Scientists Re-Create Big Bang in Lab

[Topweasel]

If God's the kind of person who wouldn't give me cake because I accepted evolution then he's no god worth believing in.

Why would god need us to believe in him/her anyways? Why would an all powerful being need mere mortals beliefs and prayer to exist? Maybe it's because if no one believed in god then god wouldn't exist.

That also applies to Freddy Krueger...

 

[YamahaAlex37]

What exactly constitutes this science experiment as a "Big Bang"? It sounds to me just like they squished some particles or something, along the lines of nuclear fission, but if this was a "Big Bang" shouldn't we have a new universe growing?

 

[ShadowStriker]

What exactly constitutes this science experiment as a "Big Bang"? It sounds to me just like they squished some particles or something, along the lines of nuclear fission, but if this was a "Big Bang" shouldn't we have a new universe growing?

Ooo, a new universe on the sub-atomic level!

 

[srangara]

Not to start a debate on that topic but I am absolutely sure no intelligent being believes that we have no impact on the climate. The debate is the outcome, the data collection, the measured impact, the causes, the money.

Agreed, but you can't deny that it took a lot of effort against largely irrational argument to get to this point. Who said anything about intelligent beings?

The same can be said for any branch of science or philosophy that challenges unassailable faith. When you get right down to it, the only thing that cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics, nuclear chemistry, geology, molecular biology, population genetics, neuroscience, anthropology, and natural philosophy have in common is that they provide independent evidence against creation myths. Oh, and that niggly scientific method, thing.

 

[Topweasel]

Agreed, but you can't deny that it took a lot of effort against largely irrational argument to get to this point. Who said anything about intelligent beings?

The same can be said for any branch of science or philosophy that challenges unassailable faith. When you get right down to it, the only thing that cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics, nuclear chemistry, geology, molecular biology, population genetics, neuroscience, anthropology, and natural philosophy have in common is that they provide independent evidence against creation myths. Oh, and that niggly scientific method, thing.

Well he didn't deny human impact. He just thinks god won't let the worst case scenario happen.

 

[YamahaAlex37]

What exactly constitutes this science experiment as a "Big Bang"? It sounds to me just like they squished some particles or something, along the lines of nuclear fission, but if this was a "Big Bang" shouldn't we have a new universe growing?

I hope someone will be kind enough to explain this

 

[Decibel]

There is a lot of typical journalist hyperbole but the critical quotes fall out of order:

The Guardian explains that the moment the scientists are re-creating happened about 0.00000000001 seconds after the Big Bang, an interval when "protons and neutrons can't even stay whole."

"At these temperatures even protons and neutrons, which make up the nuclei of atoms, melt, resulting in a hot dense soup of quarks and gluons known as a quark-gluon plasma," researcher David Evans from the University of Birmingham told the BBC.

 

[86 5.0L]

so is there a mini-universe now expanding inside the LHC?

 

[Nutshell]

I hope someone will be kind enough to explain this

We did create a universe. It's just parallel to us so we can't observe it.
We are the God to a new universe.


It's true you just need to have faith in what I say.

 

[Topweasel]

so is there a mini-universe now expanding inside the LHC?

No they didn't create a BB they just recreated the theorized moments after a big bang where protons and neutrons melted. Basically they just melted protons and neutrons which regardless of whether or not BB caused this plasma in the past, its still a major accomplishment.

 

[Parmenides]

If God's the kind of person who wouldn't give me cake because I accepted evolution then he's no god worth believing in.

Why would god need us to believe in him/her anyways? Why would an all powerful being need mere mortals beliefs and prayer to exist? Maybe it's because if no one believed in god then god wouldn't exist.

Actually, belief or rejection of evolution isn't a prerequisite to accepting him as Savior. And you're right that the all powerful doesn't need prayers and beliefs. That would be a pretty pathetic god. In actuality god gains no kudo points for winning extra converts. Instead mortals are the ones who benefit.

Experimentation and peer review > Everyone's pet idea should waste my time equally

"Where's the Experiment?"

So everything is relative to god. That's great. But I can put him in a non-existent sack outside of both time and space and nothing looks any different.

Let's just stick to the things we can demonstrate are true without worrying about whether His Noodly Appendages are are manipulating the results.

There's a lot of things in science that haven't been demonstrated. The accuracy of carbon dating has no independent standard to verify against past dated ancient egypytian artifacts. Many theories on the beginning of this universe have not been demonstrated. The common ancestry between human and chimp have not been demonstrated. The spontaneous existence of a biological organism from chemical stew has not been demonstrated. god cannot be demonstrated in a physical sense. But god can be offered up as an explanation to how a universe exploded into being. Especially since the other explanations have huge problems.

Shoving god under the carpet is close mindedness at best and willful ignorance at worst. If god is a factor, then it's a big deal. If he's not then you must be really confident in his nonexistence and irrelevance.

Couple of issues here. Outside of the box thinking is fine and all. Its what drives innovation. But if you start to come up with ideas that can't be tested as an explanation then its no longer science. If I walked around stated that everything I didn't understand was gods doing people would think I am crazy. I know my limitations in knowledge and its that understanding that allows me the ability and willingness to research the answer when hit my limitations.

As for drilling down information. It must be done but that is where peer reviewing comes in. You are not and will not be accepted if you throw out relevant information just because it is an outlier. If I am trying to find out if there are black holes I don't care as much about our current temperature. But I can while trying to prove that black holes exist throw out an asteroid that traveled past a theorized black hole, just because 99.9% of other asteroids seemed to get sucked in.

I understand your opinion with the last spot. But it again points back to the "its outside the rules" portion that becomes the hardest part to follow. Under your Theory he might as well be Leto Atredies II following the golden path. As mentioned here the theory of god specially of that entered into the Bible, implies a very fallible god. One that Screwed up with the Angels even though they don't have free thought yet they rebelled. One where he grants Humans free thought so that they might not follow him so he can send them to hell. One where he grants free thought and then proceeds to wipe out almost all of the race to start over from scratch. One where after starting over he proceeds to wipe out cities for their transgressions (including the innocent). One where he sends his son/self to be tortured and slain for his beliefs knowing that it will happen. One where he will once again wipe out the race by taking the righteous up to heaven then 7 years later destroy the world. This isn't an infallible god. If he was as powerful and all knowing and understanding, then he would have just created it the way he did from the start and never had to touch it again. That is where the issue is and where the point comes from if time doesn't apply to him and he knows and sees all time in an instant then the great flood as the best example would never happen.

As mentioned above, there are a lot of things in forensic science (big bang, evolution) that can't be tested. And I understand that it's not good science to say "god" whenever there is something we don't understand. I'm for, let's explore that further. Most scientiest (up until recent times) would say, "let's explore god's creation further." They wouldn't say, "It's god magic that makes it work. Leave it alone." I'm with what you're saying in that regard. But god is not an "outlier" especially since most people acknowledge god's existence and very few are confident of his nonexistence. Throwing god out is just throwing out potential data. For argument's sake, maybe "god data" ends up useless (i.e. there is no god), still science is filtering itself out of potential useful knowledge.

As for your comment of god doesn't make sense, hopefully this will make more sense. I'm not sure how granting free will is "screwing up." If god is loving then he wouldn't force it on people (rape is forced love), but god would aim to honor the integrity of their will. The worst part of hell is separation from god. If god is the creator of all things, the source of all things good and beautiful then he in a sense is present to all creation. Creation would be a reflection of that. And when we enjoy creation we enjoy what god did. And ultimately man has to either reject god and his creation or accept it. And as I heard somewhere, hell isn't locked from the outside. But from the inside. Here, god made it possible for man to escape god if man so chooses. I think everyone will be all the better (I suppose those in hell even) for getting to choose their path. hell is a quarunteen and rejection of god is the rejection of all things good and beautiful (assuming what the bible says is true). The god of the bible does make sense.

Agreed, but you can't deny that it took a lot of effort against largely irrational argument to get to this point. Who said anything about intelligent beings?

The same can be said for any branch of science or philosophy that challenges unassailable faith. When you get right down to it, the only thing that cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics, nuclear chemistry, geology, molecular biology, population genetics, neuroscience, anthropology, and natural philosophy have in common is that they provide independent evidence against creation myths. Oh, and that niggly scientific method, thing.

You haven't studied those fields long enough to realize that are "both sides to the argument" in how the data is interpretted. Those fields certainly do not speak in a unified voice.

What exactly constitutes this science experiment as a "Big Bang"? It sounds to me just like they squished some particles or something, along the lines of nuclear fission, but if this was a "Big Bang" shouldn't we have a new universe growing?

No one really knows the answer to that. I think at best, the scientists can say that this experiment has the possibility (just a hopeful maybe) of having similarities to the origin of our universe.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

There's a lot of things in science that haven't been demonstrated. The accuracy of carbon dating has no independent standard to verify against past dated ancient egypytian artifacts. Many theories on the beginning of this universe have not been demonstrated. The common ancestry between human and chimp have not been demonstrated. The spontaneous existence of a biological organism from chemical stew has not been demonstrated. god cannot be demonstrated in a physical sense.

LOL

There are multiple ways to find the age of something besides carbon dating (radiometric for example) and they all support each other and yield similar results when determining the age of a specimen.

Common ancestry between human and chimp has been determined 100x over, how can you say that it's not. DNA, fossils, etc etc, which one is made up?

Although there may be some problems with the Miller Urey experiment, it shows that organic compounds can arise from inorganic precursors. But just to clear it up, Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, evolution has to do with how organisms evolved, not how they started.

It's funny how you want evidence for all these theories, yet you can accept God with no evidence at all. Science and Faith (religion) are not compatible. Science relies on research and data, faith needs you accept without evidence. Faith is the lack of critical thinking, that's why you are ignoring the mounds of evidence and are so willfully ignorant of the facts. Reading your remarks is like reading creationist pseudo-science pamphlets they pass around that have been dismantled by scientists handily 500x over.

 

[crackbone]

LOL

There are multiple ways to find the age of something besides carbon dating (radiometric for example) and they all support each other and yield similar results when determining the age of a specimen.

Common ancestry between human and chimp has been determined 100x over, how can you say that it's not. DNA, fossils, etc etc, which one is made up?

Although there may be some problems with the Miller Urey experiment, it shows that organic compounds can arise from inorganic precursors. But just to clear it up, Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, evolution has to do with how organisms evolved, not how they started.

It's funny how you want evidence for all these theories, yet you can accept God with no evidence at all. Science and Faith (religion) are not compatible. Science relies on research and data, faith needs you accept without evidence. Faith is the lack of critical thinking, that's why you are ignoring the mounds of evidence and are so willfully ignorant of the facts. Reading your remarks is like reading creationist pseudo-science pamphlets they pass around that have been dismantled by scientists handily 500x over.

This is par for the course these days. Polarization in all facets of life is becoming common place. Logic unfortunately is not.

 

[Parmenides]

LOL

There are multiple ways to find the age of something besides carbon dating (radiometric for example) and they all support each other and yield similar results when determining the age of a specimen.

Common ancestry between human and chimp has been determined 100x over, how can you say that it's not. DNA, fossils, etc etc, which one is made up?

Although there may be some problems with the Miller Urey experiment, it shows that organic compounds can arise from inorganic precursors. But just to clear it up, Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, evolution has to do with how organisms evolved, not how they started.

It's funny how you want evidence for all these theories, yet you can accept God with no evidence at all. Science and Faith (religion) are not compatible. Science relies on research and data, faith needs you accept without evidence. Faith is the lack of critical thinking, that's why you are ignoring the mounds of evidence and are so willfully ignorant of the facts. Reading your remarks is like reading creationist pseudo-science pamphlets they pass around that have been dismantled by scientists handily 500x over.

Carbon dating is radiometric. Similarities between humans and chimps can also explain a similar designer. For all we know (and I'm not suggesting) aliens could have made us with a similar blueprint. Humans are similar to a lot of things like chimps. That doesn't necessitate common ancestry. Common ancestry is just one way to explain the data of similar genes.

And that's fine saying abiogenesis isn't evolution. I was just talking about things that aren't demonstrated.

Actually there is a lot of evidence for God. (I can back up that statement) Maybe some time we can go over it if Steve posts an existence of God article. (not that we aren't totally off topic anyways)

And about your remarks, I could say the same about you, that reading your remarks sounds like reading the highlights of a high-school teacher. Saying that doesn't prove anything though.

I hear a lot of "We disproved you" type stuff. I could go around and say "Atheism is disproved" over and over again. That doesn't help our discussion and it proves nothing.

 

[Fendrix]

Carbon dating is radiometric. Similarities between humans and chimps can also explain a similar designer. For all we know (and I'm not suggesting) aliens could have made us with a similar blueprint. Humans are similar to a lot of things like chimps. That doesn't necessitate common ancestry. Common ancestry is just one way to explain the data of similar genes.

And that's fine saying abiogenesis isn't evolution. I was just talking about things that aren't demonstrated.

Actually there is a lot of evidence for God. (I can back up that statement) Maybe some time we can go over it if Steve posts an existence of God article. (not that we aren't totally off topic anyways)

And about your remarks, I could say the same about you, that reading your remarks sounds like reading the highlights of a high-school teacher. Saying that doesn't prove anything though.

I hear a lot of "We disproved you" type stuff. I could go around and say "Atheism is disproved" over and over again. That doesn't help our discussion and it proves nothing.

I truly don't even know where to begin addressing your comments. Everyone in this thread has tried their best, so I have nothing left but to facepalm.

 

[Hop-Scotch]

This really turned into 13 pages of debating God?

 

[Decibel]

I just finished trying to catch up this thread. I'm sad now. How did it descend into suck a cluster of a thread?

If you believe in a young earth your brain doesn't work. You can not think critically or rationally.

Do you believe in some kind of trickster god, like Loki, that created the universe to appear like it is roughly 13.7 billion years old?

Where in Genesis does it say, "And god placed the background radiation in the heavens, just so, with the photons already on their way, properly red shifted, and the x-rays coming from an expansion event." or "And god created the earth, with the fossils in the strata, so as to show the development of life from less complex forms to more complex forms?"

Accept the evidence, whether you think that god did it or not. It's still the evidence.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

I miss typed, I meant to say different types of radiometric dating.

There is no designer, there is no proof that there is a designer, there is proof of evolution. If there was a designer he constantly altering designs making new species that suck and die as a result and therefore a shitty creator. It's natural selection, not a designer. If you bring up more pamphlet points like irreducible complexity, I'll eat my shorts.

Where does chimp-like end and human begin, you certainly can't tell from this photo. There is no such thing as the missing link, and you can't find it because there is no such thing. You should actually read about the subjects and stop using other people's talking. Until you understand the argument that it's not worth trying to debate, because there is nothing to debate. Just give me one shred of evidence that disproves evolution, there isn't one.

Once again you want all the evidence in the world, without needing any for your god hypothesis.

PS... Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of belief in a creator.

 

[DogChainX]

I miss typed, I meant to say different types of radiometric dating.

There is no designer, there is no proof that there is a designer, there is proof of evolution. If there was a designer he constantly altering designs making new species that suck and die as a result and therefore a shitty creator. It's natural selection, not a designer. If you bring up more pamphlet points like irreducible complexity, I'll eat my shorts.

Where does chimp-like end and human begin, you certainly can't tell from this photo. There is no such thing as the missing link, and you can't find it because there is no such thing. You should actually read about the subjects and stop using other people's talking. Until you understand the argument that it's not worth trying to debate, because there is nothing to debate. Just give me one shred of evidence that disproves evolution, there isn't one.

Once again you want all the evidence in the world, without needing any for your god hypothesis.

PS... Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of belief in a creator.

I agree completely that the argument is not worth trying to debate. Observable facts vs Spirituality.....Apples and Oranges IMO.

I look it at this way:
1-You can't convince an atheist that God exists via the scientific method.
2-You can't convince someone of religion that God doesn't exist via "spiritual" insight.

They are two very different methods of beliefs. Sure, you can try to define scientific theories in a religious context, and you can try to define spiritual experiences in a scientific context....you can TRY. But the outcomes are never black and white.

 

[Decibel]

I agree completely that the argument is not worth trying to debate. Observable facts vs Spirituality.....Apples and Oranges IMO.

I look it at this way:
1-You can't convince an atheist that God exists via the scientific method.
2-You can't convince someone of religion that God doesn't exist via "spiritual" insight.

They are two very different methods of beliefs. Sure, you can try to define scientific theories in a religious context, and you can try to define spiritual experiences in a scientific context....you can TRY. But the outcomes are never black and white.

What the heck does "spiritual" even mean?

As near as I can tell it is an emotional response to ones upbringing or beliefs come to for non-rational reasons, with a bit of mob mentality and anti-intellectualism thrown in for good measure.

We have one way of looking at the world, how it functions and what evidence we have available; and we have another that says "Nuh-Uhn!" to all of that.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

I agree completely that the argument is not worth trying to debate. Observable facts vs Spirituality.....Apples and Oranges IMO.

I look it at this way:
1-You can't convince an atheist that God exists via the scientific method.
2-You can't convince someone of religion that God doesn't exist via "spiritual" insight.

They are two very different methods of beliefs. Sure, you can try to define scientific theories in a religious context, and you can try to define spiritual experiences in a scientific context....you can TRY. But the outcomes are never black and white.

I would agree with most of this, except you could convince an atheist to believe in god if there was real evidence, you can't convince most religious people of anything even with all the evidence in the world. There is no legitimate scientific proof for god, that's why you have atheists. I consider myself an atheist (secular humanist), and there may be a god or god like thing out there, but he has nothing to do with the creation of the earth or what is on earth or even the big bang. If he/it/they exist (there is no evidence of this) it's so far removed from us it doesn't matter, that's my opinion.

 

[DogChainX]

What the heck does "spiritual" even mean?

As near as I can tell it is an emotional response to ones upbringing or beliefs come to for non-rational reasons, with a bit of mob mentality and anti-intellectualism thrown in for good measure.

We have one way of looking at the world, how it functions and what evidence we have available; and we have another that says "Nuh-Uhn!" to all of that.

My point exactly. You have your opinion, which can't be changed by scientific method, since you've just defined what a spiritual experience is. You'd have to have a first-hand experience of spirituality (a "God" experience as they say) to understand that side of argument.

Not worth arguing about, IMO, if God exists or not. Its a personal belief system, and both are a separate system. Believe it or not, you can believe in science AND have religion.

 

[Topweasel]

As mentioned above, there are a lot of things in forensic science (big bang, evolution) that can't be tested. And I understand that it's not good science to say "god" whenever there is something we don't understand. I'm for, let's explore that further. Most scientiest (up until recent times) would say, "let's explore god's creation further." They wouldn't say, "It's god magic that makes it work. Leave it alone." I'm with what you're saying in that regard. But god is not an "outlier" especially since most people acknowledge god's existence and very few are confident of his nonexistence. Throwing god out is just throwing out potential data. For argument's sake, maybe "god data" ends up useless (i.e. there is no god), still science is filtering itself out of potential useful knowledge.

As for your comment of god doesn't make sense, hopefully this will make more sense. I'm not sure how granting free will is "screwing up." If god is loving then he wouldn't force it on people (rape is forced love), but god would aim to honor the integrity of their will. The worst part of hell is separation from god. If god is the creator of all things, the source of all things good and beautiful then he in a sense is present to all creation. Creation would be a reflection of that. And when we enjoy creation we enjoy what god did. And ultimately man has to either reject god and his creation or accept it. And as I heard somewhere, hell isn't locked from the outside. But from the inside. Here, god made it possible for man to escape god if man so chooses. I think everyone will be all the better (I suppose those in hell even) for getting to choose their path. hell is a quarunteen and rejection of god is the rejection of all things good and beautiful (assuming what the bible says is true). The god of the bible does make sense.

Your jumbling some points its why I kept them separate. The outlier was in regards to your point about scientist throwing out information. They don't throw out outliers. They just throw out peer reviewed data that is deemed to not apply. Otherwise they would be so overloaded with data that not even the best supercomputers could handle it. Who cares how hot it is outside to day when your measuring the effects of a black hole on a star system billions of light years away.

I am cool with Scientist talking about exploring "gods creation", most of the scientific community doesn't either. Any talk otherwise is fear-mongering. What most of the scientific community doesn't support is the notion that what can't be explained yet "god did it". Like the theory that god would have to have had a hand in the creation of man because its DNA is to perfect for "chance" or that with no explanation of what caused the big bang yet, that it was god. At that point its just another way of saying I give up.

You only touched on one of my points and not even really it only skims over the idea of free will and its impact over entrance to heaven an hell. Doesn't really touch on how he didn't commit mistakes in regards to most of the incidents.

 

[Conker]

lol read this and you'll understand that macro evolution is just one big lie. Sooner or later evolution will be thrown out eventually.

I miss typed, I meant to say different types of radiometric dating.

There is no designer, there is no proof that there is a designer, there is proof of evolution. If there was a designer he constantly altering designs making new species that suck and die as a result and therefore a shitty creator. It's natural selection, not a designer. If you bring up more pamphlet points like irreducible complexity, I'll eat my shorts.

Where does chimp-like end and human begin, you certainly can't tell from this photo. There is no such thing as the missing link, and you can't find it because there is no such thing. You should actually read about the subjects and stop using other people's talking. Until you understand the argument that it's not worth trying to debate, because there is nothing to debate. Just give me one shred of evidence that disproves evolution, there isn't one.

Once again you want all the evidence in the world, without needing any for your god hypothesis.

PS... Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of belief in a creator.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

lol read this and you'll understand that macro evolution is just one big lie. Sooner or later evolution will be thrown out eventually.

I really hope you aren't serious... There are so many things wrong with this it isn't even funny. It's making unfounded assumptions, twisting actual facts, saying it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics??????, etc etc. Half of the sources are from christian apologetic resources which are not based on investigative science.

This article has never been published, and there is a reason why. This is not science. It's some tinfoil hatted religious fool.

 

[Decibel]

lol read this and you'll understand that macro evolution is just one big lie. Sooner or later evolution will be thrown out eventually.

There is no division between so called macro evolution and so called micro evolution. It is a false dichotomy brought in by people that are being dishonest.

There is just evolution. Which we have mountains of evidence for.

Are you familiar with the work being done by Dr. Lenski and his lab with e-coli? They have shown new positive mutations evolving in the lab.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/

 

[Conker]

I really hope you aren't serious... There are so many things wrong with this it isn't even funny. It's making unfounded assumptions, twisting actual facts, saying it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics??????, etc etc. Half of the sources are from christian apologetic resources which are not based on investigative science.

This article has never been published, and there is a reason why. This is not science. It's some tinfoil hatted religious fool.

lol ignorance is bliss. A majority of it is quotes from scientists.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

lol ignorance is bliss. A majority of it is quotes from scientists.

Why don't you look up some of the credentials of these scientists... Or how the data is being taken out of context.

PS, here is a systematic break down of all + more arguments in that article with actual peer reviewed reasearch.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB900

 

[DogChainX]

I would agree with most of this, except you could convince an atheist to believe in god if there was real evidence, you can't convince most religious people of anything even with all the evidence in the world. There is no legitimate scientific proof for god, that's why you have atheists. I consider myself an atheist (secular humanist), and there may be a god or god like thing out there, but he has nothing to do with the creation of the earth or what is on earth or even the big bang. If he/it/they exist (there is no evidence of this) it's so far removed from us it doesn't matter, that's my opinion.

Exactly. You could *try* to convince an atheist to believe in God if there was real evidence. But "real" evidence of God's existence doesn't exist. So you could try, but you'd fail. So why bother going down that route and create tension, frustration and possibly anger (ahem...like this thread). Same with the flip side of the argument. It can't be "won." You try to explain away God with scientific theories, you'll just get Faith as the ultimate negation for "rational" thinking.

Believe me...I've been on both sides of the argument, and its not worth fighting about. In the end, both sides are humans with different opinions on how the world is defined. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Parmenides]

I miss typed, I meant to say different types of radiometric dating.

There is no designer, there is no proof that there is a designer, there is proof of evolution. If there was a designer he constantly altering designs making new species that suck and die as a result and therefore a shitty creator. It's natural selection, not a designer. If you bring up more pamphlet points like irreducible complexity, I'll eat my shorts.

Where does chimp-like end and human begin, you certainly can't tell from this photo. There is no such thing as the missing link, and you can't find it because there is no such thing. You should actually read about the subjects and stop using other people's talking. Until you understand the argument that it's not worth trying to debate, because there is nothing to debate. Just give me one shred of evidence that disproves evolution, there isn't one.

Once again you want all the evidence in the world, without needing any for your god hypothesis.

PS... Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of belief in a creator.

Neanderthals were once thought to be missing links. Until we found them to be just a subspecies. Many previous skeleton "links" were debunked. And the missing links for animals is horribly lacking, even admitted by many evolutionists.

Did you just read only the talking points against design without reading the arguments? Among other things I read all of Darwin's book. I know his arguments. I know that natural selection is given far more credit than it deserves. Sure it happens sometimes in nature, but that is far different than saying that it formed all animals on the taxonomy chart. Those are huge changes and there is no data to show that natural selection is capable to start huge transformations within a few milion years. It has not been demonstrated nor observed.

That's fine in saying atheism is a lack in belief. But that's different than believing that a creator is irrelevant to all scientific discourse. That would be strong anosticism.

also, radiometric dating makes assumptions that decay is constant.

I just finished trying to catch up this thread. I'm sad now. How did it descend into suck a cluster of a thread?

If you believe in a young earth your brain doesn't work. You can not think critically or rationally.

Do you believe in some kind of trickster god, like Loki, that created the universe to appear like it is roughly 13.7 billion years old?

Where in Genesis does it say, "And god placed the background radiation in the heavens, just so, with the photons already on their way, properly red shifted, and the x-rays coming from an expansion event." or "And god created the earth, with the fossils in the strata, so as to show the development of life from less complex forms to more complex forms?"

Accept the evidence, whether you think that god did it or not. It's still the evidence.

I'm not sure about the age of the earth. Whatever happened God does not have to trick humans. Humans are good at doing it to themselves. Maybe desiring humans to constantly strive for truth rather than accepting the talking points of the conventional wisdom of the day. I'm not sure of the relevance of you Genesis "did it say?" statements. There is data and then there is the interpretation of data to be used as evidence. Only when you already assume a given conclusion, does it look like "God must have tried to make things look like the way I thought." Religious people aren't the only people who interpret data based upon their pre-concieved notions. The flood is another possible explanation for the earth's strata. It's only arrogant for us to think that in the year 2010 we have the basics of every scientific theory as cannon. Future science will turn much of our current thinking upside down (regardless of what any of us believe).

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

Exactly. You could *try* to convince an atheist to believe in God if there was real evidence. But "real" evidence of God's existence doesn't exist. So you could try, but you'd fail. So why bother going down that route and create tension, frustration and possibly anger (ahem...like this thread). Same with the flip side of the argument. It can't be "won." You try to explain away God with scientific theories, you'll just get Faith as the ultimate negation for "rational" thinking.

Believe me...I've been on both sides of the argument, and its not worth fighting about. In the end, both sides are humans with different opinions on how the world is defined. Can't we all just get along?

But I believe it is worth fighting about, one side you have facts the other side doesn't and still wants to say the side with the facts is wrong. I think it important for people to be educated, and the religious types are trying to prevent that on all fields of science (Some current examples: stem cell, evolution, big bang physics, etc). Fortunately in the past reason has won, and we no longer believe (well most of us...) in stuff like a flat earth, geocentrism, etc.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

Neanderthals were once thought to be missing links. Until we found them to be just a subspecies. Many previous skeleton "links" were debunked. And the missing links for animals is horribly lacking, even admitted by many evolutionists.

Did you not see that picture? They are all hominid species that we have evolved from... once again, there is no such thing as a missing link, but there are tons of examples of transitional species...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

[Decibel]

No, they're not. They are a related hominid, but it is not currently thought that Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Neanderthalis.

That doesn't change that his entire argument is based on being just the way science works, ideas are discounted and refined all the time. Science adjusts to new evidence.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

No, they're not. They are a related hominid, but it is not currently thought that Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Neanderthalis.

That doesn't change that his entire argument is based on being just the way science works, ideas are discounted and refined all the time. Science adjusts to new evidence.

Yeah, you are right, I misspoke about the picture, but it is still a good example of how evolution works. Nothing dramatic from one thing to another. Gradual changes.

 

[ScreamingBroccoli]

And here is more evidence than you can shake a stick at for macro evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

[Decibel]

Neanderthals were once thought to be missing links. Until we found them to be just a subspecies. Many previous skeleton "links" were debunked.

Ok. So what?

Science gathers new data and adapts.

And the missing links for animals is horribly lacking, even admitted by many evolutionists.

Wrong. You are so wrong your name should be Wrongidity Wrongistein.

The museums and universities are full of transitional forms. To say otherwise is just plain ignorant.

Did you just read only the talking points against design without reading the arguments? Among other things I read all of Darwin's book. I know his arguments. I know that natural selection is given far more credit than it deserves. Sure it happens sometimes in nature, but that is far different than saying that it formed all animals on the taxonomy chart. Those are huge changes and there is no data to show that natural selection is capable to start huge transformations within a few milion years. It has not been demonstrated nor observed.

He wrote several books, which did you read? Have you read anything more current? The new research has pointed out where he was wrong. It has also filled in a lot of the details he expected to come later.

There is natural selection based in adapting better to the environment. Often punctuated by changes in the environment or being introduced to a new one. There is also sexual selection. Read up on the Red Queen.

I try reading the arguments for design, but I often get annoyed that they don't actually say anything. I actually finished Darwin's Black Box. They set up a straw man of what they think evolution is and than fail to debunk it. Then they say, things are complicated, they must have been designed.

That's fine in saying atheism is a lack in belief. But that's different than believing that a creator is irrelevant to all scientific discourse. That would be strong anosticism.

Um... No. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't say that there are no gods, but there is also no evidence for there being a god. So I don't believe in one.

If you know what the words mean then you might know how to use them. It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

also, radiometric dating makes assumptions that decay is constant.

So you believe in a plastic constantly changing world... I can see how you would have trouble basing your thoughts and beliefs in the evidence.

Never serve on a jury.

I'm not sure about the age of the earth. Whatever happened God does not have to trick humans. Humans are good at doing it to themselves. Maybe desiring humans to constantly strive for truth rather than accepting the talking points of the conventional wisdom of the day. I'm not sure of the relevance of you Genesis "did it say?" statements.

The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. I could tell you why this is true, but it requires evidence which you will ignore.

There is data and then there is the interpretation of data to be used as evidence. Only when you already assume a given conclusion, does it look like "God must have tried to make things look like the way I thought." Religious people aren't the only people who interpret data based upon their pre-concieved notions. The flood is another possible explanation for the earth's strata. It's only arrogant for us to think that in the year 2010 we have the basics of every scientific theory as cannon. Future science will turn much of our current thinking upside down (regardless of what any of us believe).

Um... You don't really know how science works. Researchers are always looking to upset their peers and if they can upset an entire theory they are ecstatic. They prod and probe every idea seeing if the data fits, and if it doesn't they fix the theory.

And no THE FLOOD CAN NOT BE EVIDENCE FOR THE FOSSILS AND HOW THEY ARE LAID OUT IN THE STRATA! Why, because it doesn't fit. You would have jumbles of different forms rather than the relatively clean progression of forms in the strata. You also wouldn't have the evidence for the huge number of extinction events that also impacted the ocean. You are ill informed and don't know what you're talking about.

True arrogance is not on the side of the scientists. It is on the side that claims in the face of all of the evidence and all the billions of people with different beliefs on the formation of the earth, that they are right.

 

[nissanztt90]

Ok. So what?

Science gathers new data and adapts.



Wrong. You are so wrong your name should be Wrongidity Wrongistein.

The museums and universities are full of transitional forms. To say otherwise is just plain ignorant.



He wrote several books, which did you read? Have you read anything more current? The new research has pointed out where he was wrong. It has also filled in a lot of the details he expected to come later.

There is natural selection based in adapting better to the environment. Often punctuated by changes in the environment or being introduced to a new one. There is also sexual selection. Read up on the Red Queen.

I try reading the arguments for design, but I often get annoyed that they don't actually say anything. I actually finished Darwin's Black Box. They set up a straw man of what they think evolution is and than fail to debunk it. Then they say, things are complicated, they must have been designed.



Um... No. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't say that there are no gods, but there is also no evidence for there being a god. So I don't believe in one.

If you know what the words mean then you might know how to use them. It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.



So you believe in a plastic constantly changing world... I can see how you would have trouble basing your thoughts and beliefs in the evidence.

Never serve on a jury.



The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. I could tell you why this is true, but it requires evidence which you will ignore.



Um... You don't really know how science works. Researchers are always looking to upset their peers and if they can upset an entire theory they are ecstatic. They prod and probe every idea seeing if the data fits, and if it doesn't they fix the theory.

And no THE FLOOD CAN NOT BE EVIDENCE FOR THE FOSSILS AND HOW THEY ARE LAID OUT IN THE STRATA! Why, because it doesn't fit. You would have jumbles of different forms rather than the relatively clean progression of forms in the strata. You also wouldn't have the evidence for the huge number of extinction events that also impacted the ocean. You are ill informed and don't know what you're talking about.

True arrogance is not on the side of the scientists. It is on the side that claims in the face of all of the evidence and all the billions of people with different beliefs on the formation of the earth, that they are right.

Youre talking to a wall.

 

[Decibel]

Youre talking to a wall.

I understand. It is not for the benefit of the wall.

 

[DogChainX]

But I believe it is worth fighting about, one side you have facts the other side doesn't and still wants to say the side with the facts is wrong. I think it important for people to be educated, and the religious types are trying to prevent that on all fields of science (Some current examples: stem cell, evolution, big bang physics, etc). Fortunately in the past reason has won, and we no longer believe (well most of us...) in stuff like a flat earth, geocentrism, etc.

Good point. I too think everyone should be educated. Right now I'm in the final steps of getting my Bachelors in chemistry. I love chemistry, the science, the reasoning behind the mechanics. Its fantastic to be able to predict the behavior of molecules, atoms, and their interactions. Its amazing to me how logical the forces are that govern the atomic world.

In my opinion, since God knows all, He's the basis for everything that is true. Whether that's the conclusion of 1+1=2, or how NaOH reacts with HCl...its His laws. So truth is truth, and I believe science and God can coexist. I look at it as imperfect people trying to box up a perfect being in imperfect theories. Not that I could do any better...we're all human.

I just wish we (the religious "nuts". LOL) had answers for everything...which we don't. God doesn't seem to think it important to reveal all about the universe, at least right now. That goes to the question, what is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Where are we going? If there is a God, what does he want from me?

Then there are the moral (ethical) questions behind what can be done vs what should be done. That's between you and your "world view" of things (God, Right/Wrong, etc). Its a frustrating dilemma when faced with hypothetical situations on not only what to choose, but how to choose.

Personally, I think there are those who believe in God...and then there are religious NUTS who, despite what they're trying to do, give God and religion a bad name. Those who twist the idea of religion to suite their own agendas. Those are the people I hope calm the hell down.

 

[SpeedRunner]

I like hearing the news about the LHC. However, why are we having a 7-page discussion on God? If you believe in Aqua Buddha, Robot Jesus, Mohammedallah, or whatever, take that some where else. No one wants to hear it, religion and science should stay seperate. I'd also say the same for church and state...