Debate: How did the cosmos get to the state it is in now?

[meadowmont]

This is an extension from the "Religion made by man" topic, as our discussion about the creation of the world moved solidly off of that topic.

 

 

 

I'm starting with my reply to HugATree, which contains most of what has been said recently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HugATree, you only provided evidence against one of Double_Edged arguments, on all the others you basically said "Nu-uh," which doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do anything to discredit Double_EdgedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s argument

His arguments were either outright lies, or recycled "evidence" that has been explained. His arguments had no credit to begin with, why should I have to got through every one because some people like ignoring todays science?

 

 

 

YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re arguments only disprove his IF science backs you up, something that has not been proven here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I would like to see what evidence you have for beneficial mutations, by the way).

Apolipoprotein AI Milano http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/informa ... otein.html

One beneficial mutation? Out of how many bad mutations? And for someone to have two or three good mutations (if other good mutations exist), the odds would decrease exponentially.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also did not provide any evidence for any other theory of how the world began.

Why should I? He was arguing with evolution, evolution does not explain how the world came around.

He was also arguing for Creationism, as am I. Are you biased against the theory of Creationism so much that you would rather believe nothing than to believe in the most logical conclusion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below, I try to use evidence and logic to show that Creationism is a valid scientific theory of how the world began.

It never will be a theory, if creationism is anything its an unproven hypothesis.

 

 

 

People call evolution a theory, yet several times the theory has been changed to fit with the facts. Each time a scientific theory is changed it moves back to the hypothesis stage.

 

 

 

The theory of Creationism has been around since about 4,000 B.C., yet the same theory is still valid, even more so in some cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can evolution be more than a fairy tale when it goes against itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s own principles?

Such as?

 

 

 

All the things listed below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the theory that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

Why does it have to come from anywhere?

 

 

 

You believe that there was always energy just floating around?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most likely answer I can think of is God.

"I can't work it out, God did it."

 

 

 

Why would the eternal existence of energy be any more likely than the eternal existence of God? Or do you yourself have trouble working it out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It basically saws that matter will become more disorderly and confused with time, and that order is never ther product of disorder.

Read it? It applies to closed systems.

 

 

 

Apply it to the cosmos. If there is no God then the cosmos would be a closed system, thus making the creation of order in the form of life impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did the universe become orderly enough to support life on earth (more on this later)?

The earth gets its energy from the sun, if it was closed entropy would take hold.

How the cosmos get orderly enough to form a sun and an earth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most likely answer I can think of is God.

A good gap filler isn't he?

God is the original cause. All the other theories are made up by man to try to fill the gap that is made when God is taken out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of the scientific law of cause and effect? It says that for every effect there must be a cause. If this is so, what caused the big bang? What caused life to spontaneously generate? The most likely answer I can think of is God.

Nice to see your creation "science" rejects science whenever it pleases.

The only scientific explanation for a beginning is a cause that is not bound by scientific laws: God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists have been trying to create life from non-life for a long time now. So far they have no succeeded. And if they ever do, it will only show that Intelligence is required for the formation of life.

Do creationists have trouble reading? Evolution doesn't explain how life formed, or how the universe formed.

Did I say evolution? I said scientists. Did you have a problem reading?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a link with more evidence regarding the idea of a Young Earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

I've looked at answersingenesis.org before, they are generally anti-science. Many of their claims aren't scientific and appears to be invented in their heads, provide the bible doesn't reject it. A funny one is they claim dead animals and plants should continue to live because they're getting energy from the sun, you can't get anymore ignorant towards science than that.

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s on that list:

 

 

 

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

 

 

 

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

 

 

 

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

 

 

 

4. Not enough sodium in the sea

 

 

 

5. The EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s magnetic field is decaying too fast

 

 

 

6. Many strata are too tightly bent

 

 

 

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢

 

 

 

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to a few years

 

 

 

9. Helium in the wrong places

 

 

 

10. Not enough stone age skeletons

 

 

 

11. Agriculture is too recent

 

 

 

12. History is too short

 

 

 

Look scientific to me.

 

 

 

 

How can the "scientific theory" of evolution continue to be taught when it goes against so many scientific principles?

Which scientific principles has it broken? The only group pulling out assumptions are creationists.

 

 

 

How can you call creationism science when all you've proven is it uses a god of gaps? Weren't you just calling it a scientific theory? It fails to even come close.

 

 

 

The principles listed above. And what gaps?

[Mr_Putter]

I honestly don't see what the point of all these religeon-vs-science posts. It's not like anyone's ever going to change someone elses mind. It's just a back-and-forth fight of what each person thinks is the right way. You're never going to change anyones mind. People aren't going to denounce religeon because some dude on some forum says his religeon is wrong. Also, people aren't going to join a religeon because someone says it's the right one. It's completely pointless in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a side note, whether people believe in a religeon or not, on average religeous people live happier lives (it's a hard fact). Religeons support charity work and are against stealing and other things, so religeous people are more happy. That's just a side note.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So really, do you think you can change someones mind on here? I doubt it. So why bother?

[Bubsa]

Likewise, I can't even begin to comprehend how our universe/galaxy/space started, never mind try and answer the question. The mind just boggles when I even think of stuff like that, how big it really is, why the sky's blue etc. And besides, I quite like living in the knowledge that it is a complete mystery to me. We human beings don't need to know everything about us, just to appreciate, gaze and marvel over what is and what might have been.

 

 

 

Topics like this just take the fun and wonder out of things, don't you think?

[bucky]

Likewise, I can't even begin to comprehend how our universe/galaxy/space started, never mind try and answer the question. The mind just boggles when I even think of stuff like that, how big it really is, why the sky's blue etc. And besides, I quite like living in the knowledge that it is a complete mystery to me. We human beings don't need to know everything about us, just to appreciate, gaze and marvel over what is and what might have been.

 

 

 

Topics like this just take the fun and wonder out of things, don't you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm with you. I was going to keep arguing against this creationism, but I decided the sceptics who would agree with me already do, so why bother. And Hug a tree is doing quite a good job by himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My only point is that I have greater confidence in the side of thinking which is prepared to admit they are wrong and change their onpinions to fit the evidence (i.e. scientists). And I hate the way creationists keep on going on about "evolutionists" when its the geologists and astrophysicists (sp?) they're arguing against.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really, from a human perspective, there's no real difference between hundreds of thousands of years, and billions of years - they're both waaaay bigger than we can possibly comprehend. I'd rather just go out and gaze up at the stars in wonder at the knowledge I'm just a little speck of a speck on a tiny rock flying through nothingness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my two cents, now back to stupid question stupid answer :lol: :P

[HugATree]

 

 

 

 

HugATree, you only provided evidence against one of Double_Edged arguments, on all the others you basically said "Nu-uh," which doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do anything to discredit Double_EdgedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s argument

His arguments were either outright lies, or recycled "evidence" that has been explained. His arguments had no credit to begin with, why should I have to got through every one because some people like ignoring todays science?

 

 

 

YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re arguments only disprove his IF science backs you up, something that has not been proven here.

 

 

 

Nope. You're shifting the burden of proof, I'm not require to disprove lies and assumptions. The burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. If he claims evolution says matter becomes alive, He is required to show evidence for this claim, evolution nevers says this so therefore its a lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also did not provide any evidence for any other theory of how the world began.

Why should I? He was arguing with evolution, evolution does not explain how the world came around.

He was also arguing for Creationism, as am I. Are you biased against the theory of Creationism so much that you would rather believe nothing than to believe in the most logical conclusion?

 

 

 

Where is the scientific evidence for creation? Attempting to disprove evolution won't prove creation by default.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below, I try to use evidence and logic to show that Creationism is a valid scientific theory of how the world began.

It never will be a theory, if creationism is anything its an unproven hypothesis.

 

 

 

People call evolution a theory, yet several times the theory has been changed to fit with the facts. Each time a scientific theory is changed it moves back to the hypothesis stage.

 

 

 

The theory of Creationism has been around since about 4,000 B.C., yet the same theory is still valid, even more so in some cases.

 

 

 

Nothing in science is 100% certain, scientific theories get improve based on more research. The "theory" of creationism does not hold up to scientific standards, therefore its not valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the theory that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

Why does it have to come from anywhere?

 

 

 

You believe that there was always energy just floating around?

 

 

 

Floating around where? Space was created with the big bang, even space itself contains quantum particles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most likely answer I can think of is God.

"I can't work it out, God did it."

 

 

 

Why would the eternal existence of energy be any more likely than the eternal existence of God? Or do you yourself have trouble working it out?

Energy is proven, your god of gaps isn't. See why creationism isn't science? Scientific theories must be falsifiable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most likely answer I can think of is God.

A good gap filler isn't he?

God is the original cause. All the other theories are made up by man to try to fill the gap that is made when God is taken out.

 

 

 

Prove it. You clearly haven't a clue what a scientific theory is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of the scientific law of cause and effect? It says that for every effect there must be a cause. If this is so, what caused the big bang? What caused life to spontaneously generate? The most likely answer I can think of is God.

Nice to see your creation "science" rejects science whenever it pleases.

The only scientific explanation for a beginning is a cause that is not bound by scientific laws: God.

 

 

 

Like above, prove it. I too can make up answers in my head, but they aren't valid if they can't be backed up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists have been trying to create life from non-life for a long time now. So far they have no succeeded. And if they ever do, it will only show that Intelligence is required for the formation of life.

Do creationists have trouble reading? Evolution doesn't explain how life formed, or how the universe formed.

Did I say evolution? I said scientists. Did you have a problem reading?

 

 

 

Yes you did, you claimed to list the errors of evolution. Obviously its just scientists you don't like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a link with more evidence regarding the idea of a Young Earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

I've looked at answersingenesis.org before, they are generally anti-science. Many of their claims aren't scientific and appears to be invented in their heads, provide the bible doesn't reject it. A funny one is they claim dead animals and plants should continue to live because they're getting energy from the sun, you can't get anymore ignorant towards science than that.

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s on that list:

 

 

 

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

 

 

 

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

 

 

 

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

 

 

 

4. Not enough sodium in the sea

 

 

 

5. The EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s magnetic field is decaying too fast

 

 

 

6. Many strata are too tightly bent

 

 

 

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢

 

 

 

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to a few years

 

 

 

9. Helium in the wrong places

 

 

 

10. Not enough stone age skeletons

 

 

 

11. Agriculture is too recent

 

 

 

12. History is too short

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The model was flawed, it was a computer simulation that didn't take into account the gravity of the surrounding stars.

 

 

 

2. Just the existence of the Kuiper Belt has refuted this. And that was over 50 years ago.

 

 

 

3. Strawman argument, much sediment never reaches the ocean floors. Some continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment.

 

 

 

4. Again like 3 you're assuming the rate is constant. Using this reasoning, if its snowing 1 inch an hour and the snow is 4 feet deep the earth is only 2 days old.

 

 

 

5. The earths magnetic field strengthens and weakens.

 

 

 

6. This argument states the strata had to be soft which is wrong as thick layers of sediment create high pressures allowing tight bends. This claim ignores water is incompressible, so soft sediment under pressure would cause eruptions even in a young earth.

 

 

 

7. Completely false. Unconsolidated sediments are not solidified by only pressure, they require chemical cementing agents.

 

 

 

8. Halos explained http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

 

 

 

9. Helium is produced by radioactive decay. I really don't know what this claim proves.

 

 

 

10. Nope. Not if you take into account even bone breaks down in most soil types. Only one victim of roman crucifixion has ever been found, does that mean only one person has ever been crucifed by your reasoning?

 

 

 

11. This is human behaviour, this doesn't prove the earth as young.

 

 

 

12. Like 11 its human behaviour, not a valid way of dating the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look scientific to me.

 

 

 

Been refuted years ago, they must be scientific then.

 

 

 

 

 

How can the "scientific theory" of evolution continue to be taught when it goes against so many scientific principles?

Which scientific principles has it broken? The only group pulling out assumptions are creationists.

 

 

 

How can you call creationism science when all you've proven is it uses a god of gaps? Weren't you just calling it a scientific theory? It fails to even come close.

 

 

 

The principles listed above. And what gaps?

 

 

 

One of the major factors in science is for the theory to be falsifiable, saying god does what you can't prove means creation will never be scientific.

[HugATree]

Creationism rests on "God did it". This is not science and never will be, gods definition makes him unfalsifiable, and using the god doesn't have to follow science claim won't help your case. By using god you're required to prove his existence as you are making a positive claim. If this fallacy was a valid argument anyone could say the easter bunny, tooth fairy, imaginary friend, etc. exists.

[Bubsa]

Can you two continue your little flame war in the other thread?

[HugATree]

This thread should've never been created, but he wanted me to reply here anyway.