August 31st, 2012
03:24 PM ET
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.
but what if the world is flat? holographic universe theory anybody?! its not much crazier than any other theory
and Bill Nye spreads his brain droppings.
Why? Because they're right? Creationism is the most absurd concept ever created, but at least people in ancient times didn't know any better. To believe in creationism today, however, is truly absurd, and shows that some people will believe in anything if they think it means they will live forever.
Root post is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
While some scientists wish to portray Darwinian evolution as a fact to answer how the world came to be and how life came to be, in fact, it is not so. Evolution defined as the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations is a fact. To continue from there to say that life came into existence by this process and developed all species is not fact and not even theory.
Why not? In the several centuries that we have been making detailed biological observations, and in thousands of years of selectively breeding plants and animals, we have not seen any Darwinian evolution in the lab, farm or field. That does not mean it could not happen; it just means that we have no direct evidence of it ever having happened.
So what is the scientific status of Darwinism, or macroevolution, i.e., the idea that all living species evolved from a common origin through random mutation and natural selection?
Can we say that it is a fact? Well, if we define 'fact' as that which has been empirically observed, then no.
Can we say it is a theory? Well, if a theory is an idea which generates falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested through experimentation, then once again the answer is no. The normative use in science of the term 'theory' involves the necessity to be able to disprove it through experimental observations. We cannot call macroevolution a scientific theory because we cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations that would either support or refute it.
If macroevolution is not a scientific fact and not a scientific theory, then what is it?
Science progresses using inductive reasoning, that is, rational inferences from what is known or observed to what is not known, or what has not been observed. But within scientific inference, there are stronger and weaker methods.
To infer from the known to the unknown, it is more reliable to use interpolation than extra-polation. If one measures a variable quanti-ty at two points, one will be more secure in esti-mating the situation at some intermediate point between the measurements than beyond the range of observation.
For instance, consider the relationship of temperature and density in water. If we know the density of water at 4 degrees C and 99 degrees C, and then try to predi-ct the density at other temperatures, we will be tremendously better off interpolating the density between the two temperatures than extra-polating even one or a few degrees outside this range. That is because with one added degree of heat, the water va-porizes and the density cra-shes, while at the other end, co-oler water becomes less dense instead of more dense, an ano-maly in all of nature. A few degrees co-oler than that yields a solid, ice, which unlike any other solid form is actually less dense than its liquid form.
But evolution is based on the weaker inferential method of extra-polation and not the stronger method of interpolation. Scientists have been studying or-ganisms in the lab, field, and fossil record for only two or three centuries, and yet we attempt to make conclusions over 100's of millions of years. These are not modest extra-polations, but very big ones.
Within inferences based on extra-polation, we again have two types: forward and backward. When we extra-polate forward from a known present to an unknown future, our inferences are much more secure than when we use the same means to infer backwards into an unknown past, especially a distant past.
To exemplify forward extra-polation, imagine we have two numbers, two and three, which will interact and produce some result. Depending on whether we add, subtract, multi-ply, divide, take roots or exponents, we will get a small range of possible results based on extra-polation forward from known conditions.
If, however, we end with the numbers two and three, and try to extra-polate backward, i.e., to determine which numbers have combined and in what way to yield these two numbers, we will be confronted by a truly infinite number of possibilities. Backward extra-polation is a far more uncertain and variable method than forward extra-polation.
All fossil and rock dating techniques rely on the uniformitarian principle, and yet every worker in the field believes that it been vio-lated in significant ways, rendering calculations immensely va-gue.
The most common of these methods is carbon dating. This involves comparing the relative amounts of two forms (isotopes) of carbon in the fossilized remains. The idea is that while the or-ganism was alive it had a known amount of each type of carbon, but that once it has died, the amount of one type of carbon decreases at a known rate through a process of radioactive decay. This would allow the scientist to calculate the age of the fossil.
One problem with this is that the relative amounts originally in the living or-ganism depend on environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, radiation, and magnetic fields, solar flux, and ambient levels of or-ganic comb-ustion, all of which have been subject to change to an unknown degree in the distant past. Consequently, experts continually revise their opinions and frequently disagree about dates, with high and low esti-mates varying by as much as twenty times and more.
Rocks are dated in a similar way using elements other than carbon, and these dates are even more variable. In fact, the very same rock dated with different elements, samarium and pota-ssium, have given results that vary by one billion years. Considering that the lower age esti-mate was somewhat over half a billion years, the margin of error was even more than the esti-mated age.
Evolutionists have themselves noted these glaring flaws in Darwinian theory and have sought to deal with them in the manner of Stephen J. Gould, who has suggested that speciation is a sudden and dramatic event which therefore does not show up in the fossil record. Gould states that "the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change," and then proposed that "macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by continuous small changes within populations."
It sounds nice, but from a scientific standpoint, the fatal objection to his punctuated equilibrium notion is the absolute lack of any concei-vable mechanism by which the necessary genetic and or-ganic changes could occur.
In addition are the unanswered challenges to macroevolution posed by information theory and molecular genetics by scientists such as Lee Spetner in prestigious journals such as Science and the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Spetner's calculations show that billions of years are insufficient to evolve even one new species, and yet not one scientist has ever even attempted to refute his arguments in a scientific journal.
In a recent book, Spetner calculates the likelihood of one species evolving from another at no better than 1:102738. This is comparable to the probability of every person on the planet buying six billion lottery tickets every day and the same person winning every day for a year. Of course, everyone would agree that such an eventuality would be impossible.
Many, if not most, leading scientists agree. Royal Society astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle says that a tornado generating a jet in a junkyard is more likely than one species evolving from another. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold Urey, famous for his role in recreating the building blocks of life from inor-ganic matter, has been widely quoted that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere."
And, there is the biochemical challenge to evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory, no scientist could imagine the incredible chemical intricacies underlying every biological process. This posed a new problem for the Darwinists: irreducible complexity. This means that if any one of dozens of key elements of a biochemical process would be missing, the entire process would simply shut down. Just as the dysfunction of one small screw could destroy a jetliner, so too one missing chemical can terminate an essential life process such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood clotting, or reproduction.
This is an impossible outcome for Darwinian evolution. Macroevolution requires a progression of one beneficial mutation after another, with each generation becoming more fit and more developed than the previous one, until more complex or-ganisms evolve from simpler ones.
However, this is illogical. Just a wing of a bird would be a great liability as it is developing until it would develop into something useful, and the bird with the wing that is in development stages would be slow and awkward and get eaten faster. If an irreducibly complex system of, say, ten elements is to evolve, then element one has to add some fitness, element two has to add some fitness, and so on until all the parts are in place. The problem with the complex system is that elements one, two, three… and nine do not add any survivorship to the species, and there is no natural selection favoring those intermediate stages. On the contrary, they will be selected against. Thus irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve into existence, and therefore higher life forms cannot evolve from simpler ones.
While scientists "believe in" the accuracy of carbon dating, Torah does not. That is because the Torah clearly states that during the great flood 4000 years ago, not only did rain fall from the sky, but extremely hot water came up from below the earth. Thus the earth was cooking for forty days, and that refutes the "uniform conditions" theory, the premise that conditions on earth were always exactly the same, upon which carbon dating is based. It is comparable to scientists measuring and proving how many days or weeks it took for the water in an empty pan to evaporate, but being blissfully unaware that at some point it had a fire under it and so the process took only minutes.
But let's even agree that the bones test out older than 6000 years. There can be more than one conclusion to draw from that: they do not have to be older than 6000 years.
It says in Genesis that on the sixth day G-d created adult man and woman. The subsequent verses describe what these do the day they were created, talking about fully-grown adults, not babies, even if they were indeed only one day old. In other words, they already “looked” older than they were.
In addition, "G-d said, 'Let the earth bring forth…fruit trees,' and it was so." (Gen. 1:11) This took place on day three: Full-grown trees already producing fruit. But if a scientist came along with Adam on the sixth day and carbon-dated the trees or measured their rings, what conclusions would he draw about their age? Would you believe him when he announced they are dozens or more years old and agree with him when he laughed at Adam who would have insisted they were only three days old?
Not only that: There is a professor who was a student at a major North American university. He decided he would like to see for himself how accurate are the methods of dating fossil remains. He purchased from the local Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals the remains of a recently deceased dog and buried them in his back yard. Several years later, he decided to call academic experts in paleontology, geology, and zoology to find out about the bones he decided to dig up. All the experts agreed that the remains were that of a dog, but beyond that there was not much consensus. Questions of how heavy the animal was, how old at death, and for how long it had been buried got answers that varied by factors of 2 to 4 times. If this is the uncertainty over a period of a few years, what is the case with purported periods of centuries, millennia, or millions of years?
we are all so impressed at your "intelligent" debunking of science and evolution, using science itself as proof. But one lying poster on cnn isn't about to bust open the science/evolutionary conspiracy. Furthermore, I could not even read beyond a couple paragraphs and be subjected to your blatant lies. One of your initial lies suggesting evolution is not real based on no observable evidence is laughable. Research Darwin's moth, as only ONE example of what a lying liar you are. as for the rest of your lies, real, intelligent, reasonable people are laughing at your lies you liar.
I stopped after "we have not seen any Darwinian evolution in the lab". Look up the Ames test. Its used all the time. Your an idiot.
very well written. i see so many posts asking for facts, facts, facts. you have supplied them...great job.
As for the Ames Test and moths in Britain. Neither one supports evolution – they may not be fully understood, but to make the leap that it supports evolution? That doesn't really make sense. Flamingos change color based on their diet and how can we truly understand all of the dynamics at a cellular level to cause a mutation in a bacterium?
Darwinian evolution contradicts so many basic fundamentals of science – chaos theory (how can a random system become MORE organized?), the irreducible complexity problem explained so clearly by md2205 (research the parts of the flagellum bacterium – amazing), probability of something happening – for the many years evolution has been studied and not a single example of a transitional fossil (please research before replying – there have been MANY confirmed fakes) or an evolutionary event in progress. If I did believe in species evolution, I would be disappointed if the Ames Test and moths in Britain were my only examples.
There is famous quote by the agnostic Dr. Jastrow "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
See you at the top of the mountain...
Not bad... not bad at all.
So, these few paragraphs of drivel trump the life's work of countless scientists who say you're wrong?
Bravo. Well reasoned, well argued on this pop culture rhetoric known as evolution.
If there the number of any scientists at any time in history is "countless" to you, am I not rightfully skeptical of the logic represented by your facts?
Wow. This is proof that CNN needs to place a limit on the length of comments. There's no way I am going to waste my time reading that. I'll just say that I'll take science over religion any day.
And why not take both, mr. Dan Green? Why do you think they are in such an opposition that you must choose one or the other?
Your, ... wordy article, lost my interest the second I saw, "there has never been any darwinian evolution seen in labs or the environment"
You can dismiss my response as offhandedly as I am dismissing yours. I really don't care. but there is a mountain of observation including a professor that did a 40 year experiment with chemicals in a freezer and showed that even FROZEN if you put the right chemicals together they will spontaneously assemble into simple organic compounds which in turn will form larger molecules.
Oh and carbon dating has a resolution of about 500 years as of a few years ago, so by now they probably have gotten a bit better at it. let that professor leave it in the dirt for a few thousand years and then try again. Carbon dating isn't used under a century for a reason.
Mr. Cromwell – I assume you're talking about Abiogenesis and the Miller experiment? (you made a little leap there saying they will form bigger molecules – that wasn't actually a result of the experiment) There have been many interesting discoveries – but what do they mean? The introduction of lightning to a soup of inorganic elements created amino acids. How to apply that to what is trying to be proven? Do we really have enough of the variables defined to make the evolution leap? Back in the early days people theorized the earth was flat, and, once they conceded that it was truly round, were convinced it was at the center and the sun was in orbit. Science is an objective tool that gives us results we have to interpret and then can use to prove and disprove theories with varying levels of probability. Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a theory. Unless you have definitive proof either through observation or direct calculation, neither theory can be proven with absolute certainty with science. All we can do is review the scientific evidence and make inferences. I'm not aware of any scientific discoveries that prove evolution with 100% certainty?
So, I'm sure the next reply is that science doesn't prove Creationism with 100% certainty either. No, it doesn't. But, there are other tools that can be used. The dead sea scrolls, the accuracy of the modern day Bible when compared to those scrolls. The sheer number of prophetic statements (300+) written 600-800 years before Christ pointing to Jesus, what He would do, when He would do it and the result of His actions. The 100% fulfillment of those prophetic statements as outlined in the New Testament and the corroboration of those statements in independent historical and geological records. You put it all together with an open mind and things start to look different.
I think you missed md2205's point on the carbon dating portion...the problem isn't the accuracy of the method, it's the uniform conditions. Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate when extreme conditions have occurred – volcanoes erupting, extreme heat – any extreme events that can 'contaminate' the sample with carbon from an external source or significantly change the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. It breaks down quickly.
Mr. Green – science over religion? What? Science is an unbiased tool. Religion is man reaching towards God. The bible (and Creation) is God reaching for us. Don't let religion get in the way of your search for God (conscious or unconscious). Eternity is a long time. Much longer than it takes to read a long article with an open mind and ponder the facts. Us Creationists actually use science too – much like Mr. Nye, I worked my way through a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I use science every day.
Exactly ZERO scientists claim that evolution explains how the universe or world was formed, or how life originated. You are wrong right from the very first sentence.
I was in the lab the other day and somebody nearby got the flu. There's an example of evolution right there in the lab. Bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating into other forms. Well, unless it's a diety causing those germs to change.
To suggest that we haven't seen much evidence of evolution in the lab "for thousands of years" shows you don't understand the principles involved. The big stuff takes millions of years. Of course, you'd have to know the earth is more than 5000 years old too....
That's only proof of adaptation within an species, mr. aj, which is an example of natural selection, not of evolution. The process isn't adding any information. In order to be an example of evolution, the virus have to mutate into something that is not a virus.
It's not a matter of understanding the principles. There isn't a single known case of a species spontaneously appearing through evolution. Not a single one, hence the need to come up with anecdotal evidence like yours and blaming on a supposed lack of understanding from the others.
Darwin discovered two things. One, that evolution occurred. Two, he proposed a mechanism by which it happened. He called this mechanism, Natural Selection. Debating Natural Selection is like debating any scientific theory. Nearly all legitimate scientists accept Darwin's first discovery, the fact that evolution actually happened. Debating how evolution happens is a normal part of science. There is NO scientific controversy. The objections are entirely religious, not scientific.
Gould says it much better than I did.
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen Jay Gould
mr. herfules, do you know what a tautology is?
All of the original posts ID arguments have been well-refuted, most recently at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board. The fossil record provides a progression up through the major classes of life that is supported by phylogenetic analysis of both extant and extinct species. The molecular mechanisms providing "novel information" are well understood and these mechanisms have been directly tracked within real-time observations of speciation events. The Pod Mrcaru lizards provide one of many excellent examples of rapid and dramatic evolution well within PE time frames.
The original post offers an Omphalos Hypothesis ignoring that this renders the "creator" a deceptive trickster, inherently untrustworthy.
A lot of text offering no positive evidence for an alternative, just one painfully long disjointed argument of incredulity based in arguments of general (and clearly personal) ignorance...
Yadekam... did you just use IRREDUCEABLE COMPLEXITY? Really? And the bacteria flagellum? For good debunking of that tired old red herring read the trascript of the Kitzmiller case. The IDers put the flagellum into evidence and got DEMOLISHED. It's a good read. There is a video reenactment too.
And chaos theory? Did you say that so you didn't have say "SLOT" since that is false too? Systems get MORE complex all the time... every single day. Every time say a woman gets pregnant. Are you suggesting an ovum is MORE complex than a baby? Really? Any system that has energy added to it can get more complex. Go outside, look up. See the big yellow ball....... that's energy. The earth is not a closed system.
Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he "come out" and "come clean" regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
Here's one place where I have responded to Ken Ham's challenge to Bill Nye:
The world is flat. At least what I can see out of my window here in Texas.
And apparently also in the parts of Alaska where you can see Russia that way as well. 🙂
I posted before that last thought and it disappeared. second time I tried to express the same thoughts and it did not post. I know I posted it correctly gotta wonder what that is all about.
GOPer I agree probably not much we would agree on( but who knows might be a few more things) but i will take what I can get
Athiest fear accountability. End of debate.
Do you fear judgment by Osiris, Pluto or Odin? There are hundreds of gods said to pass judgment upon humans. Do you believe in all of them and try to live your live according to the various religions they represent, you know, just "in case"? It's just as likely, after all, to find yourself facing some other god than YHWH upon death, so why obsess about just him? Because he's the one you believe in? Well, we don't believe in him just like you don't believe in any of these other god's judgment.
Just like many of you, I have been taught that evolution is the way of world. However, I have always been skeptical. When I was in college, my biology professor started a class about the topic of evolution. Everyone in class agreed with him on the topic, except for one individual, me. I wanted to speak up but I felt very uncomfortable about doing so since I was alone. However, I did get the nerve to voice my opinion. The professor screamed at me for disagreeing with the theory of evolution but then I believe he thought it would be better for him to make me look bad in front of the entire class.
Thus started a debate between me and a biology professor! For every fact he presented, I had a rebuttal and eventually backing him into the corner. Finally, he gave up and accepted that creationism is the actual truth! Later that day, he quit his job because he could no longer teach the theory of evolution as he knew it was wrong!!!
I know a lot of you all are atheists and probably think I am making this whole thing up but as fate would have it, someone was recording the entire class and posted the ordeal to youtube. You can see for yourself that this really happened.
Laughably fake. Next.
Youre right. I was just kidding around.
Cute story. I bet the professor found Jesus that day too! Sure!
It is fashionable to decry Stephen Jay Gould, and his two magisteria. But it is a perfect resoltion to the God/no God controversy. The Magisterua of Science says the the only material evidence must be judged by the criteria of Science and no other. The Magisteria of Relgion permits streams of thought in Religion and some science, in such a way that what is aregued in Relgion cannot by definition be Science. Agnisticism is the heart of Gould's dichotomy, as agnosticism comes up with the answer (at least hard sgnosticism does) that the existence og God is by definition unprovable. One does not need to go o the position is of atheism. It is the distinction between a belif in zero Gods and the null God.
But the existence of God would easily be provable should God decide to reveal himself to everyone in an undeniable way, which he supposedly does to individuals and will do to the whole world upon Christ's return, according to Christian belief. Some believe this so much that they think God is revealed to everyone already, which is where this problem originates. They simply cannot comprehend how anyone else cannot KNOW that God is real like they do, so opposition to that belief in things like evolution appears to be some kind of denial to them. See?
LET MY PEOPLE GO SENETOR HILLIARY CLINTON AND hussein OBAMA. LET JONATHAN POLLARD GO NOW
The Land of Israel is the Promised Land given to our forefathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob and is given to us, their seed, as an everlasting Inheritance.
I believe the concept of a god initionally started by the cavemen, who was frightened by lightning and thunder. Since they didn't couldn't firgure it out, they had to blame something. They thought it was two gods. one god for each event.
In less than 3 minutes Bill Nye succeeds in making several broad, confused assertions that only show he's uniformed about the latest form of intellectual position to Darwinism. What happened to being a "science guy"?
And in less than three lines you prove that you don't have a clue what the theory of evolution states. Sure, Bill could and should have stayed on point a little better, but his overall synopsis is correct. To disbelieve in evolution is like stating the world is flat or only a few thousand years old--stupid as fvck.
As far as that silly blog, talk about moronic views that don't account for what evolution actually puts forth and makes ridiculous a/ssumptions based on nothing more than pet philosophical musings. Science loves to be proven wrong because that means a tremendous leap forward in knowledge. If there were any serious alternate theories to evolution, those folks would have won a Nobel by now and be on the News around the globe and on every news station 24 hours a day. Instead, the current research being done in thousands of labs across the globe in dozens of different scientific fields and sub disciplines merely modify the theory to make it more and more precise. If you don't believe in evolution or the faith-based-conclusion-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-science-Intelligent-laugh-design-laugh, read a few books, study the topic at university (try to prove it wrong if you wish) and then pull yer head out of your azz and join the human race.
Oh boy, these idealist young men. I think I love these boards because it reminds me how good it was to be one of them. So much passion, so little experience. Life can be so much easier when you have such certainty that people out there are honest, and committed to truth.
It's beautiful, and inspiring... really.
DNA is made up of four chemicals. That is it.
How many years do you think it would take for these four chemicals to get together and figure out a way to replicate?
Life is not a part of intelligent anything it is just four chemicals replicating...and doing a good job at it too.
Actually DNA is made up of more than 4 chemicals. I think you are referring to nucleotides ATCG? It also has a five carbon sugar and a phosphate backbone. Other than that I agree with you :D. Seriously anyone who doesn't believe in evolution doesn't understand the science behind it or is unwilling to look past the notion of a creator. If you don't believe in evolution OPEN YOUR EYES and educate yourself. I respect Bill Nye for coming out and saying what a lot of people are too scared to say. Why should science in America be held back by creationists who dont understand the fundamental basics of science? Creationism should be taught at church not in public schools.
God said you are, and He is not concerned about offending your egos !!
I'll worry about god's opinion when he can be proven to exist. Until then, I couldn't care less what YOU say he says. Somebody somewhere believes in a god-word that says you're a fool for some reason or another. When you understand why you don't give a toss about what that god believer thinks his god thinks about you, you'll understand my position on what you think your god thinks about me.
Behold the fools!
I think it's the creationists egos that are offended here.
If it's so easy to create life how come scientist haven’t been able to do it in the labs from scratch. I’m not talking about hijacking a living cell and tinkering with the parts, I’m talking about making non-living material become alive.
Cells today are themselves the products of millions of years of evolution, so you really shouldn't be expecting the first "cells" to be anywhere near as complex. Trouble is, creationists likely wouldn't accept anything less than the creation of a modern cell as evidence of abiogenesis.
Let your kids be all that they can be. Just teach them that there are:
1. Things we know that are unfounded and most likely political sales literature from the beginning of mankind (all religions); and
2. Things that we don't know a damn thing about (god/deities).
An agnostic approach regarding deities keeps us honest about what we don't know anything about, but also prevents unfounded junk from #2 above (religion) from dirtying up our rational thinking on the matter.
So instead of praying to make-believe characters and trying to get others to follow the political garbage from long ago, just sit down, put on some good jazz, and collect you damn thoughts. My goodness.
I am mama kindless and I approve this message.
Funny. Militant atheists insist that religion shouldn't influence education in schools, yet here's one trying to say how we should raise our children. I love how they can be inconsistent with their own opinions.
Funny how the people who want religion back in schools all assume that it'll be THEIR religion being taught. What happens if teacher is saying something about the Rapture that you don't agree with? Back to square one, I suppose?
Oxbarksazz thinks that the earth is stationary. You may as well debate somebody who thinks god speaks to them through their hair dryer.
If God made man in his image, what color is God's pubic hair?
Why do creationists fight the big bang theory when they are saying it was exactly the same thing, just using different words. For them it was God in the back bedroom with a tube sock, but the end result is the same... As to who or what did the stroking is the real debate.
Truth that was a very crude and infantile way of expressing your thoughts lol but finding it it hard to debate.
Atheism isn't a religion, and not everyone shares your religion either, but we all benefit from the same science that gives us antibiotics and vaccines using evolution theory.
ben they should be taught to think for themselves in public schools not indoctrinated. and not shamed for their current believes.
cq the evolution theory is responsible for antibiotics and vaccines? I didn't have a glue. Takawalk < not a science guy . But if so kudos for evolution.
If science is so good, then why can't it prove that god exists?
"If science is so good, then why can't it prove that god exists?
you left out some things which probably led to your incorrect statement:
Atheists 0 (rationality; calling it as they see it so far)
Christianity -1 (irrationality; false assumptions)
FYI, Christians haven't "proven" that God exists either. Nor have they disproven any of the thousands of other gods either. They haven't proven a thing 'cause it's all about "faith", right?
How about because there is no evidence that any god exists?
Creationists jump to an answer with no evidence, scientists make assumptions based on evidence. We dont know everything, but what we do know definitely points to processes of creation without the help of a God.
"If science is so good, then why can't it prove that god exists?"
Because god doesn't exist.
YOU ARE RIGHT. MY BIBLE-THUMBING PREACHER HERE IN TEXAS SAYS THERE IS A GOD. AND WITH MY TWO YEARS IN SCHOOL, I BELIEVE HIM.
Simple question: Why is it that only a God could be the cause of all causes? Why can't physics also explain it? People are so quick to assume that things like the big-bang theory and evolution must be false because they can't trace everything back to a source–well, where does your God come from? At this question every single God loving christian will hide behind their "Faith" but Faith does not excuse, nor is it synonymous with, ignorance. Perhaps it's something that us as Humans are not equipped to deal with! At least at this current state of our progress, we are built to assume that rationality MUST contain both a cause, and an effect. The very nature of the Universe proves otherwise, and physicists have done a phenomenal job proving how the cause without causes could have occurred, so the burden of the evidence lies on the religious folk to prove them wrong. As a 17 year-old high school student, I simply wish this form of logic was more prevalent in society... maybe then we would stop praying to end world hunger, and start feeding those starving in the streets.
You said you are 17 years old, so I'll ask you a question. Have you actually ever studied the Big Bang theory? I don't mean high school, I don't mean science magazines, I don't mean recreational literature like Richard Dawkins books, I mean if you actually ever sit dow for a few months, got the basic bibliography on its history, gathered the basic bibliography on the astrophysics and cosmology its based, and understood where it came from and what problem it proposes to solve?
Do that, with this question in mind: what problem the Big Bang Theory solves. You'll be surprised, I promise. Do the same for relativity too, you'll have the same surprise.
To answer your question, first, it's because causality is studied at the metaphysical and epistemological level, while physics depends on these. Metaphysics is the study of the attributes of things you can learn based on the simple fact that they exist, nothing else, and causality is a basic tenet here. Epistemology is the study of the ways that you can learn attributes of things, other than those revealed by the metaphysics. You can't talk about physics before you have a metaphysical and epistemological model well defined, or in other words, you can't talk about physics before you have a method to be sure something exists, and a method to know the things you are sure exist.
Second, it's because most of the modern physics is only concerned with one kind of causation, that's called horizontal causation. The chain of causation you can clearly examine in the materialist sense. For instance, if a guy has a guitar and plays a chord, what's the cause of the sound emitted by the amplifier? The horizontal cause of it is the stroke of the strings, the electrons flowing through the cable, the transistor junction that amplifies it, the vibration of air from the speaker, but the vertical cause of it is simply his will to play that chord at that instant. Physics can't explain vertical causality, and God as the prime cause is an example of vertical causality.
You've probably heard of the attempts at unifying quantum physics and relativity and finding a single theory that can explain everything, did you? That's so hard to do because many quantum phenomena seems to have vertical causation, they don't seem to happen in the same timeline, and our model of physics isn't ready for that, it can only study it in probabilistic therms.
Third, I don't know of any serious attempt by a physicist to prove the existence of events without a cause. In the best case, there are a few attempts at providing a new metaphysical and epistemological model where events can exist without a cause, but that's an entirely different thing, which also needs a diferent physics.
oxkarbaz said "Physics can't explain vertical causality, and God as the prime cause is an example of vertical causality."
Just because physics and science can't yet explain the cause of something doesn't mean that a deity is the answer. There just isn't any reasonable proof about deities period, much less what they might affect (without going down that path into political fable land).
Whatever you say, buddy.
I won't be back here, but in case you need any further info, feel free to email me. It's my nickname at gmail.
Why not any of the hundreds of other creator gods, or the god of some aliens living in a distant galaxy that we've never heard of before? Here we are, knowing that we're living in just one small part of one galaxy in billions and we're still thinking that we're the centre of the universe. Creationism is driven by human ego, pure and simple. We'er the reason why the universe was created, we're better than any other living thing,... Ego!
Metaphysics is a philosophical study, and stopped being a scientific one once the scientific method was adopted. You can argue reasons why it would be cool if God were the cause of the universe, but even the best of these arguments don't actually prove anything.
truth be trolled
Or we could all be living in a computer simulation, in which case "God" is likely just some underachiever living in an advanced society with too much leisure time on his hands. Strangely, I find this idea far more likely than the Hebrew creation story.
In response to Oxkar:
Yes, in fact I have ACTUALLY studied the Big Bang theory. Assuming naievity based solely on age is not always (though often it is) accurate. While I will not be able to compute and add to the theory, I understand it on a conceptual level. However, I am not a gifted mathemetician nor a Ph. D. astrophysicist so I won't begin to try and argue for the relative "proof" of the theory. However, on your note on horizontal v. vertical causality, I would argue that Chaos theory has relatively replaced linear causality and most, if not all, leading physicists have done away with that theory. As to your assertion on epistemology, you don't go outright and say it but you are basing your opinion on the sole idea that at this point in time, our epistemology is flawed and ipso facto our theories are flawed. Following this logic, why is it that theories of Creationism or Higher Being is any less subject to a flawed epistemology? If the axioms we build our conscious understanding around are fundamentally flawed, why would ONLY modern science be flawed? This is the problem I encounter where people like yourself engage me on the theological/philosophical plane. Their arguments goes both ways and we arrive back at an argument of faith. I would recommend you read the book "Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger. It's a fantastic book that really goes into great detail on how your brain builds your reality. Also, read into Jacques Lacan, Carl Jung, Felix Guattari, and Gilles Deleuze, to possibly get some insight on how the conscious world and personality one would use to worship a God is formed to begin with. As for the "No serious attempt to explain an acausal event" I will leave you with a, albeit paraphrased, quote from Stephen Hawking: "The very notion of nothingness necessitated the eventual creation of everything." Then again, his epistemology is probably too flawed for him to arrive at a valid conclusion on any thing, much less astrophysics.
Because the actual science involves trying to comprehend the universe before the Big Bang existing as 11 dimensions, folded up, without space or time being expanded yet, so it's easier to imagine something magical going "poof" instead.
Believe in God is not solely found in intellect ( although if at least little intellect isn't used it turns kinda silly) at it's core it is a spirit thing that surpasses human communication and imposable to believe or understand unless experienced. How do you prove something that is beyond human understanding or communication. You can only guide someone to the path you found that became the foundation for your believe.
But how can you know anything about something you already assume is "beyond human understanding or communication"? How do you know that God is "good", or that he has your best interests at heart? Theology seems pretty darn sure about a whole lot of things about God, so are you calling all of that and even the Bible itself false?
Chaos, muck, junk, nothingness, primordial soup, tissue, all the same name for the same contemptuous sentiment held towards whatever it is that caused you to exist. This gives you the sense that you have a carte blanche on the decisions you make in life. But try telling the judge that your hand just reached out all on its own and took the money, or groped that child, or pulled that trigger. You will, and ought to, feel the freight train of linear causality slamming you from behind as you serve out your sentence.
CQ one other thought. Keep in mind a lot of these folks that talk about this God stuff might have met him but don't walk with him. I have a hard time doing that myself and often fail. But that is my shortcoming not his. The whole thing is way to complicated the trick is keeping it simple.
Doesn't "keeping it simple" really mean not thinking about it too much? I mean, like trying to enjoy a book or a movie, and not allowing yourself to get caught up in the historical inaccuracies, dated props, and such?
Many people default to god as a cause, or an explanation in any situation in which their limited experience can't come up with answers. This happens on a small scale "Why did the tornado destroy the town?" "because god is mad about gay marriage", but it also happens on a larger scale "what came before the big bang?" "I don't know, so it must be god". This is neither strange, nor special, it is the way humans have dealt with our own ignorance for hundreds of thousands of years. It is very comforting to have a standard, go-to answer for everything. It takes a lot more courage to just say "I don't know, and I may never know". Gravity existed before Newton, the speed of light was constant before we could measure it, and the mechanisms of memory are working now, even though we can't fully explain them. The movement of every particle in the universe could theoretically be described mathematically, and just because I am not capable of that feat does not mean it is any less true. Truth is not a democracy.
Whether you are a Christian or not, you NEED to watch this video.