation, for example. This is the aspect of the 'Big Bang' model that has HUGE scientific support. Any changes to the model will happen prior to the age of nucleosynthesis, which means that the basic BB model will still be valid and useful.

Think of it like this. When Einstein's description of gravity was validated, that didn't mean that Newton's was completely eliminated. It is still useful and accurate enough for many situations. In a similar way, if there was NOT a singularity, the BB description would still be useful and accurate for times *after* about a millisecond into the current expansion phase.

I can agree with that, because it would be ambiguous as you've mentioned, and the term "current" expansion phase.

 

[gnostic]

Look at my religion. It's in the upper right hand corner of every one of my posts. It says Urantia Book.

So is that your source for the universe being “250 billion years”?