The Big Bang and Evolution

[metis]

It's funny, in a rather pathetic way, that some theists keeping on insisting that we need to supply evidence for the ToE, which has amply been supplied to them if they'd open their eyes and head, and yet they have this believe in a deity or deities for which there simply is not one shred of evidence for.

Just to repeat, the ToE does not negate the possibility of a theistic causation, and a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts in this day and age based on what we know is really bad science and bad theology.

 

[ArtieE]

The even lied. The said Miller-Urey created life---THEY DID NOT.

Everybody, watch the video from 22:10. The narrator says the news media claimed that Miller-Urey had created life. Neither Miller-Urey nor any other scientists claimed that.

 

[Valjean]

And you have the right to prove there is evidence in these links by simply cutting an pasting it for all to see. Yot none of you true beleiv eshas don't that. Makes me thin you can't. Prove me wrong.

The evidence is everywhere. Presumably you were taught it in school. You purposely ignore it.

Not only am I declaring it impossible, so does real science.

You're declaring your computer impossible??

would It was to produce life and the amino acids were they. They just discovered them.

Why would they go to the trouble of such an experiment if they knew it was contaminated and would produce no useful results?

I expect intelligent people to look at what is presented as evidence. So far none of you have presented any scientific data.

You have produced no evidence for this "element of life," and you're deliberately blind to any scientific evidence.
You're either trolling or incredibly obtuse.

 

[psychoslice]

It's funny, in a rather pathetic way, that some theists keeping on insisting that we need to supply evidence for the ToE, which has amply been supplied to them if they'd open their eyes and head, and yet they have this believe in a deity or deities for which there simply is not one shred of evidence for.

Just to repeat, the ToE does not negate the possibility of a theistic causation, and a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts in this day and age based on what we know is really bad science and bad theology.

Remember these are simple minded people.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yours is a false dichotomy There is no "Logic of the existence of God." I was right. Your belief in God is axiomatic, it's sine qua non. You will dismiss any explanation that doesn't include magic poofing. Why are you even participating in a scientific discussion, where reasoning proceeds from evidence to conclusion? You're reasoning is from conclusion to cherry picked evidence. A more productive tack would be an attempt to prove this God.

So, you find no Logic in the existence of the Primal Cause; is that what you mean? Well, let's use the concept of Causality to prove the Logic for the existence of the Primal Cause.

Could the Universe have caused itself to exist? Logically, absolutely not! Why? Because, for something to cause itself to exist, it had to exist to do so. Since it already existed, it would not need to further cause itself to exist. That's the first statement based on pure Logic. Now, for the second logical statement, scientists always refer to the age of the Universe as of being about 14 billions of years old and proved to be a fact because of the Carbon-14, a scientific experiment to confirm the age of the Universe. Therefore, it has become obvious that the Universe had a beginning. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, the existence of the Primal Cause aka the Creator has been proved obvious with the existence of the Universe.

 

[ArtieE]

Now, for the second logical statement, scientists always refer to the age of the Universe as of being about 14 billions of years old and proved to be a fact because of the Carbon-14, a scientific experiment to confirm the age of the Universe.

This is of course complete nonsense. Carbon-14 dating is used to date fossils and because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. Nothing to do with the age of the Universe.

 

[Valjean]

So, you find no Logic in the existence of the Primal Cause; is that what you mean? Well, let's use the concept of Causality to prove the Logic for the existence of the Primal Cause.

Could the Universe have caused itself to exist? Logically, absolutely not! Why? Because, for something to cause itself to exist, it had to exist to do so. Since it already existed, it would not need to further cause itself to exist. That's the first statement based on pure Logic. Now, for the second logical statement, scientists always refer to the age of the Universe as of being about 14 billions of years old and proved to be a fact because of the Carbon-14, a scientific experiment to confirm the age of the Universe. Therefore, it has become obvious that the Universe had a beginning. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, the existence of the Primal Cause aka the Creator has been proved obvious with the existence of the Universe.

Current thinking: Universe just popped (expanded) into existence from no known cause.

What's obvious and commonsense in the everyday world is illusory. It's not really real.
Commonsense says something can't be in two places at once, time can't speed up or slow down, objects can't expand or contract with speed, particles can't influence each other instantly across a million light years and a cat is either alive or dead -- period.

Again, don't try to apply everyday experience to Reality.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Current thinking: Universe just popped (expanded) into existence from no known cause. What's obvious and commonsense in the everyday world is illusory. It's not really real.
Commonsense says something can't be in two places at once, time can't speed up or slow down, objects can't expand or contract with speed, particles can't influence each other instantly across a million light years and a cat is either alive or dead -- period. Again, don't try to apply everyday experience to Reality.

Really! Just like that; from the hat of the magician! But let's assume you are right. If the Universe has an age according to the Carbon-14, it had a beginning. Okay, so either it caused itself to begin or it was caused by something else that preceded it. Since, logically, it could not have caused itself to beginning, it becomes obvious that it was caused by something else. What could have caused the Universe to begin? Can you think of any one else besides the Primal Cause?

 

[Ben Avraham]

This is of course complete nonsense. Carbon-14 dating is used to date fossils and because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. Nothing to do with the age of the Universe.

Okay, so how was the age of the Universe figured and by who? If you have found Carbon-14 not safe to measure the age of the Universe, where did they get the age of the Universe from to account for 14 billion yeas? Have any idea?

 

[Valjean]

Really! Just like that; from the hat of the magician! But let's assume you are right. If the Universe has an age according to the Carbon-14, it had a beginning. Okay, so either it caused itself to begin or it was caused by something else that preceded it. Since, logically, it could not have caused itself to beginning, it becomes obvious that it was caused by something else. What could have caused the Universe to begin? Can you think of any one else besides the Primal Cause?

The age of the universe is not based on radiometric dating. The Universe’s Baby Pictures Reveal It’s a Bit Older Than We Thought

Why does the universe need to have a cause at all? You're stuck in your commonsense, Newtonian perception of the world.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The age of the universe is not based on radiometric dating. The Universe’s Baby Pictures Reveal It’s a Bit Older Than We Thought. Why does the universe need to have a cause at all? You're stuck in your commonsense, Newtonian perception of the world.

Because only nothing comes from nothing. Did you yourself come from nothing? No, from your parents; and your parents? From their parents; and their parents? As you can see, I am talking about the concept of generic Causality. If I keep asking, it won't go forever without an end. Something or Someone caused the first couple of parents to exist. Why? Because they could not have come from nothing. The same with the Universe as we are parts of the Universe. The Universe could not have come out of nothing. So, if you don't believe that the Primal Cause caused the Universe to exist, what or who did it? Why? Because your answer for a solution is no answer and makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Ben Avraham]

It's funny, in a rather pathetic way, that some theists keeping on insisting that we need to supply evidence for the ToE, which has amply been supplied to them if they'd open their eyes and head, and yet they have this believe in a deity or deities for which there simply is not one shred of evidence for. Just to repeat, the ToE does not negate the possibility of a theistic causation, and a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts in this day and age based on what we know is really bad science and bad theology.

No Metis, I for myself do not expect that atheists provide us with answers for, I am sure, they don't have them. What I expect is that they stop asking questions whose answers they are pre-trained to deny.

 

[Valjean]

Because only nothing comes from nothing. Did you yourself come from nothing? No, from your parents; and your parents? From their parents; and their parents? As you can see, I am talking about the concept of generic Causality. If I keep asking, it won't go forever without an end. Something or Someone caused the first couple of parents to exist. Why? Because they could not have come from nothing. The same with the Universe as we are parts of the Universe. The Universe could not have come out of nothing. So, if you don't believe that the Primal Cause caused the Universe to exist, what or who did it? Why? Because your answer for a solution is no answer and makes absolutely no sense.

Stop it, Ben Avraham! You're trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Reality does not work like the everyday world you perceive around you.

No Metis, I for myself do not expect that atheists provide us with answers for, I am sure, they don't have them. What I expect is that they stop asking questions whose answers they are pre-trained to deny.

Now you're reading opinions and experiences into atheism that aren't there.
Atheists aren't pre-trained to anything. Atheism isn't a philosophy or world-view.
If anyone is trained to ignore evidence and eschew critical thinking, it's the theists, not the atheists.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Stop it, Ben Avraham! You're trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Reality does not work like the everyday world you perceive around you.
Now you're reading opinions and experiences into atheism that aren't there.
Atheists aren't pre-trained to anything. Atheism isn't a philosophy or world-view.
If anyone is trained to ignore evidence and eschew critical thinking, it's the theists, not the atheists.

How come I have never got a positive reply from an atheist? They don't have them. Hence, my statement that they are, so-to-speak trained to deny any thing that's not according to their atheistic preconceived notions. I am sorry, but hat's how I think.

 

[Valjean]

If you make statements contrary to fact, propose incorrect premises, make errors in reasoning or draw illogical conclusions you have to expect to be contradicted no matter what the subject is.

No-one is against you or out to suppress your ideas. You could be discussing plate tectonics, colour theory or Slavic history and you would still be corrected if you drew incorrect conclusions.

 

[Ben Avraham]

If you make statements contrary to fact, propose incorrect premises, make errors in reasoning or draw illogical conclusions you have to expect to be contradicted no matter what the subject is. No-one is against you or out to suppress your ideas. You could be discussing plate tectonics, colour theory or Slavic history and you would still be corrected if you drew incorrect conclusions.

But it depends on who is gonna contradict me. If theists should not contradict atheists, by the same token, atheists
should not contradict theists. That's what I mean.

 

[Ben Avraham]

If you make statements contrary to fact, propose incorrect premises, make errors in reasoning or draw illogical conclusions you have to expect to be contradicted no matter what the subject is. No-one is against you or out to suppress your ideas. You could be discussing plate tectonics, colour theory or Slavic history and you would still be corrected if you drew incorrect conclusions.

I understand and, by the same token, I am entitled to correct an atheist if he or she is drawing incorrect conclusions.
Agree?

 

[metis]

No Metis, I for myself do not expect that atheists provide us with answers for, I am sure, they don't have them. What I expect is that they stop asking questions whose answers they are pre-trained to deny.

The reality is that no one has "the answers" on this-- only some think they do.

It is virtually impossible to find objective evidence for a theistic cause or a non-theistic cause, and I can live with not knowing and do so without resorting to imaginary "answers". In my experience, there's really far more theists who grasp at imaginary straws based on literally no objective evidence than atheists.

Were you there at "creation"? I may be old, but I ain't that old, so I'll stick with my "I don't know" posture.

 

[metis]

How come I have never got a positive reply from an atheist?

I am not an atheist, but let me just mention that I did posit what most cosmologists tend to think is most likely on this issue of "creation", and that is that all may well go back into infinity, thus no "primal cause". Mathematically, it does work out, but we don't have the ability to double-check the math on this issue.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The reality is that no one has "the answers" on this-- only some think they do. It is virtually impossible to find objective evidence for a theistic cause or a non-theistic cause, and I can live with not knowing and do so without resorting to imaginary "answers". In my experience, there's really far more theists who grasp at imaginary straws based on literally no objective evidence than atheists. Were you there at "creation"? I may be old, but I ain't that old, so I'll stick with my "I don't know" posture.

How about Logic for heaven's sake! I was not there at "creation" but I can make use of Logic which dispenses of having been back there at Creation. I have proved the existence of God with the use of Logic but, as I said before, atheists are not interested in theistic evidences for the existence of God as if they ignore the method of Logic to unveil the mysteries of concepts. Believe me, their reaction to any thing theistic is like the immune power of vaccinations.