Not really relevant to the contemporary science evolution. Darwin did propose the coherent hypothesis and outlined many of the unknowns that science needed to deal with in the future.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
baseless attempt to disprove Reality
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Not really relevant to the contemporary science evolution. Darwin did propose the coherent hypothesis and outlined many of the unknowns that science needed to deal with in the future.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Let me emphasize my point: the Darwin's Origin of Species is used by wrong people to prove Atheism. Part of that proof is the Big Bang, because Universe must have some Beginning. The Beginning is either natural (with help of hypothetical Theory of Everything) from zero-sized mathematical point, or the beginning is at 7000BC from initial state: initial matter distribution. Latter has no Actual Big Bang, but Virtual Big Bang.
But to have working Actual Big Bang model, one must prove the Laplace hypothesis of Solar System formation from a gas-dust cloud. But rotation of this cloud must violate the Kepler's laws, because currently the 95% of rotation momentum is contained in 5% of matter - planets.
Again. again and again theories and hypothesis are not proven, It is more than obvious you are apparently arguing that the science of evolution is wrong and not 'used by the wrong people to prove atheism.' It is a matter of fact that science cannot falsify the existence nor none existence of God. The following assertions on your part reflect a lack of basic High School knowledge of science.
The Big Bang is one hypothesis of several alternative, the only thing that has been objectively observed is the universe has been expanding for ~13-14 billions of years.
The different cosmological hypothesis for the beginning of the universe and the multiverse is not dependent on nor helped by the existence of a 'hypothetical Theory of Everything.'
This a belief in a mythological Creation described in Genesis, and not remotely based on science.
The LaPlace hypothesis of the formation has been overwhelmingly falsified by direct observation of other solar systems forming in our galaxy, and basic Newtonian physics. Absolutely no, Kepler's Laws do not conflict with the Laplace model of the formation of the universe. This is basic High School Physics today.
From: Kepler's Three Laws
In the early 1600s, Johannes Kepler proposed three laws of planetary motion. Kepler was able to summarize the carefully collected data of his mentor - Tycho Brahe - with three statements that described the motion of planets in a sun-centered solar system. Kepler's efforts to explain the underlying reasons for such motions are no longer accepted; nonetheless, the actual laws themselves are still considered an accurate description of the motion of any planet and any satellite.
Kepler's three laws of planetary motion can be described as follows:
- The path of the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus. (The Law of Ellipses)
- An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweep out equal areas in equal intervals of time. (The Law of Equal Areas)
- The ratio of the squares of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun. (The Law of Harmonies)
The above is the phony Intelligent design. The course of the natural evolution, history of life, our planet, our solar system, galaxy and universe is determined by the Laws of Nature and the nature of our existence. Humans may use these Laws of Nature, natural materials, and methods, and design a F22 Raptor, but they are subject to the same Laws of Nature as the natural nature of our existence..
No, it is not.
Sorry, but that is just how things are. What you just said is not only wrong, but it is also wrong in several different ways at once.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
And your point is wrong. Nobody "proves" atheism.
Atheists are waiting for god-people to "prove" their god-claims.
So far? The waiting continues-- especially due to the efforts of radical god-people.
What sort of god permits radical hate-speech used by these people in the name of god?
No-- the excuse of Free Will is absolutely not going to cut it-- considering the anecdotal stories of the countless times where god intervenes to 'prove a point' or to 'test the people'?
A radical who is telling a false narrative would be stopped-- and quickly too. A case of Dead Right There.
The fact that these radical spreaders-of-hate-in-the-names-of-gods are NOT Dead Right There?
Says a great deal. Mostly, it says that gods are not real (or don't care-- effectively the same thing).
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Nobody is trying to put Atheism on Scientific Basis? No, it is lie: everybody wants to be scientific: You are demon-possessed," the crowd answered. "Who is trying to kill you?" John 7:20.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
You cannot quote your myth, in an effort to support your myth.
That's a Logical Fallacy.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Is Bible banned from ReligionForums?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Nope, nothing phony, just facts. I never mentioned design, intelligent or otherwise.
The argument goes thusly, life exists, laws of nature exist, therefore, the laws of nature include a provision for creating life from non living matter.
Of course, this is purely a faith position, since, the process has never been observed, never recreated, and no fossils of the original precursor organism exist.
It is the phony¨ only one thing must be considered as the creator of life, no matter how impossible and unproveable it is ¨
Sort of a scientific version of Sherlock Holmes famous statement ¨ when all probable possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth¨. Though the fantasy abiogenesis is the only possibility ever considered.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No, it is only banned in Bob´s mind.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Is he sick? His mind is not objective.
I would hope not. That would be pointless, silly and entirely unnecessary.
But if there is anyone doing that, attempting to use Darwin's work for that purpose would be just insane. The guy was a brilliant zoologist, not a philosopher.
Did the word science even exist at the time? And why would I care what the Bible says?
Hardly. It just happens that quoting scripture is useless as argumentation.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Just admit, that Atheism is UNSCIENTIFIC. LOL.
Actually, it is not even "unscientific".
More like an inherent right.
Not that I have much hope for you having a working understanding of atheism, but you asked.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Your claim is: "Atheism is not Falsifiable, so it is not Scientific in the Popper's criterion."
Oh, no. My claim is that you are discussing an entirely fantastic and that the words that you use, including "atheism" and "scientific", do not hold even an accidental connection to their actual meanings.
You are not presenting anything that can be discussed, and we have no way to even attempt to guess what you actually mean.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
how about?....Someone had tp be First
followed by substance created Him?
the dead can beget the living?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Do tell! "Science has a working hypothesis for abiogenesis."
I'm ALL ears on this one.