Genesis and The Big Bang

[warri0r45]

One thing I have learned is that you cannot force education onto an adult, they have to want to learn. For this reason all we can do is present the facts, arguments and resources then it is upto them to pick up that knowledge and learn on their own.

 

This is pretty much why your suggestion wont do much good, Dusqi. If people want to learn they'll go find some good information on these subjects, but the problem with most creationists is that they just don't want to hear any evidence contrary to their beliefs.

 

I know that posting what I have in this thread is largely useless; I just hope other people can get something out of it and I can clear things up for them.

[Intriguing]

One thing I have learned is that you cannot force education onto an adult, they have to want to learn. For this reason all we can do is present the facts, arguments and resources then it is upto them to pick up that knowledge and learn on their own.

 

This is pretty much why your suggestion wont do much good, Dusqi. If people want to learn they'll go find some good information on these subjects, but the problem with most creationists is that they just don't want to hear any evidence contrary to their beliefs.

 

I know that posting what I have in this thread is largely useless; I just hope other people can get something out of it and I can clear things up for them.

Well I can affirm that you have at least one reader learning from your posts. I know you've cleared up a few issues I've had with evolution in the past. (Not trying to suck-up, more trying to get across the point that people shouldn't stop posting about things that they know about even if it feels like no one pays attention.) It should also be noted that I was raised a Creationist.

[DaN]

One thing I have learned is that you cannot force education onto an adult, they have to want to learn. For this reason all we can do is present the facts, arguments and resources then it is upto them to pick up that knowledge and learn on their own.

 

This is pretty much why your suggestion wont do much good, Dusqi. If people want to learn they'll go find some good information on these subjects, but the problem with most creationists is that they just don't want to hear any evidence contrary to their beliefs.

 

 

Some people find it difficult to ignore evidence when it is put right in front of them, others are ignorant and may not even be aware that the evidence exists. Most of the stuff you know had to be presented to you at some stage or you might not even know to look for it.

[warri0r45]

One thing I have learned is that you cannot force education onto an adult, they have to want to learn. For this reason all we can do is present the facts, arguments and resources then it is upto them to pick up that knowledge and learn on their own.

 

This is pretty much why your suggestion wont do much good, Dusqi. If people want to learn they'll go find some good information on these subjects, but the problem with most creationists is that they just don't want to hear any evidence contrary to their beliefs.

 

 

Some people find it difficult to ignore evidence when it is put right in front of them, others are ignorant and may not even be aware that the evidence exists. Most of the stuff you know had to be presented to you at some stage or you might not even know to look for it.

 

Perhaps, but in my experience I can't even remember hearing creationists be open to any information I've given to them - I think a lot of them are just so blinkered that real evidence does nothing to sway them. That's not to say that there aren't more open-minded creationists out there - I'm sure there are some that will begin questioning what they've been brought up to believe when presented with a scientific perspective. Perhaps posts on formums like this are a catalyst for those people to dig deeper and to start thinking for themselves. What Intriguing said was encouraging, so I thank him for that.

 

Personally, I was driven to learn about these issues almost exclusively by personal curiosity and research. Formal education helped as well, but mostly reinforced what I'd already learnt.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

As well, I have yet to hear or see of any transition fossil.

 

Could you explain what your definition of a transitional fossil would be? I.e. what characteristics would a fossilized creature require for you to consider it a valid transitional form?

[walka92]

Evolution? More like evololtion

leave. before i get my knife. and dont come back

[Zamorakshadow]

Evolution? More like evololtion

leave. before i get my knife. and dont come back

 

... I actually lol'd at this...

 

 

For thoose talking about close-minded creationists... Doesn't matter how much evidence you show them, and doesn't matter how many times you debunk their arguments, most of them have the idea of Evolution = Wrong since they were young and that won't change.

 

For the past few days me and a few other people have been arguing with one in YT comments, we have debunked all his arguments, but all creationists do when defeated is ignore us and repeat old arguments. I already gave him over 7 examples of beneficial mutations, and he keeps repeating " Give me at least ONE example of a beneficial mutation".

 

We won't ever change their minds. The only reason i have to debate with them is because i like debates, other than that, all of this is pointless =\.

 

Though, this isn't anything new, convincing people to change their minds about anything is hard -.-

[elucin8er]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

 

2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it.

 

"According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism"

 

Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God.

 

God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack.

[Amaranth_GTO]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

The reason it's symbolic meanings cannot be disproved is because no one even knows what all of them are. I myself have heard at least 5 interpretations of the passage about how it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go to heaven. I've heard many interpretations of the story about the 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. You said it yourself, no one even knows the full symbolic meaning of the book. How can the unknown be disproved?

[stonewall337]

I think what i will say might have been said already, but, whatever...

 

 

 

Macro evolution DOES exist.

Macro evolution has been observed in the fossil record, macro evolution has been observed ( Culex Pipens - Culex Molestus), and Macro evolution IS micro evolution piling up after milhons of years.

A dog won't turn to a horse, but it will turn into a different species with time, just like wolves turned to dogs and homo neanderthalensis turned to homo sapiens, just give it a few milhons of years.

Scientists don't use the words Micro and Macro evolution for decades because they know that Micro will eventually lead to Macro, this is proven for a looong loooong time.

 

There are tons of evidence for both Evolution and the Big Bang. Anyone who denies them either doesn't know anything about them or just refuse to accept them.

Evolution is called "The unifying theory of Biology" for a reason, you know.

 

You see, you typify most evolutionists. They claim that "no scientists disagree with evolution" when in fact numerous do. Honestly, the majority also thought the earth was flat, and had "evidence" to prove it. Many people don't believe in global warming either. As well, no missing link has ever been found. The argument mentioned earlier that very few early human remains have been found, and that is why no missing links have been found, actually proves my point. If the earth was created around 6,000 years ago, then the oldest fossils would obviously be around 6,000 years old.

 

Essentially, there is not solid proof for either argument. However you attempt to shut us up by intimidation. I, however, use logic. Matter doesn't create itself, which evolution claims. Creation claims that God created matter. Now, if I were to find a chocolate cake on the table, and asked who made it, the person stating that my sister (whom I have never met) made it would be more easy to believe than the person stating that the cake created itself. Now, no analogy stands up to close scrutiny, as you can all see.

 

Now, to those who are saying you can prove evolution, or the big bang, you can't. You just can not. You can not repeat those events, (although some theorize that another big bang could occur, but I digress) and you can not witness those events occurring for the first time. Neither can you prove that God created the earth. To those who say God is a crutch, I could simply reply that the reason Darwin thought of the "THEORY" of evolution, is because he was a disgruntled preacher. Of course, I am not claiming this, merely stating that this excuse is as valid as the other, nonsensical.

 

There are numerous proofs against the Big Bang however, such as Uranus. If I have a big ball of clay rotating at a very high rate of speed, and pieces fly off, then those pieces will rotate in the same direction as the original piece of clay. Uranus rotates in the OPPOSITE direction.

[Zamorakshadow]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

 

2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it.

 

"According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism"

 

Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God.

 

God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack.

 

 

First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right?

Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist.

 

Second, LOL, Newton, really?

Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING.

No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time.

 

Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information.

 

And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang.

I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them.

 

But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists.

 

 

EDIT: Answering other comment whitout double posting... [hide]You see, you typify most evolutionists. They claim that "no scientists disagree with evolution" when in fact numerous do. Honestly, the majority also thought the earth was flat, and had "evidence" to prove it. Many people don't believe in global warming either. As well, no missing link has ever been found. The argument mentioned earlier that very few early human remains have been found, and that is why no missing links have been found, actually proves my point. If the earth was created around 6,000 years ago, then the oldest fossils would obviously be around 6,000 years old.

 

Essentially, there is not solid proof for either argument. However you attempt to shut us up by intimidation. I, however, use logic. Matter doesn't create itself, which evolution claims. Creation claims that God created matter. Now, if I were to find a chocolate cake on the table, and asked who made it, the person stating that my sister (whom I have never met) made it would be more easy to believe than the person stating that the cake created itself. Now, no analogy stands up to close scrutiny, as you can all see.

 

Now, to those who are saying you can prove evolution, or the big bang, you can't. You just can not. You can not repeat those events, (although some theorize that another big bang could occur, but I digress) and you can not witness those events occurring for the first time. Neither can you prove that God created the earth. To those who say God is a crutch, I could simply reply that the reason Darwin thought of the "THEORY" of evolution, is because he was a disgruntled preacher. Of course, I am not claiming this, merely stating that this excuse is as valid as the other, nonsensical.

 

There are numerous proofs against the Big Bang however, such as Uranus. If I have a big ball of clay rotating at a very high rate of speed, and pieces fly off, then those pieces will rotate in the same direction as the original piece of clay. Uranus rotates in the OPPOSITE direction. [/hide]

 

First off, okay there are Creationist idiotic scientists who disagree, but Evolution is accepted by 95% of scientific community.

Second, we have transitional fossils showing evolution from the cambrian period to today, we have so much evidence for evolution it is overhwelming, just search for it.

Third, evolution deosn't claim matter creates itself.

We know the big bang happened, and now are trying to find out where all of that came from. Perhaps there is a God, we don't know, but we are trying to find out.

 

We can't witness thoose events happening, but even though a detective doesn't see the murder happening, he knows the murder happened and has the evidence to get the killer. There is evidence for theese events.

 

Also, LOL, you are taking evidence from KENT HOVIND?! That proofs you don't know anything about what Big Bang theory says, or the history of the universe after the Big Bang, or the formation of starts/planets.

 

 

 

Here is the first video ( on a list of around 4) that prooves all Kent Hovind's points WRONG. Have fun.

[stonewall337]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

 

2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it.

 

"According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism"

 

Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God.

 

God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack.

 

 

First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right?

Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist.

 

Second, LOL, Newton, really?

Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING.

No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time.

 

Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information.

 

And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang.

I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them.

 

But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists.

 

You using loathing, instead of logic. There were people who were athiests back in Newtons era, as they exist now. Please, if you are going to insult, instead of instruct in your believe, then why post in a debate topic? This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.

[Zamorakshadow]

[hide]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

 

2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it.

 

"According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism"

 

Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God.

 

God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack.

 

 

First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right?

Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist.

 

Second, LOL, Newton, really?

Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING.

No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time.

 

Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information.

 

And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang.

I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them.

 

But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists.

 

You using loathing, instead of logic. There were people who were athiests back in Newtons era, as they exist now. Please, if you are going to insult, instead of instruct in your believe, then why post in a debate topic? This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.

[/hide]

 

First, if i sound like i am insulting, sorry, i'm in a pretty bad mood today, that is not my intention.

 

Also, yes there were atheists back then, but still, Newton had no evidence for anything besides creationism.

There was no Theory of Evolution, no Big Bang theory, not even a Cell Theory at the time. It is obvious that he would believe in creationism, he had no alternatives.

If Newton lived today, and we showed him all evidence for both sides, and he is open minded, i'm pretty sure he won't be a creationist. He would possibly still believe in a God, but he would think the Bible isn't literal for sure.

See, logic here =)

 

EDIT:

 

Heres why most scientists accept evolution.

[elucin8er]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

 

2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it.

 

"According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism"

 

Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God.

 

God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack.

 

 

First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right?

Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist.

 

Second, LOL, Newton, really?

Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING.

No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time.

 

Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information.

 

And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang.

I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them.

 

But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists.

 

 

You assume in Newtons time there were no aethists, when in fact there were. And in your arguement, who better to be an aethiest than a scientist correct? This is why my point is valid, indicating that such an educated man still has strong religious beliefs. And although most people don't know it, he actually wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics than his science his is remembered for today.

[Zamorakshadow]

[hide]

Sigh, I was reading through this topic forcing myself not to get back into it, but after reading this post I just had to

 

There are thousands of academic journals countless and documented evidence and yet people are still brainwashed by religion. All the evidence that will ever be needed to combat religion already exists. The problem is trying to communicate that evidence to less intelligent and/or less educated people.

 

 

It's the 21st century but people still beleive in primative fairly tales. The best we can do is continue expanding the human knowledge, some of us will remain in the dark ages but for many religion gradually give way to reason, The "Athiest Revolution" is well underway as human knowledge continues to expend.

 

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it.

 

2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it.

 

"According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism"

 

Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God.

 

God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack.

 

 

First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right?

Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist.

 

Second, LOL, Newton, really?

Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING.

No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time.

 

Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information.

 

And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang.

I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them.

 

But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists.

 

 

You assume in Newtons time there were no aethists, when in fact there were. And in your arguement, who better to be an aethiest than a scientist correct? This is why my point is valid, indicating that such an educated man still has strong religious beliefs. And although most people don't know it, he actually wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics than his science his is remembered for today.

[/hide]

 

I didn't assume there were no atheists, i'm just saying religion had A LOT more power in thoose days.

 

Newton didn't have any evidence for anything besides religion. If he had access to alternatives ( backed up by evidence), he wouldn't be a Creationist. He would maybe still believe in God, but he would know that Evolution & Other Theories are facts.

 

 

Some points you guys made i answered edditing other posts ( didn't want to double post =\), can you answer them please?

[Lateralus]

Oh dear. I really never thought I'd see someone quote Alister McGrath. The man is an idiot. Clearly he knows his theology, but he gets battered into the ground every time I hear him speak.

[stonewall337]

Radio Carbon dating. This is the most often used objection to a young earth. As radioactive elements age, they break down into daughter elements at a presently consistent rate (based on our current knowledge). However, the problems with untestable assumptions in dating methods are most obvious here, as a date depends on 1) knowing the starting amount, 2) knowing the history of the decay rate, and 3) knowing that all contamination has been accounted for. Obviously, these assumptions cannot be proven without an objective history of the specimen being studied. In fact, there is growing evidence that radioactive decay has not always been constant and that the rock layers could not have formed over millions of years.

[Zamorakshadow]

There are numerous proofs against the Big Bang however, such as Uranus. If I have a big ball of clay rotating at a very high rate of speed, and pieces fly off, then those pieces will rotate in the same direction as the original piece of clay. Uranus rotates in the OPPOSITE direction.

 

Since i don't really expect you to see the video i posted debunking this argument, i'll answer myself before logging off:

 

First of, NO ONE ever said the Big Bang was spinning. Big Bang theory says that all matter was compressed in a single place, when the universe started expanding. No rotating ball of clay.

 

We have evidence for this expansion ( such as background radiation).

 

After the expansion, all matter in the universe was Hydrogen ( and some Helium). The Hydrogen formed gigantic clouds, and gravity after a few milhons of years made the clouds collapse and become stars ( this happens. This has been observed hundreds of time, in fact). The nuclear fusion of the stars made Hydrogen fuse, creating heavier elements, and all known elements started forming.

 

Our solar system formed 10 bilhon years AFTER the Big Bang, and Uranus spinning has nothing to do with the Big Bang, it has something to do with the formation of the Solar System. NOT Big Bang.

 

To understand the history of the universe you need to know a lot about Physycs and Chemistry, and to know about how life formed and evolved after the formation of the Solar System you need to know lots of Biology and Geography.

People like Kent Hovind ( dude that came up with Uranus arguement) and other "Creation Scientists" know nothing of any of theese disciplines, and are now spreading misinformation. Ugh.

 

 

EDIT not to double post again:

 

[hide]

Radio Carbon dating. This is the most often used objection to a young earth. As radioactive elements age, they break down into daughter elements at a presently consistent rate (based on our current knowledge). However, the problems with untestable assumptions in dating methods are most obvious here, as a “date” depends on 1) knowing the starting amount, 2) knowing the history of the decay rate, and 3) knowing that all contamination has been accounted for. Obviously, these assumptions cannot be proven without an objective history of the specimen being studied. In fact, there is growing evidence that radioactive decay has not always been constant and that the rock layers could not have formed over millions of years

[/hide]

 

There are over 20 ways of dating, all tested, we know how all of them work, and all point at a 4.6 bilhon years old earth.

Also, dating is not the only evidence for an old earth we have. The size of the universe and how we can see galaxies over 6000 light years away is one of them.

One of the lots of evidence for an old Earth. Telling someone that works with Geography that the earth is 6000 years old is like telling him the Earth is flat.

 

We know the Earth is over 4 bilhons of years old. This has been tested and proven for a loong looong time. Please DON'T tell me you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, or i'll go mad >.<

[Wisp]

Plus clay shooting off of a rotating clay ball would go straight out, not rotate.

[Amaranth_GTO]

I think what i will say might have been said already, but, whatever...

 

 

 

Macro evolution DOES exist.

Macro evolution has been observed in the fossil record, macro evolution has been observed ( Culex Pipens - Culex Molestus), and Macro evolution IS micro evolution piling up after milhons of years.

A dog won't turn to a horse, but it will turn into a different species with time, just like wolves turned to dogs and homo neanderthalensis turned to homo sapiens, just give it a few milhons of years.

Scientists don't use the words Micro and Macro evolution for decades because they know that Micro will eventually lead to Macro, this is proven for a looong loooong time.

 

There are tons of evidence for both Evolution and the Big Bang. Anyone who denies them either doesn't know anything about them or just refuse to accept them.

Evolution is called "The unifying theory of Biology" for a reason, you know.

 

You see, you typify most evolutionists. They claim that "no scientists disagree with evolution" when in fact numerous do. Honestly, the majority also thought the earth was flat, and had "evidence" to prove it. Many people don't believe in global warming either. As well, no missing link has ever been found. The argument mentioned earlier that very few early human remains have been found, and that is why no missing links have been found, actually proves my point. If the earth was created around 6,000 years ago, then the oldest fossils would obviously be around 6,000 years old.

The church thought the earth was flat too. Everyone did until research was done to prove that this was false, then slowly people accepted that it was round. The same reasoning applies here. At first everyone thought a God (or gods) created everything. Now research is being done to see how the earth was formed, and how life originated. Slowly, people are going to accept that the science is correct, just as they did when proving the earth is not flat. And the earth was created billions of years ago, not 6,000.

 

Essentially, there is not solid proof for either argument. However you attempt to shut us up by intimidation. I, however, use logic. Matter doesn't create itself, which evolution claims. Creation claims that God created matter. Now, if I were to find a chocolate cake on the table, and asked who made it, the person stating that my sister (whom I have never met) made it would be more easy to believe than the person stating that the cake created itself. Now, no analogy stands up to close scrutiny, as you can all see.

There is plenty of proof. And if you want to pull that card, then where did God come from? Did he make himself, just as the cake did?

 

Now, to those who are saying you can prove evolution, or the big bang, you can't. You just can not. You can not repeat those events, (although some theorize that another big bang could occur, but I digress) and you can not witness those events occurring for the first time. Neither can you prove that God created the earth. To those who say God is a crutch, I could simply reply that the reason Darwin thought of the "THEORY" of evolution, is because he was a disgruntled preacher. Of course, I am not claiming this, merely stating that this excuse is as valid as the other, nonsensical.

Evolution has been proved, we have proved it to you, you are just too close minded to listen to our arguments. And Darwin never worked in the church and we have proof of that, so it is far less valid.

 

There are numerous proofs against the Big Bang however, such as Uranus. If I have a big ball of clay rotating at a very high rate of speed, and pieces fly off, then those pieces will rotate in the same direction as the original piece of clay. Uranus rotates in the OPPOSITE direction.

Yes, and almost all of those "proofs" against the big bang have been proved impossible.

[Stragomagus]

From this point on I suggest calling out the "creationists" fallacies using this page.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

 

 

oh.....and did all you creationists really just ignore and not even attempt to refute the videos I posted? You realize that is an admission of not having a decent argument right?

 

 

 

 

Essentially, there is not solid proof for either argument. However you attempt to shut us up by intimidation. I, however, use logic. Matter doesn't create itself, which evolution claims. Creation claims that God created matter. Now, if I were to find a chocolate cake on the table, and asked who made it, the person stating that my sister (whom I have never met) made it would be more easy to believe than the person stating that the cake created itself. Now, no analogy stands up to close scrutiny, as you can all see.

There is plenty of proof. And if you want to pull that card, then where did God come from? Did he make himself, just as the cake did?

 

What we call the "god" argument in terms of fallacy is "infinite" regression.

[Rien]

There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL.

There's plenty of evidence available to combat a number of religious beliefs. It's a different story, though, when the nature of God is called into question.

 

Will we ever find evidence to disprove God's existence? Most likely not, and this is simply because the so-called 'supernatural' cannot be studied through our strictly natural means. However, it's important to note that an extraordinary number of religious/superstitious beliefs have been debunked through the application and development of scientific processes in the last several centuries; much of what was once attributed to deities, spirits, and the supernatural has now been proven to fall under the realm of science, and this trend can only continue as our knowledge waxes.

 

 

Essentially, there is not solid proof for either argument. However you attempt to shut us up by intimidation. I, however, use logic.

You're mistaken. Science is founded on solid evidence derived from rigorous experimentation; the Bible and many other religious writings are not accredited and were written by (as I believe someone has already said) superstitious bigots thousands of years ago. Where's the logic is ascribing to the latter?

 

Concerning the 'intimidation' you mentioned, can you expand on that? I'm curious (honestly) about what you mean by that.

 

 

As well, no missing link has ever been found.

Matter doesn't create itself, which evolution claims.

Both of these statements are grossly incorrect. :???:

 

Transitional fossils HAVE been discovered - a great many of them, in fact. There may be gaps in the fossil record here and there, but what can you expect? After all, organic material normally decomposes completely, so we're fortunate to have uncovered all that we have. Anyway, and despite the dilemma of having to search for the remains of ancient organisms, our knowledge of evolution continues to grow, so I can't understand how you can possibly claim that no 'missing link' has ever been found.

 

As for the second statement, I have to wonder where you heard that? It really couldn't be further from the truth - according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

 

Now, to those who are saying you can prove evolution, or the big bang, you can't. You just can not. You can not repeat those events, (although some theorize that another big bang could occur, but I digress) and you can not witness those events occurring for the first time.

Evolution has long been proven to occur. And yes, we can study it; bacterial cultures, in particular, have been especially useful subjects of study, as several generations of bacteria can cycle through in a matter of minutes (accelerating evolution and greatly increasing our ability to study its long-term effects).

 

The Big Bang is another matter, granted, since we cannot replicate the effects (and not because it's impossible - it's simply due to the fact that we do not yet have the means to do so). However, even without being able to recreate our 'own' Big Bang, there are still many avenues of research into the theory that are still available to us, and these are being explored systematically. There's a tremendous amount of evidence lending credibility to the Big Bang theory, and I'll remind you here that a 'scientific theory' is quite different from a conventional 'theory'.

[Grim_]

Stone one of your "arguments" almost had me spitting blood I was so angry. More specifically the one about how the earth is 6,000 years old because there are no fossils that show it was older. Then let me ask you one thing. What about dinosaurs? They have been proven by 20 seperate methods to be far older than 6,000 years old. Furthermore we have geologic proof that soil layers started much much longer ago than 6,000 years. Going off topic I would like to know if I had raised you to worship the great god zeus would you then believe in that myth of creation? Just something for you to think about as you seem to be regurgitating arguments that have been used for quite some time.

[warri0r45]

Examples of fish to tetrapod transitional fossils:

 

Tiktaalik roseae:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406100543.htm

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

 

Ventastega:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140643.htm

[Wisp]

Problem with talking about transition fossils is that people complain that there are no transition fossils in between them and so on. We're not gonna find every fossil of everything that has ever lived, obviously.