 |
|
|
|
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET
Bill Nye slams creationismBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children." "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times. Nye - a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" - said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back." "Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video. Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days. For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins "The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video. "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said. Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood. The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution. "In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video. soundoff (14,640 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Alot of people here claim that athiest are the most intellectual people in our soceity yet there's never been an athiest president in U.S history.
Yeah, it's a shame. There are just many fundies and vangies out there to ever elect an atheist. And you could do a lot to improve your writing skills.
With the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson, please name a president who was the most intellectual person of his generation. There went that argument.
@CommonSense,
that you know of ...
Voters in the Unites States persist in the myth that so long as they know what kind of robes the man who threw water over the candidate as an infant wore, they can feel reassured about how the candidate will act if elected president.
It is a foolish notion. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
If religion predicts behavior, why would Nixon (a Quaker) order the carpet bombing of Cambodia?
Why would Paul Ryan (a Catholic) propose a budget Ayn Rand would be proud of. (The Catholic church despised it.)
Intellectuals are rarely elected as presidents. Firstly, they're too smart to want the job in the first place and, secondly, people elect the candidate with the biggest smile and the biggest bank account. The real intellectuals are invariably atheists and there are just too many fundies and vangies in the voting population.
@CommonSense,
in the modern era, how many short, balding Presidents were elected versus how many presidents were taller than average and still had (or appeared to have) their hair?
@CommonSense,
Ike was the last balding man elected President and he had defeating the Nazis to compensate for it.
HIt and run I guess.
Thats because you have to believe in God to be President.
CommonSense
You're assuming that we always pick presidents from the most intellectual people in our society, when actual common sense should tell you that we don't.
That is because Americans do not elect Presidents they elect Popes.
Remembering the Bush tag team of presidents it is painfully obvious that intellect is not a requirement for the US president
"Thats because you have to believe in God to be President."
Well, ... pretend at least.
okay i think you guys should really just frekin calm down this is not nessery every one has there own belives and every one has a right to them
Jeez, chelsie, my 11-year-old grandson has better spelling and grammatical skills than you do. How old are you? And does your mommy know you're playing with her computer?
Yes people have the right to believe in fantasy as reality...and other people have the right to tell them they are wrong...
chelsie
Yup, people have a right to their beliefs, and people also have the right to criticize beliefs that they see as backward and harmful to society. That's the beauty of being an American, with the freedom and all.
@Lisa
You don't realize that most of Americans are living in bubble that distorts reality. From living in it so long, they begin to think that it IS reality! They grew fat and complacent, lulibied by LIES!.
And as long as everyone mind their own business
Keeps their noses clean
And keeps their hands to them self
We can all have our own beliefs yet live together in peace and harmony
JesusNotReligion:
"The next time you pull a quote from some scientist that you believe in I'll be sure to use your argument on you"
-------
Then we will be waiting a long time for that to happen then since I do not believe in what scientists say nor do I believe in science facts for belief implies faith which implies no proof required.
Ok AP...I do believe I have ETERNITY to wait but thanks for letting me with such absolute authority that I don't need to. Do you not see how you guys speak as though this life has meaning and some sort of unidentifiable purpose? AP, I truly do pray for you, whether or not you believe that it will effect anything...In fact, I know you don't think does anything and are not passive about, and I am still going to pray for you. How is that for unconditional love? Though you might say that it's only cheap words...You'd be right except for the fact that you don't me, or how I live out my faith. So sorry if you have experienced the hypocrisy of "religion" (religious people) and not the Jesus of the Bible. I was like you 26 years ago but things changed for me on the night my band opened up for John Waite...the rest is history (His Story) my cyber acquaintance.
I do owe you and the other fellow bloggernauts an apology for the many typos in my posts. My Tablet is not user friendly or I am just a moron in the evolutionary process behind everyone else...right?
JesusNotReligion:
"I am just a moron in the evolutionary process behind everyone else...right?"
====================
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
AP...I handed that one to you and you know it...But I laughed anyway! "Hi, my name is JNR, and I'm a moron. Hi JNR!"
Arthur, is that you. You're at this meeting too? Praise God!
What a cop out. Jeez. If everything was so simple to explain as that we wouldn't need scientists to come up with cures for deadly diseases. Lets all just believe they will go away.
Jesus did live, and any old fool would realize that there really is a God; the universe and its infinite details didnt just condense and form out of thin space and a bunch of molecules that were just there because..? i missed that part..where EXACTLY did the atoms that were floating in space for infinity before they(being without brains) decided to form the universe and everthing in it?
Really, where is his long form birth certificate??
Oh and by the way atoms do not need brains to tell them how to form molecules etc.. That is controlled by their overall structure. Take a course in chemistry to learn the details.
Are you an old fool?
It is an almost childlike tendency to see everything as having an intent, and everything centered on our needs. It is unimaginable to some that the sun isn't "Mr. Sun" put there to make plants grow so we can eat them and put them in pots.
It is an almost childlike tendency to see everything as having an intent, and everything as centered around our needs. It is unimaginable to some that the sun isn't "Mr. Sun" put there on purpose to make plants grow so we can eat them and use them to decorate our yards.
sorry for the double post – I knew that was going to happen....
Rufus...There is no need to apologize in this blog that promotes an"accidental" worldview...EVERYTHING IS AN ACCIDENT!...Though your morality (that can't be scientifically defined) is showing....Very thoughtful of your fellow, man....
JesusNotReligion – I see the two things you are trying to do there, but it sort of falls apart on account of it being mistaken on both accounts.
Ruuuuuufus....Porky Pig speaks better than you....What are you bedebdebdebdebde talking about?
My friend, you are dealing with people here who are so very gullible and who think that credulity is a complement..
They just write a lot of things that mean nothing, then, use grade school verbal abuse to silence anyone who questions there childish reasoning.
Cannot answer ONE reasonable question.
I come here to torture the zealots of the evolution cult.
Cult?! We base everything on scientific research, they like the so called creationists have no idea what they are talking about.
Evolution is a dead religion, get a new faith boys and girls.
Well, first you attempted a veiled but mistaken reference to evolution as accidental, and secondly you attempted a suggestive but mistaken reference to morality being relative if not based on religion. That's all (folks).
Rufus...I like you...I dont like your posts that reflect a monotheistic worldview that you use when it suits your supposed absolute argument, but you may certainly be a decent person who is on his way to the SAME PLACE AS EVERY INDECENT HUMAN APE THAT EVER LIVED...How's that for making sense...? I hope the best for you – Salvation in JesusNotReligion...really!
@JesusNotReligion You preach then make fun of how someone communicates?
“how can the Epicureans Opinion be true, that the Universe was formed by a fortuitous Concourse of Atoms, which I will no more believe, than that the accidental Jumbling of the Letters of the Alphabet, could fall by Chance into a most ingenious and learned Treatise of Philosophy, Risum teneatis Amici” – Jonathan Swift A Trictical Essay upon the Faculties of the Mind (1707)
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." – J.B.S. Haldane, "Possible Worlds" (1927), p. 209.
633music....Yes...I guess it's just my way of provoking the absurd. Waiting for some atheist to comment on it, calling it into moral question...It's all in fun anyway...Trying to keep a serious issue a bit light. You should read how JesusNotReligion spoke to the Pharisees...I bet you would have told Him a thing or two if you were there...Post noted, however.
Mr. Ed...I like you! Those were two great quotes that reflect exactly what I am trying to convey herein...Thank you!
633music: you don't torture us, you twit. You provide comic relief; much like the court jesters of the middle ages or the monkey at the end of the organ grinder's leash. We've long since dismissed you as a biblewashed dunce. Please keep it up.
Jones, your "explanation" says that for the universe to exist, before that can happen, something infinitely more complex had to exist? William of Occam is rolling in his grave.
Gadflie: Perhaps you're unaware that Ockham was a Christian who believed in creation? ... Or that the spontaneous generatoin of life was disproved long ago by Louis Pasteur (of "pasteurizing" fame)? ... G.K. Chesterton (The Everlasting Man, chapter 1), wrote “Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else." ... I claim Chesterton's argument is unanswerable by materialists. Assuming you disagree with Chesterton, please explain the "scientific" basis for the view that (a) matter always existed (if you deny Chesterton's assumption that matter did not always exist), or please explain the "scienfitic" basis for the view (b) nothing can turn into something without the involvement of a creator. ... And by "scientific" I mean something that is "verifiable" or "falsifiable" through something like (a) observation over time, or (b) repeatable experiments, not some sort of emotional or smart-alec argument appealing to Darwin's 19th-century creation myth.
jones: how do you make the leap from a creator to a god?
@Athy
Such class. Glad you are enjoying it.
Like a B0$$!! I LOVE YOU BILL NYE!!!!
Why...If nothing matters...Oh, I get it...You guys claim there is no reason for this accidental existence but then you reserve the right to tell us what matters...and perhaps even get angry when we transgress your rules of engagement. My fellow bloggernaut, that is a monotheistic worldview you're working with since it requires an absolute MORAL SOURCE of truth to support it as something that is WRONG.
Why...If nothing matters?...Oh, I get it...You guys claim there is no reason for this accidental existence but then you reserve the right to tell us what matters...and perhaps even get angry when we transgress your rules of engagement. My fellow bloggernaut, that is a monotheistic worldview you're working with since it requires an absolute MORAL SOURCE of truth to support it as something that is WRONG.
Door #1...IF THERE NO RESURRECTION: WE'RE FOOLS – BUT ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONIST'S WE LOSE NOTHING!
Door #2...IF THERE IS A RESURRECTION: YOU WILL HAVE ALL ETERNITY IN HELL (the place that Jesus spoke more than heaven) TO KNOW WE WERE NOT FOOLS
SCIENCE DOES NOT ANSWER THE ISSUE OF "INNATE MORALITY"...BUT THE BIBLE DOES!
HOPELESSNESS: AN ATHEIST TRYING TO COMFORT SOMEONE WHO HAS LOST A LOVED ONE, OR A LOVED ONE ON THEIR DEATH BED!
1 Corinthians 15:1-26
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third dayaccording to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
The Resurrection of the Dead
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
JNR, do try to stay on topic next time.
Earliest versions of Christian testaments, remember there are more than the Roman Empire approved set we use today, never mention the Resurrection. Why, because it never happened. It was added later to give wonder to the story.
Ken... Why...If nothing matters?...Oh, I get it...You guys claim there is no reason for this accidental existence but then you reserve the right to tell us what matters...and perhaps even get angry when we transgress your rules of engagement. My fellow bloggernaut, that is a monotheistic worldview you're working with since it requires an absolute MORAL SOURCE of truth to support it as something that is WRONG.
AP...Though I stated I would not interact with you...here goes...
Paul preached the gospel from the Old Testament BEFORE IT WAS EVER WRITTEN DOWN...Notice the above verses 3-4 "according to the Scriptures"...That is the Old Testament my atheistic cyber acquaintance.
About the Resurrection. You are stating facts not in evidence in the Old Testament. You are interpreting va.gue passages and putting your own spin on it. Which come to think of it is also defined in the Bible as a sin.
You might not be old. But you're a fool.
Lamb of god...You only deserve the "I'm rubber you're glue" child debating tactic...or the "takes one to know one" 7 year old rebuttal, cause that is all you deserve my primate linguist...
AP... Please tell me you didnt just write that...The New Testament quotes and supports WHO the "Christ" would be and WHAT His mission would be...and that it was ALL FULFILLED IN JESUS OF NAZARETH... If you acknowledge anything about Jesus you have to acknowlwdge at leas THAT...C'mon...play fair...
JesusNotReligion
Btw AP...You didnt acknowledge my "Door" choices...What say ye about that...True, isnt it...?P
You implied Scriptures (Old Testament) foreshadowed the Reselection of Jesus to counter my 'fact' that the earliest Christian testaments never mention the Resurrection. I called you on it and in the process used your own holy book to show that you were committing a sin when you made your initial, rebuttal. How is that not playing fair? Oh I know, I used facts. Sorry...
Reselection -> Resurrection . I really do hate auto correct sometimes ...
Called me on WHAT? The next time you pull a quote from some scientist that you believe in I'll be sure to use your argument on you...You have got to be kidding me...? You just won't approve the Bible through the same set of historic literary testing as ANY WRITING of ANTIQUITY...Here is a small, quick read for you: "More Than A Carpenter", by Josh McDowell...take it or leave it...WHATEVER ( Oh no, I must be turning into an atheist...I used their worldview summary word: WHATEVER)...I'm melting....melllllting...Pay no attention the that One True God behind the Creation Curtain....
JNR seems to be biblewashed beyond any hope of recovery.
Athy...I'll bite...But I 'm not sure if you are soner enough to feel it....I'd rather be biblewashed than to have the stench of ape on me...
What about my "Door" options? How about my "innate morality" statement...Or are you to one of those pro-abortionist's" that will scream at the top of your lungs, "THERE'S LIFE ON MARS!", if they find a single cell there?????
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BANANAS!
Oh clueless one:
Surely you realize that you are once again positing Pascal's Wager, an argument with so many holes in it the Vatican uses it with ham and mustard on rye. I won't even bother going into the dozen or so reasons why it fails the logic test; I take it you've been schooled on them many times and simply choose to ignore.
And science DOES answer the question of innate morality. It has evolved in response to environmental pressures as it confers a reproductive advantage on individuals living in a social group. Now, I KNOW you have no intention of doing so, but you could read up on sociobiology and it will be explained in detail.
Finally, what is the point of citing Biblical passages for the purpose of convincing people that they should believe in Bibilical passages? I don't cite Harry Potter for the basis of my contention that Lord Voldemort is real. I just have an undeniable innate understanding that he exists – how can you account for all the complex ways evil manifests itself in this world if Lord Voldemort did NOT exist? I mean, it's just impossible.
PS: The Bible in no ways ANSWERS the question of innate morality. Is simply TELLS you something and you make no effort to explore, test or corroborate the explanation. You simply accept it. Because one of the more clever things about the Bible is how it is contains "poison pills" to protect itself. You're not allowed to question the truth of it.
PS: The Bible in no ways ANSWERS the question of innate morality. Is simply TELLS you something and you make no effort to explore, test or corroborate the explanation. You are simply required to accept it. Because one of the more clever things about the Bible is how it is contains "poison pills" to protect itself. You're not allowed to question the truth of it.
sbp...Seriously? The word LOGIC, is from the Greek word LOGOS, which Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle all understood (logically) as needing a SOURCE of ALL logic, that you seem to think exists – though only in a Monotheistic/Biblical Worldview. For there is NO LOGIC my sbp bloggernaut unless there is MEANING. You truly are an oxy moron if I've ever read one...Think your so called "logic" before you tell me that I am illogical...Reply if will, but I am sure your monotheistic absoluteism will be showing...Btw...I wrote more than you commented on...What say ye?
sbp: "Finally, what is the point of citing Biblical passages for the purpose of convincing people that they should believe in Bibilical passages? I don't cite Harry Potter for the basis of my contention that Lord Voldemort is real. I just have an undeniable innate understanding that he exists – how can you account for all the complex ways evil manifests itself in this world if Lord Voldemort did NOT exist? I mean, it's just impossible."
What is it with you atheists that you feel compelled to use works of known fictional literature and other known fairy tales to compare with the Bible?
You juxtaposed Harry Potter; why not instead use as an example a real wiccan book of incantations? These books do exist you know, and a lot of people who take them very seriously.
The only people who think you're clever by resorting to name-calling religion as "fairy tales" is the relatively small group of atheists to which you belong.
So I suppose that you're preaching to your own choir while looking quite silly, rude and immature to the rest of the world.
JNR: Well, that was a non-responsive response. Did you actually SAY anything? It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing
B4 – if you don't understand why people intentionally reference a work of fiction for comparison, then you are inexplicably missing the point. I don't know if you are doing so knowingly, like JNR, who frets and froths without actually addressing the issue.
Every time that you claim that the Bible is only a work of fiction, you are merely re-stating in another way that "there is no God".
[small caveat here: there may be a commenter here that believes in some kind of "Spinoza's god" like Einstein, but I haven't dialoged with him/her on cnn yet; hello – are you here???].
The problem with you atheists ridiculing the idea of the existance of God is that by doing so you're constantly engaging in a logic fallacy – which is amazing, since many of you claim a good working knowledge of logic.
JNR, b4b, 2357, 633music, et al,
I have my own version of eternal bliss - which has every bit as much evidence for it as yours does (0!) - it does not include your type nor your monster god. Spending eternity with y'all sounds horrendous!
Bliss, your opinion that the God of the Bible is monstrous in no way diminishes the probability that he in fact exists and that the Bible's description of him is accurate.
sbp...B4 clarified for me in response to you responding to me...Did you follow that? I do apologize if any typos or missing words confused you... This table or my leftover ape fingers are to blame...
Bliss...nevermind...Barney is starting and I don't want to bother your spiritual time..."Just remember, I love youuu!"
So basically, JNR has simply abandoned coherence in favor of simple name-calling. I guess it's too late at night for actually having something to say. And B4 can't get past "the Bible is 100% true because it is." The two of you should elope.
Get thee behind me!
The verified evidence that your Middle Eastern Hebrew tribal war god is real is nil.
The Bible is nothing – regarding proof for supernatural beings or places.
"b4bigbang
Bliss, your opinion that the God of the Bible is monstrous in no way diminishes the probability that he in fact exists and that the Bible's description of him is accurate."
This is quite true. It's hard to reduce something that is effectively zero.
sbp...Welcome to your world. How does it feel to look in the mirror and see yourself? The reduction to absurdity that you guys use is mind-boggling...mind-boggling, I say...BUT WE ALL END UP IN THE SAME PLACE IN THE END, RIGHT? So, why not just "eat, drink and be merry, for tomoorow we die"...THAT'S THE EPICUREAN WAY..."The fool has said in his own heart, 'There is no God'"...and..."There is a way that seems right to a man but its end is the way of destruction"...Good night sbp...
Bliss...You are "one toke over the line sweet Jesus, one toke over the line..." I know you know that song! And "the wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'..." I bet you will reply with my favorite Led Zeppelin song, "Ramble On"...Go for it...
JNR, actually morality is very easily explained from a evolutionary viewpoint. Even you should see that.
B4bigbang, specifically which logical fallacy are you referring to?
JNR has apparently decided to go full retard. No longer even attempting to address the argument.
@facepalm
You do yourself harm by your statement.
The main problem that the Religious community has with The Theory of Evolution is that it means they are not 'special' they are just another animal. An intelligent tool user yes, but other than that just another animal.
I know, and yet they claim to be so humble. They believe that they are made in the image of a god, that the whole universe was created for them, that they have the ability to telepathically communicate with a supernatural being, that the most powerful force in the universe has a plan for them, watches over their every move, and is anxiously waiting to make them immortal. But, they are so humble....
There are over 6 billion people in the world who's image is the true image. The chap with the cleft lib, clubed foot, scoliosis of the spine, jet black skin and short tight curly hair? Or is he just some featureless bilateral quadruped ?
@Rufus,
Yes, humble, and and oh so loving too, don't you find?
So full of the love for their fellows, equally created in the image of their creator, and do so according to the explicit instruction of the human incarnation of their pan dimensional divinity.
I think that humans are simply predisposed to believe in some bullshit paranormal being that is control of everything. This predisposition simply overrides normal, rational thinking. Which explains why atheists have significantly higher intelligence levels than fundies and vangies
@ArthurP,
there is an ancient Mike Peters (Mother Goose & Grimm) cartoon strip illustrating a TV panel game show with three seated figures in the panel.
A Catholic Christ in death agony, a Protestant Christ with the nice beard and neat fingernails, and an Orthodox Christ with Byzantine halo.
The caption reads "Will the REAL Jesus Christ please stand up!"
@Athy,
human babies know nothing of God.
Since pre-history humans have been afraid of the dark. Adult humans tell children the God stories to help them control their children and deal with their fear.
I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV: "@Athy, human babies know nothing of God."
That's right – and the reason that babies know nothing of God is because ever since the Fall of Mankind all persons have been born with a dead spirit, AKA 'fallen nature'. That's why it's necessary to teach them about God.
Hush, b4bigbang, the grown-ups are talking.
Anyway, I suspect that humans are so socially adapted that we are predisposed to assign a motive and personality to everything around us. In our attempts to relate socially with the universe, we personify it, call it God, and give it motives and desires. We are like children who a tree "Mr. Tree" and call the clock on the wall "Mr. Clock."
Except all previous sins were forgiven when Christ died on the cross so what ever Adam and Eve did was forgiven so their sin should no longer propagate forward with new life. Right? (I think we discussed this contradiction already)
The only contradiction is in your own mind.
If you'd read the Bible and comprehend it, then you'd learn that the ideal you are referring to is known as the 'regeneration'.
This happens *after* Christ's return.
This is when the nations shall beat their swords into plowshares (the inscription on the entrance to the UN),
the lion shall lay down with the lamb, a child shall put his hand into a viper-den and not be harmed, etc.
An easy way to remember the doctrine of salvation is thus:
We [believers in Christ] have been [past-tense] saved from the penalty of sin (justfication).
We are being [present-tense] saved from the power of sin (sanctification).
We will be [future-tense] saved from the presence of sin (glorification [of the body] and regeneration [of creation]).
Another easy way to remember it is by reminding yourself of the absolute stupidity of a god who has to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself so that he doesn't have to torture people forever in the pit of fire he built himself but yet doesn't want anyone to go to because of a talking snake and invisible diseases (sin) in invisible body parts (souls).
@Moby Schtick
Man, you are a trip.
And B4 can't get past "the Bible is 100% true because it is." The two of you should elope.
Soooo, if i say it's true because it says it is, what's the problem there?
Bliss
Get thee behind me!
The verified evidence that your Middle Eastern Hebrew tribal war god is real is nil.
I notice your use of the word "verified", meaning verified by what? Scientists I suppose?
*facepalm*
"b4bigbang
Bliss, your opinion that the God of the Bible is monstrous in no way diminishes the probability that he in fact exists and that the Bible's description of him is accurate."
This is quite true. It's hard to reduce something that is effectively zero.
How do you arrive at "effectively zero" facepalm?
@B4: "necessary to teach them about God."
you mean kindof how your faith found it necessary to teach my ancestors about god, by trying to wipe us out?
Don't hate me cuz I'm beautiful
Why should we hate you? Are there better reasons?
Do you know how much I would of loved for my children to go to a science tech school ? I would of enrolled them in a heart beat. I hear so many other parents as well Bill Nye is way off on this. Make the schools BIll Nye!!! and the children will go but of course he rather talk talk talk then take action.....Btw I love god and Jesus Christ is my lord and savior
Mary, Bill Nye has spent an entire career finding creative ways to educate kids about science, and you are ranting anonymously on a computer about how he needs to quit talking and take action. Does that seem in any way ironic to you?
"would have", dear, not "would of"
While we're at it, also "rather than" dear, not "rather then"
And "their", not "there"! (In your earlier post).
And "he'd rather" not "he rather"
maybe you should be focused more on your own education, Mary.
Based only on all those spelling and grammatical errors, it would be safe to predict that you are a religious ninny.
"Make the schools Bill Nye"?
What does that mean?
Sadly Mary, Jesus is not the saviour of the entire world. And that is why we object to teaching of religion in schools. Now, you are free to teach your child whatever you want at home.
You just have to wonder why God created humans with all these genes that are (thankfully) "switched off." I mean, I believe that God maked the earth in 6, literal, 24-hour days, but why make us with genes for gills? Yeah, he was good enough to turn them off so that we don't grow those gills, but why did he make us with those genes to begin with? The Lord God works in mysterious ways, I guess.
As long as you agree that God did it, and the INFORMATION was put there by HIM. Now just trust in JesusNotReligion if you haven't done so already and EVERYTHING will all come together; making sense out of the otherwise senseless existence if GOD didn't exist.
Gills are just a holdover from our evolutionary predecessors. Evolution is notoriously inefficient in that regard. Which just makes it more plausible than creationism. Would a creator or intelligent designer really do it that way?
Amen to that!! It's just interesting, though. I'm sure that God has his reasons!
Being a hoarder he never throws anything out.
JNR: Maybe you view our existence as meaningless without "god", but I don't
JNR
" As long as you agree that God did it, and the INFORMATION was put there by HIM."
Understand sattire JNR? Or sarcasm?
And also the appendix – why would God still give us the organs used by herbivores. Well, I guess, he wanted a way to control the population, or maybe better, punish the sinners! So, whenever he feels the need to – our appendix inflames and bursts.
But wait, why did he give the surgeons intelligence to take them out? How can I be so stupid? Of course, he saves the ones who repent and fall on their knees!
Still I wonder why did the atheist come out safe from appendicitis and appendix surgery?
Religion is kind of like the appendix – vestigial and likely to cause problems.
Please explain to me how our 20,000-25,000 genes, just by chance, happened to line up. Then explain how the 50 million to 250 million base pairs just happened to line up "perfectly" in order, to work correctly. If just one amino acid is out of order, that could lead to big problems, i.e. sickle cell anemia. Please do not argue that it was "trial and error" over time, because not only do the proteins have to be made correctly, they have to have another molecule that fits them like a lock and key also. so they can work on them. I find the odds of this 1 in infinity, logically speaking, impossible. I just can't believe all this complexity is by chance.
Seriously.... Read.
There are many explanations out there, none of which can be boiled down to a simplistic CNN forum post. I know you really want to get your point out there that what you believe to be impossible IS impossible, but it lacks intellectual integrity, when you pose your personal opinion as an intellectual inquiry.
On the off chance that you actually want to learn, I recommend reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker. I'm sure other posters can add to this reading list to help you overcome your ignorance. But if you want to be taken seriously, you should study both sides of the argument thoroughly and form your opinions from that. Don't just try to make facts fit your personal opinion. Try to make your opinion fit the facts.
Nobody is claiming that it happened by chance, as you would know if you actually understood what evolution is instead of what religious fundamentalists SAY it is. Do some learnin' Cletus.
try googling how did single celled life form... and then go from there.... here's a little help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism
It didn't happen by chance. You've been listening to the fundies and vangies too much. Read some good books on evolution and throw your 2000-year-old bible away.
You are correct in that the probability of our existence by random chance is about as close to zero as you can get. Last I heard it was the same as marking one atom in the universe then closing your eyes and finding that atom. Yet the atheist will cling to that one atom of hope while the believer clings to that which cannot be seen absent of faith.
fred/chad/justsayin/etc
When your death approaches with implacable speed, you will frantically call for your god and discover he never really existed.
At that moment I would love to be there to see the look on your retarded face.
It is called chemistry. Go to a secular high school and take a course. Oh yes there is a bit of physics in there as well so a course in that might also help.
It is not simply biological evolution the makes the odds impossible for life. The fine tuning required for Dark Energy to accelerate the expansion of the universe at the exact speed for our galaxy to form makes our existence improbable. The fine tuning required for Earth to be in the right position. On top of that you need to consider the odds of all the right chemistry to allow intelligent life.
The odds of our existence being unlikely are not in debate. The meaning of the fact we should not be here is where the debate centers.
The answer is found by making up stuff such as M Theory which is not testable for the non believer. The answer is found in God for the believer. We all find the answer we are looking for.
Fred: "the atheist will cling to that one atom of hope while the believer clings to that which cannot be seen absent of faith."
In other words, you are attempting to ridicule people for basing their understanding on something that is only observed with difficulty, rather than believing in something that has never ever been observed?
Rufus
No ridicule at all simply an observation of truth. Science cannot explain why we are here and does not have the tools or knowledge to comprehend God. Believers on average understand the science and fully realize there exists a large unknown which one can only comprehend by faith.
"believers largely understand the science..."
And yet this entire conversation is about how half of the US (disproportionately believers, certainly) is scientifically illiterate. The whole debate is because reality is the exact opposite of what you just stated.
I wonder
They work, but not always correctly, and definitely not perfectly.
fred: science does not have the tools to comprehend god, but you do?
yo
That's one of the more intelligent comments on this blog.
last time i heard someone say "yo", i turned around and saw a dyslexic rabbi
it is sad that he is blaming Christianity for the poor education children are receiving in public school.
@Mary,
I don't automatically think the problem is with schooling. Students get taught. They get examined. For many it goes in one ear and out the other. In particular, Evangelical Christians get reprogrammed every Sunday.
Pastor says: "Forget everything you learned in Biology and Geology class, the earth is less than 10,000 years old. We know this by interpreting the bible."
Pastor says: "Forget everything you learned in Civics class, the United States is a "Christian" nation, it says so in the Const'tution."
American education is hinduzied, subordinated to hindu Judaism, filthy secularism, so much so, they have have deleted word, GOD, truth absolute from education, foundation of American consti tution.
Why is it sad? It could very well be part of our educational system's poor performance.
@ im not a gop or play when on tv.......I have never seen that. Matter of fact both my children went to a private christian school and learned more science there then any public school ever taught, including ap courses. Not all creationist think alike and I think Bill Nye is off and should apologize to the christian community for painting with a brush... Not to mention I find it rude when people think they know what is best for everyone else, guess what we are not the borg and don't belong to the collective Bill... That is what makes America great we all follow our own paths and our own choices. What I find very disturbing is they rather blame everyone else for there failure in producing science geeks. Let's face the truth here science is not respected in the liberal school system because of the left and all there social programs....
@ Mary, Almost half of Americans believe the earth is less than 10k years old. Why? Because of the bible. Are you suggesting these people are not actually Christians? And do you really believe that 1 in 2 Americans does not warrant this kind of negative attention?
You want scientist then make more charter schools geared for science and technology watch them fill up, and yes Christians will be among them. I am a christian and love science... so there goes your paint brush
the bible is full of fairy tales created by men to control other men (aka stupid ignorant masses) they filled it with rewards for men that behaved and punishment for men that didn't to bring order to society... which was good, back in those days... and still kinda handy today, except when you have democracy and people that believe in fairy tales can vote for other people that believe in them and then we can solve problems with MAGIC... which of course doesn't work and we wonder why our society is sooooo effffed up...
GodFreeNow are you serious? really ? no one can ever say who is a christian because all you do is believe in Jesus Christ. As for what personal beliefs people hold that is different from one person to another in which I have no care as to what they believe. What I do find annoying is this idea Christians do not embrace science, they love science it is gods creation. It is science that needs to earn the respect back for false claims and reports, not the Christians. Like um, warming no climate change, no wait, cooling no climate change, and no wait warming.... it is those inconstancy and lies that turn people away from science. They fudged the numbers and yet want people to believe them? No sir, it is science that needs to earn back there good reputation.
Kenny im not a collectivist but I can see how collectivist can think as you do and agree with Bill Nye. For that im sorry and sure am glad i live in American individualism..Freedom to be who i wish to be.
Do you know how much I would of loved for my children to go to a science tech school ? I would of enrolled them in a heart beat I hear so many other parents as well Bill Nye is way off on this. Make the schools BIll Nye!!! and the children will go but of course he rather talk talk talk then take action.....
@Mary,
the whole point of the article is to address the fact that 46% of Americans believe in "Creationism" (being that God created everything, 'as is' less than 10,000 years ago).
A further 32% of Americans believe that God used evolution as his mechanism for 'creation'. This is a pragmatic way of synthesizing belief and science. I am curious, what do you and your privately educated children believe?
Children in public schools (despite the absurd assertion you make: "science is not respected in the liberal school system because of the left and all there social programs") are taught that the earth is 4.5B years old. (Now they might not remember the number but they should remember that it is >>10,000.)
So how do we get to a point where 46% of Americans believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, except by ignoring what they were taught?
@Mary,
had you enrolled your children in a "science" school ("I would of loved for my children to go to a science tech school ? I would of enrolled them in a heart beat") they would have come home telling you all about things like global warming – for that remains the consensus of scientists.
There will always be scientists who might interpret data differently and sadly you seem to think that Bush-era promotion of the global warming dissenters has debunked the theory. It has not.
One really good thing about science is that new theories that better fit observations will replace outdated theories. Despite what you might read in Christian-sponsored sources, this has not happened for either evolution or global warming.
"Not to mention I find it rude when people think they know what is best for everyone else...."
That sort of blows evangelism out of the water, doesn't it?
The most frustrating part for me is that it doesn't have to be either/or......I believe that the Biblical account allows for evolution. http://climbingoutblog.com/in-the-beginning/
The biblical account cannot be reconciled to the scientific model because the order of events is too disparate.
And it just doesn't make sense that a 2000-year-old book of fables would, just by chance, predict evolution.
Scientific model of quantum physics proves otherwise one dependent on truth absolute can not claim to be independent of truth absolute, God unless some one is high on hind, filth of hinduism, ignorance pretending to be truth himself, The GOD.
Bible – birds before land animals
-----
Genetics – land animals before birds
Fossils – land animals before birds
I love to see how ignorant some people are about the things they criticize. In reading through these comments it seems that many anti-evolutionists think that the idea of humans evolving from primates literally means that "a hairy ape gave birth to a human"... do you people really not understand the idea of evolution?
I think I am going to start following Star Wars and become a Jedi... it seems like a good story and I like the morals a bit more than those of the older religions of our world. The only difference between the Jedi way and say... Christianity or Islam, is that they are older... they are all fantastical stories written by *men* (not women) and should not be followed literally
There is no such thing as converting theory into fact. And that's not a bad thing! When people comment like you just did, implying that a theory in science is weak statement. It is not. A theory is the strongest of terms that can be used to describe a process in science. The word fact, is in fact, not used. There are measurements, with are used to provide data. And there are theories which explain the data. A set of ideas that postulated, but not supported by evidence are called a hypothesis. Once it is shown to be supported by evidence, it is then called a theory. That is the end of the line. Theories do not get promoted to fact, ever, in science. And yet people have no problems trusting their lives to the theories which explain aerodynamics, or gravity, or electricity.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
So are you and Ken the same person or something?
Yes, I received a statement that I could not post this so I tried a different name and apparently both actually went through???
There is no such thing as converting theory into fact. And that's not a bad thing! When people comment like you just did, implying that a theory in science is weak statement. It is not. A theory is the strongest of terms that can be used to describe a process in science. The word fact, is in fact, not used. There are measurements, with are used to provide data. And there are theories which explain the data. A set of ideas that postulated, but not supported by evidence are called a hypothesis. Once it is shown to be supported by evidence, it is then called a theory. That is the end of the line. Theories do not get promoted to fact, ever, in science. And yet people have no problems trusting their lives to the theories which explain aerodynamics, or gravity, or electricity.
So, basically the entire notion of God is a hypothesis, which ranks it below most scientific theories. Just wanted to clearly point that out.
Well, no longhorn, because there is at least an implication that a hypothesis will be tested and confirmation sought. There is no attempt to apply the scientific method to religion. The Bible is the 100% accurate, infallible word of god because it says so in the Bible, which is the 100% accurate, infallible word of god because it says so in the Bible, which is....
(laughing) Touche.
sbp, religion is just as subject to the scientific method as anything else. And billions of people around the world continue to belive in God not because they take the words of a book as infallable truth, but because they experiment upon the word, and find that there is, in fact, something there. I'm guessing you've not found anything in your search of religion, but then, I'm not sure how much searching you've actually done...
Doug, please provide an example of "experimenting upon the word."
@HG
1) Nothing –> I mean nothing in the sense of physics (which I would associate math with) and or a philosophical sense. Either position makes no difference to me; I'm asking you...How do you view our existence? How do you explain our existence? I know used reason earlier but I was after your take of existence; I get you believe we have no reason to exist but it doesn't give a explanation for existence.
2) Prof –> I believe logically absolute nothingness can not produce something. I also feel we can move past this point and focus on the above on whatever "nothing" you believe exist (physics or philosophical) and your "explanation" of the universe's existence.
@Chance
Simply put, I don't know the explanation for existence, and never claimed to. I would ask, why does it matter if I have an explanation?
@HG
It doesn't matter if you have a explanation of existence or if you care about why we exist but I think most people would agree with Hawking ->“Ever since the dawn of civilisation, people have craved for an understanding of the underlying order of the world, and why it exists at all,” said Hawking, opening the proceedings. “Look up at the stars and not down at your feet and wonder about what makes the universe exist,” he continued. “Be curious.”
The point is till you can show me creationism is not viable for my existence (and I'm not talking about theology, strictly creationism) it supports itself.
@Chance
1. "Nothing" doesn't seem to actually be a viable term when it comes to physics. In the coldest, deadest, part of space in the most barren part of the universe there are sub-atomic particles bubbling into and out of existence in a "foam" of possibility. It isn't "nothing."
2. Physics implies that there was a very dense, vibrant point of energy which expanded and split into the four forces we know and measure today. There's no "nothing" in the story, anywhere. We don't know WHY we exist, but we know that we do exist. Science doesn't deal with philosophical "WHY"s, but with the technical "how"s. The basic "how"s are quite well known and you can look them up on Wiki or basic physic sites that explain the major epochs of the universe, stellar and planetary evolution, and biological evolution. As always and forever, adding in a step of "big, invisible wizard daddy spoke it into existence with magic spellzzzz" doesn't provide any practical information so science leaves it out along with fairies and unicorns and leprechauns.
Chance, "creation" ISN'T "viable for existence." If YOU are declaring that it's viable for YOUR philosophy of needing to feel relevant in some ideological way, and thus must cling to that "WHY," then that's your own appeal to a special place in a mythological narrative. As to the HOW question: how did life multiply into all its diverse forms, there's only one answer: Evolution. It's fact, and it's backed up by hundreds of verifiable experiements in labs across the globe every hour of every day and the fossil record and various dating methods and genetic findings... and on and on and on.
@Chance
Believe in creationism if you want, but it would not be based on anything but what makes you feel good. I'm not willing to believe things because it's comfortable, I'd rather save belief for something that I can be reasonably sure is true.
By the way, sustaining itself sounds like it's just a fancy way of saying "circular reasoning". I also don't know what you mean by "viable for your existence".
@Moby Schtick
1. To your 1st point who cares that in our universe empty space if filled with subatomic particles...I'm talking pre universe.
2. "nothing" is a the story, pre universe. you said "We don't know WHY we exist, but we know that we do exist. Science doesn't deal with philosophical "WHY"s, but with the technical "how"s." so the pursuit of the TOE (theory of everything) is not after why we exist? please get real Hawking and co are after the why, or let me rephrase it how it is we exist. Lets move forward from your word games...
you say -> "As always and forever, adding in a step of "big, invisible wizard daddy spoke it into existence with magic spellzzzz" doesn't provide any practical information so science leaves it out along with fairies and unicorns and leprechauns."
who cares about your statement above its irrelevant; no one is saying supernatural belongs in science; again move on.
you say->"Chance, "creation" ISN'T "viable for existence." If YOU are declaring that it's viable for YOUR philosophy of needing to feel relevant"
feeling relevant is irrelevant for what I'm asking how did the universe come into existence. I'm not talking about the nothing in our universe I'm talking pre universe.
@HG
You say ->"based on anything but what makes you feel good"
No I believe based on the universe's existence; that nothing can not produce something.
You say->"reasonably sure is true."
I'm reasonably sure nothing could not produce something.
HG you say ->"circular reasoning" & "viable for your existence".
Again nothing producing something sounds more circular... By viable I me mean a explanation of how nothing could produce nothing.
@HG
I've also replayed to you on the other thread... if you care to respond.
@Chance
We have no idea of any sort of "pre-universe," because time itself is a function of this universe. From our viewpoint, it is correct to say that there was no "before," because time, as we experience it, does not extend past the inflationary epoch. Time came into being WITH the inflation of the singularity.
The question of "why" may drive our curiosity, but no, science does not deal with philosophy of purpose. Science deals with HOW things occur and HOW they operate, specifically. The goal of the "TOE" is to understand the universe at its most simple and fundamental level--is there one, simple, overarching equation that can be found, and what is it?
We don't know a lot of stuff. We say, "We don't know a lot of stuff." Adding in unverifiable deities doesn't add anything practical or valuable, and indeed, it is just a philosophical comfort mechanism.
"No I believe based on the universe's existence; that nothing can not produce something."
Google 'virtual particles' and you'll see how your entire line of reasoning goes up in smoke.
@Chance
Concerning your reply to hg: Nobody is saying that "something came from nothing," so it's stupid to pretend as if it's a problem for anyone.
@Chance
Wow, talk about not addressing any points. How do you know that nothing cannot produce something? And when the hell did I ever say nothing can produce something?
Wow we're right back to where we were yesterday, this was just plain pointless.
@HG & @Moby Schtick
The problem with a universe out of nothing is its also is a series of infinite regression. To believe that a quantum vacuum appeared out of the void of nothingness because of the laws of quantum mechanics demanded it does not solve the question why there is something rather than nothing. The question remains who made these infinite laws? on what tablet in the universe are these laws written? why is that these laws can command the void of empty space and create a quantum vacuum? I could go on but I think you get my point. If the laws of physics are eternal why is it so? how did they arise from nothing and make everything?
@HG
I'm not saying you said "nothing can produce something?"; I'm saying that is circular as you can see above.
You did say you need proof that "nothing cant produce something?"; which is weak. You dont even have a stance on how came to exist. You make this pointless. How can we debate if you have no stance?
*on how we came to exist
@Chance
The stance of science is "We don't know." It's as honest a stance as we can have and a he// of a lot better than invoking magic spellz.
@Moby Schtick
OK resort to the ignorance and magic card; very conductive!
No one claims to have all the answers Moby; creationism or theism; certainly I don't claim to have all the answers. All I claim is that we are all in search of the truth so to play the magic card is pointless. Magic is for the ignorant. I hoped you could do better.
@Chance
Again, there's no problem of "a universe out of nothing" since nobody is putting forth that stance.
No, there's no problem of "infinite regression" since nobody is claiming infinite regression. We don't know. It's pretty fvcking simple. It's a problem that we don't know, and nothing else.
Again, nobody is saying that quantum mechanics "appeared out of the void of nothing," since quantum mechanics doesn't say that it appeared out of the void of nothing. Quantum mechanics explains HOW something can appear to be "nothing" but really isn't nothing.
No, there's no question of "who" "made" "infinite laws." Firstly, there's no such term as "infinite laws." Secondly, since we don't know, it'd be fvcking stupid to say that it's a problem of "who" versus a problem of "what," since it's as yet undefined. We don't know. Again, we're honest about not knowing, and we don't claim to not know about a being or a process because we don't know. It's pretty fvcking simple.
As to the rest of your post, it's not coherent enough to generate a cogent reply except to say that nobody knows all the things your azzuming for no good reason except for you to put things in the terms of your ready-built strawman arguments. Nobody, but nobody, but nobody is saying any laws are "eternal" or that they "arose from nothing."
You keep on using terms that you WANT us to be using instead of using the terms that science actually using. It's stupid and dishonest and you should be decent enough to knock it off. So stop it.
@Moby Schtick
I will point out that your spill about nothing being relevant; is relevant! Nothing is why the pursuit of TOE is so important.
@Moby Schtick
Classic circular reasoning; your good carry on...I'm drawing circles as i read...
@Chance
I don't understand your comment about my ideas being "very conductive." I'm telling you the facts. Science doesn't claim to know what it doesn't know, nor does it put what it doesn't know into terms that imply it has a biased agenda (such as asking "who" when the answer to the question might be a "what").
Yes, magic is for the ignorant. That's why claiming that some being did it with words is so stupid. I too am disappointed that you're not "doing better," but I'm not giving up just yet. You seem to be being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps you should take a short break and give that some thoughtful consideration.
Chance, nothing I've said could be called "circular reasoning." Either you don't understand that term, or you're sidetracking the discussion. Why don't you quote what I've written that you think is "circular reasoning," and I'll be nice enough (this one time) to explain to you where you're going wrong in your azzessment.
@Moby Schtick
At the beginning if there was a void; and a quantum vacuum just appeared the laws of quantum mechanics had to have invoked it. You admit you don't know but you telling me I'm wrong. You need a cause for a vacuum ie laws.
@Chance
What "beginning?" You're azzuming a biblical term, there. There was a singularity that expanded. That's when time came into existence. We don't know if there was or wasn't or cause or anything about that possible cause or if our understanding can't comprehend the conditions under which that singularity existed or "arose from."
What "void?" You're azzuming a biblical term, there. There was a singularity that expanded according to the mechanics of quantum physics. We have no idea where the underlying principles of quantum mechanics came from or if they always existed or if our understanding can't comprehend the conditions under which quantum mechanics operated at that time.
Yes, I admit that science doesn't know. Yes, I'm telling you that you're wrong because you're asking questions that don't make any sense with what we already know about the early universe and the physical laws we experience. It'd be like me asking you how christianity can be true if you don't even know the answer to why Jesus had to use cough syrup to make art projects in preschool.
@Moby
What do you claim to have started the universe? the laws that govern sub atomic particles? Something had to exist in order to cause. Either laws or some force...not magic lets leave this for the kids...
How could your universe out of nothing start? did the sub atomic particles give life and power to the laws of physics? So does this make the particles eternal? have they always been around? or can particles leap into existence without the governing laws of physics?
You need something to get to the present universe....
@Chance
LOL!!!!
I, like science, don't claim anything "started the universe." It's called "honesty." Try it sometime. We don't know. Thus, I say "we don't know." It's a mystery.
There was a singularity. It expanded. That's all we know. We are trying to find out what single, fundamental "law" ruled that singularity, before the forces split, but we don't yet know that. We know when the forces split from three to four, but so far we can't go back any further. The singularity existed. That's as far as we know.
I'm the one "leaving magic for the intellectual 'kids'" of religious faith who claim some invisible wizard did it with a spell of words. I'm the one being honest and saying that we don't know.
For the FVCKING FIFTIETH TIME NOBODY IS SAYING THAT "NOTHING" EXISTS OR EVER DID EXIST!!! What the fvck is wrong with you?!?!?! And again, you moron, WE DON'T KNOW a whole bunch of stuff. If we don't know, then what should we say? Do you want people to make sh!t up?!? We don't know. That's it. I'm telling you what we know and what we don't know. Just because you want to know, doesn't mean that the answer is out there.
You need to learn how to read and comprehend at the level of a first grader.
@Moby you say->What "beginning? What "void?" / biblical "
I mean singularity no one is talking theology we are talking God.
Moby you say->Yes, I'm telling you that you're wrong because you're asking questions that don't make any sense with what we already know about the early universe and the physical laws we experience.
Then you follow up with
"We don't know if there was or wasn't or cause or anything about that possible cause or if our understanding can't comprehend the conditions under which that singularity existed or "arose from."
Our laws of physics break down near singularity; thus the search for a unifying theory...We don't fully understand the early universe. You wrong stating we do.
This is my point; we don't know the cause. I'll even say "if there was a cause". Some people by logic believe the universe had a cause.
Why bring up theology if we are debating God; your desperate to move away from origins I suspect.
@Moby
Cursing and playing the magic card won't make you right.
Just because you're angry doesn't make you right. You don't know so how can you tell me I don't know. I also believe nothing doesn't exist I believe a cause has always existed. Get over it.
@Chance
It doesn't make sense to talk of a "beginning" or "void" when talking about the big bang or singularity since time was generated as an effect OF the singularity expanding and the singularity did not expand INTO a "void" but created it's own spacetime. There's no voids or beginnings. You are using the language of the bible, not cosmology.
I'm the one saying what we do know and what we don't know; you're the one insisting I use meaningless terms because you feel more comfortable with them than with the terms that actually apply.
When you say the following quotation, you seem to be finally be getting it:
"Our laws of physics break down near singularity; thus the search for a unifying theory...We don't fully understand the early universe."
No, I have never once stated that "we do," and you're lying when you claim otherwise.
Yes, some people "by logic" do "believe the universe had a cause," but that's irrelevant since our understanding and logic "breaks down" "near the singularity."
No, I'm not "desperate to 'move away from origins," at all; I'm simply saying that we don't know anything about "origins" or if the concept of origins even applies in this situation. How many times do I need to tell you that we don't know and so therefore nobody is claiming to know? It's only religious nutters that do that
Chance
Where are you going with the nothing/nothingness?
I doubt many would argue against causation and in particular the existence of first cause. A materialist cannot comprehend that which is not matter or measurable using scientific method. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit have substance but not that of matter or having measurable qualities. If I claim a substance which cannot be seen or measurable that has no physical properties of matter is the first cause what have I done? I have subst-ituted what is unknown with what cannot be known by man absent faith and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I do not have a clue about how M theory satisfies some as to spontaneous creation but I know it is still not testable anymore than God is testable. Believers and non believers seem to end up at the same point where it all boils down to faith. Last I heard 40% of scientists believe in the probability of God compared with 82% of humanity. There are even some on this site on occasion.
fred, you keep putting your god in a smaller and smaller box. Keep that up and he'll have a hard time existing in there.
Edwin
I think it was God that told Solomon do you think man can build a temple would contain God! The Hebrews did the best job by building a tent for God using special purple cloth. Then there was the ARC and today we have our bodies as the temple for the Holy Spirit.
You are correct as we do spend a lot of time attempting to contain God when the Bible says God is unsearchable, timeless, and all powerful, etc... The earth is His footstool.
I do not think we have clue as to how to define God yet alone what substance this God is made of.
fred, there's no way your god can breathe with all that smoke you're blowing either. And take some pills for that lastworditis, will ya, already. K thanks.
@Moby
I've never heard the term "void" being used biblical to explain the cosmos. I've heard it used by philosophers to explain the cosmos, I'm just saying...
Moby you also say we understand enough to know that "nothing" is not a issue, this is where I claim your wrong. I'm not lying about you saying that "nothing" is not a issue.
Moby we do understand how quantum mechanics can produce a vacuum and make something out of "nothing" but my point is for this to occur laws have to be in force or a force has to be in command. Quantum vacuums need laws to form. That's all I'm saying that making a universe out of nothing actually requires something. So if we need laws at minimum what is the cause for laws to arise? That is the point of regression I see and saying I don't know why its like that doesn't make you right over me...Seems like that's your escape goat. Not knowing why doesn't absolve your claim of eliminating a infinite force/law/being needed to start the universe. That's all I'm saying.
My point is you don't know so don't bring up magic like you know everything. A person who believes in God believes in the supernatural not magic; there is a difference.
I agree our logic can only go so far; I don't claim to understand a infinite being or how a law can leap into existence. How could I; no one is arguing they know it all...move on from that.
And the bible says because the bible says because the bible says fred keep chasing your tail around and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round. Stop and think some time, yo. What you said is called circular reasoning and proves nothing.
You are also being a hypocrite by presenting supposed characteristics of your god and then saying that no one knows them. Dangerous to trip yourself like that, especially when you are running in circles so fast.
@Moby
just so I make my point; just because you don't have a answer for all the parts of you theory of the universe doesn't mean those missing parts haven't been proven circular. Claiming I don't know doesn't absolve circular reasoning...
@Edwin
Just because God can not be classified by a set of words it doesn't imply circular reasoning. Try to define life in scientific terms...we have a hard time; no definition gets it just right. Life indeed does exist regardless if a definition fits life or not. The point is tossing "circular reasoning" around doesn't make you right or high and mighty.
100% Chance that you missed what I was referring to. See fred's bible donut and then come on back when you realize why it's circular.
Round and round and round and round you go.
My bet is that Chance=fred. Pretty good chance of that, methinks.
Edwin
Are you trying to bait me into getting the last word in so that you could be right?
We want none of your freds to belong to us.
@Doug
no chance I'm @fred like @edwin said I didn't read what he was replying to; I just read @edwin's response. From the response @edwin gave I thought he was purely talking about definitions...so @edwin my bad...you(@edwin) see where I was coming from though if you where talking about definitions...
*no pun intended using my handle to address @fred
@Chance
Really? You've never heard that "the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the waters?" Interesting.
I'm not saying that "nothing is not an issue," I'm saying that science isn't talking about "nothing." Science is talking about a singularity. There's no "nothing"s in the equation. You keep bringing up "nothing" as if it's a viable thing to discuss, like when you say, "That's all I'm saying that making a universe out of nothing actually requires something." YOu see? Science isn't saying that the universe is coming out of nothing, you are. You keep repeating yourself like if you do it enough times we'll finally start using your stupid terms, but it doens't work that way. There was something, a singularity, then it expanded. There's no "nothing." Quit acting like there is and then turning around and saying that you're not doing that. It makes you look stupid.
On the "cause for the laws to arise," I have already explained that to you. We don't know. We admit that we don't know. It's a mystery. That it's a mystery doesn't mean that your "magic sky wizard used magic spellz" suddenly makes sense. Yes, it makes me "right over you" in that I'm admitting what we don't know. You don't want to admit that we don't know even though that's the truth. Sorry. Deal with it. No, it doesn't "absolve me of eliminating an infinite blah, blah, blah" because I'm not claiming it takes an infinite blah, blah, blah. I'm not under any obligation to come up with a reason why you believe stupid sh!t when you can just be honest like me and the rest of science and admit that we don't know.
OH please. There's a difference between "god did it with words of power" and "magic spellz?" Please, what's the difference. In both cases it's a process that's outside of our realm of testability or knowledge and in both cases there's nothing to help us understand anything.
Nobody "knows how a law can 'leap into existence." How do you even know that's what laws do? You see, it's in the way you phrase every sentence. Just admit that you don't know. We don't know how or why the laws came to be what they are. We know the laws exist, so we can test and do experiments with measurable data to try to figure out more about them. We DON'T know if an infinite being exists or any sort of god, and we certainly don't know of any experiements with measurable data to try to figure out more about that.
Chance, I don't know just how stupid you are, but you have no idea about how logical argumentation works. If I'm not claiming to know something, it can't be circular. "I don't know" isn't an argument or any sort of reasoning, so it can't be circular, dumbazz.
As to mysteries of the universe, saying, "I don't know," when you don't know, is EXACTLY the right answer, and beats to a brain-dead pulp some stupid argument about an invisible being with no evidence using unknowable processes of proclamations. Grow up.
@You Wonder
I wonder about you? you haven't been in this debate; so don't tell me you have already laid out your ideas, all you have laid out are your poor morals. They say ignorance is bliss but I wouldn't call you bliss from the standards of your morals.
First I've already stated the I don't believe in nothing; I believe a eternal cause exist. The reason the M-Theory was invented was to get around singularity. Singularity indicates our universe being finite. If our universe is finite it had a beginning ie singularity. Why is science working so hard at removing a starting point? to eliminate a need for God, a eternal cause. Your desperate and your words show it. If you say a "nothing" state is impossible to exist; your implying that something has always been around or eternal. Let me guess your reply "I don't know?"
Look singularity is one reason why people still believe in God and you think that is a point to eliminate God?
Singularity:
"Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. "
Nothing is what preceded Singularity; how could you be so ignorant? The Big Bang read about it...
@You Wonder
For the record saying "I don't know" to cover up a infinite regression isn't going to cut it. Turning to insults also won't make your stance correct. Trying to diminish God with words like "magic & wizard" also don't make you right. What it does is show your morality and ignorance.
The reason you don't want to explain how we get to singularity is you will need to come up with a cause, or simply science fails to explain singularity. You go on and believe that matter the size of this . just came into existence along with just the right laws for me and you to exist; sounds super! And if you go the M-Theory route please that's not science, I'll reword one of your lines to described M-Theory "desperate argument about invisible universes with no evidence and no processes for experimenting."
Also I'm not stating laws just jump into existence!! as you would have me think. With singularity you have to believe the universe and its laws all just leaped into existence. I don't buy it.
Chance, the point was that "I don't know" is the only appropriate answer there if one is being honest. Saying "god did it" is typically both cowardice and a cop out.
@Bill I could make the same case for "I don't know" being typically both cowardice and a cop out. Especially when used as a cover up.
Furthermore I'm not implying I have all the answers! My point is I believe in a eternal cause. A finite being could never fully comprehend a infinite cause.
@Chance
The difference between you and me is that I'm honest and I don't feel the need to "believe" something that doesn't make any difference whether or not I believe it. If we don't know something, I'm honest, and I admit that, and I say, "I don't know." I don't feel that it's necessary to go around believing that a big pink unicorn farted out the singularity and telling people that's what I believe. For one, because we just don't know, and for two, because I like being honest.
If you want to believe in some "eternal cause" then be my guest, but it doesn't do anything practical for anybody. Believe away, believer. Let me know when you get some facts or devise some sort of experiement to verify or falsify your claims with measurable data. cheers.
@Moby, you say-> "I'm honest and I don't feel the need to "believe" something that doesn't make any difference"
Honesty I don't need to "believe" like you; I chose to believe that universe we live in didn't just leap into existence without a cause. I believe the cause is eternal.
@Moby, you say->I'm honest, and I admit that, and I say, "I don't know."
Same here, honestly my finite mind a logic can only go so far; I could never "know it all". I also still have questions.
@Moby, you say->I don't feel that it's necessary to go around believing that a big pink unicorn farted out the singularity and telling people that's what I believe. For one, because we just don't know, and for two, because I like being honest.
I to do not believe in a "big pink unicorn" with gas either, honest I don't!
@Moby, you say->If you want to believe in some "eternal cause" then be my guest, but it doesn't do anything practical for anybody.
The majority of people believe that a "eternal cause" is needed; its very practical to suppose the universe and all its laws did not just leap into existence.
Let me know when you have some facts or experiments that the laws of physics and the universe just leaped into existence with no cause. Good chatting with you...
Penn and Teller also believe in evolution.
More importantly, they don't believe in actual magic.