The creator did it.

[gnostic]

Yet people belonging to religions have equally, if not more, contributed to science than of the no-religions.
Please remain in one's own framework of mind, if that please one.

paarsurrey. You have been here for 7 years or more now.

You should have learned by now, it is people, with or without religious belief, who were smart enough to understand nature and natural phenomena, and able to explain WHAT it is and HOW it work.

Religions have nothing to do with science.

During the Islamic Golden Age, it wasn’t the Qur’an or Islam that made the discoveries and advances in mathematics, architecture, astronomy, biology and medicine, it was the group of individual Muslims, who made those achievements.

Likewise, in the Renaissance, it was group of individuals of Christians who made advances in maths, astronomy, science, arts, architecture, technology, etc, not the Bible or the churches.

You are not giving credits to the men and women who made the discoveries in arts, science and technology’s, but to archaic scriptures that explain nothing and test nothing.

“God did it” is not detail explanation of nature, but wishful belief and blind faith. Religions contribute nothing to science. God didn’t contribute science.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey. You have been here for 7 years or more now.

You should have learned by now, it is people, with or without religious belief, who were smart enough to understand nature and natural phenomena, and able to explain WHAT it is and HOW it work.

Religions have nothing to do with science.

During the Islamic Golden Age, it wasn’t the Qur’an or Islam that made the discoveries and advances in mathematics, architecture, astronomy, biology and medicine, it was the group of individual Muslims, who made those achievements.

Likewise, in the Renaissance, it was group of individuals of Christians who made advances in maths, astronomy, science, arts, architecture, technology, etc, not the Bible or the churches.

You are not giving credits to the men and women who made the discoveries in arts, science and technology’s, but archaic scriptures that explain nothing and test nothing.

“God did it” is not detail explanation of nature, but wishful belief and blind faith. Religions contribute nothing to science. God didn’t contribute science.

I have explained my viewpoint, and I don't agree with yours. Please live in peace.

Regards

 

[Audie]

Cool how the creationist ignores exposure of his gullibility and arrogance....

There is actually no way to be gullible or wrong,
if you have god backing you up.

 

[tas8831]

I made the point.

If the point was that you take the word of professional creationists at face value, well, duh - all internet creationists do that.

My question was - did YOU actually look at any of the textbooks they claim still use Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution?

Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

Weird - I didn't realize attacking evolution and using dopey analogies equals "evidence."

 

[exchemist]

If the point was that you take the word of professional creationists at face value, well, duh - all internet creationists do that.

My question was - did YOU actually look at any of the textbooks they claim still use Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution?


Weird - I didn't realize attacking evolution and using dopey analogies equals "evidence."

Indeed. One of the perennial issues with ID is that there is no evidence, just a load of argument.

 

[Audie]

Do you really believe that natural selection working on Random, Undirected mutations (which are mostly neutral and deleterious -- rarely beneficial) can create the millions of innovative and diverse body plans we see in species of flora and fauna living and extinct, and can account for the symbiosis we observe among many organisms? In 560 million years?! (Not 3.5 billion.)

If so...you have more faith than I've ever had.

Haven't the experiments of Drusophila and E.coli taught you just how stable and invariant the genome really is?

And we're not even talking about the origin of life!

Do you really think that any of what you posted is in some
way data contrary to the ToE? Surely, even you know that
it is not.
Do you really-really think that the origin of life is a part
of or in any way necessary to the ToE? After the
number of times this has been patiently been explained
to you???

All manner of rhetorical questions, demos of ignorance
and incredulity, and that marvy cliche about faith
do not add up to anything but a show that you dont
have diddly squat.

Now, if you have as many as one nice little datum point
such as to disprove the ToE, trot it right out.

 

[Milton Platt]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Science has not proven either of those things so far as I can tell. If you have access to papers which reach those conclusions, please provide a link.

 

[Audie]

Science has not proven either of those things so far as I can tell. If you have access to papers which reach those conclusions, please provide a link.

It is amazing how to our creos,
"science" is absolutely correct when it
seems to support t heir ideas.

In this case, science has certainly not shown
either of those to be impossible.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is amazing how to our creos,
"science" is absolutely correct when it
seems to support t heir ideas.

In this case, science has certainly not shown
either of those to be impossible.

Thanks for the response to my post, Audie. I always enjoy your posts. You have a clarity and an economy of words that is admirable.

 

[paarsurrey]

1. If we find something in which there is no human hand to produce, it has been customary during the ages to say, "G-d did it".There is nothing wrong in it.
2. The man in the street is neither interested in knowing nor can understand the intricate processes God adopted to produce things for us.

"The 'God' did it” argument are only for those people who don’t want to understand how the world work." Unquote

If somebody asks me "Who created the Heavens and the Earth?". I will reply him that God did it. If one asks what processes were adopted in its creation. I will say that it was created by Big Bang as per the current science and life came into being as per Evolution.
I don't think there is anything wrong about it.

This is the meaning of "God did it". Right, please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

As has been explained by others, your assertion that science has “shown that something cannot come from nothing” is unsupported by evidence. However, if we wish to entertain that as true, it then becomes necessary to explain where a god came from. On the otherhand, if the god has always existed, there is no reason that we can’t just assume matter and/or energy have always existed, and eliminate one step.

 

[Audie]

As has been explained by others, your assertion that science has “shown that something cannot come from nothing” is unsupported by evidence. However, if we wish to entertain that as true, it then becomes necessary to explain where a god came from. On the otherhand, if the god has always existed, there is no reason that we can’t just assume matter and/or energy have always existed, and eliminate one step.

Nice way of saying "made up garbage".

 

[Milton Platt]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

One is free to make any assertions about a supposed beginning, of course. The question is, are they justified in making the assertion. Filling the gaps in knowledge with "a god did it" has never worked. Gods have consistently become responsible for less and less over the centuries as knowledge has increased. That will continue to be so.
If "something cannot come from nothing", what was the pre-existing material used by god to form the universe? Don't go down the "god's spirit" path in your answer unless you are prepared to give a definitive description of what "spirit" is and can demonstrate it to both exist and be as you describe it.
I don't know why you think it is impossible for something to come from nothing, not withstanding that is not a prevailing theory in scientific circles. Bear in mind that "nothing" has a different definition for an astrophysicist than for laypersons. I think when you hear about the Big Bang, you presume that nothing existed before that moment. We do not know that. The Big Bang is postulated as the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of the cosmos.

 

[shunyadragon]

I made the point.


Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

These reference provide an argument for ID, but they fail to present a coherent hypothesis that may be falsified based objective verifiable evidence without a religious agenda. They failed to present this when they had the opportunity at the Dover trial, and had to face the overwhelming evidence that what they were arguing for was a religious belief and not science.

 

[SugarOcean]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Those opposed to a creator based first cause while invoking science as superior and a rational rebuttal fail to actually provide anything other than theory behind "first cause". That makes their theorem no more valid than the faith based theory they mock and ridicule.

And yet, the science based who insist something comes from nothing will call themselves rationalists.
Humor is an important co-factor in science apparently.

 

[shunyadragon]

Those opposed to a creator based first cause while invoking science as superior and a rational rebuttal fail to actually provide anything other than theory behind "first cause". That makes their theorem no more valid than the faith based theory they mock and ridicule.

And yet, the science based who insist something comes from nothing will call themselves rationalists.
Humor is an important co-factor in science apparently.

i have seen this bogus video before, deja vu of of ignorance, and it reflects a bogus anti-science agenda.

 

[ecco]

This is the meaning of "God did it". Right, please?

Not really.

GodDidIt is what ancient man (and still some today) say when asked questions that have no answers with then current knowledge.

Questioner: What caused that big mountain to explode?
Honest answer: We don't know (yet).
Answer given by leaders who dare never say "I don't know": God Did It.

 

[ecco]

Those opposed to a creator based first cause while invoking science as superior and a rational rebuttal fail to actually provide anything other than theory behind "first cause".

As opposed to folks like you who propose that an Omni-All-Entity has always existed. A position for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Perhaps you can answer why your Omni-All-Entity waited for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of his existence before he created this earth.

Oh, what's that you say?

• Mysterious are the ways of God
• It's not for us to question why God does what God does
• If God wanted us to know He would have revealed it
• etc ad nauseam

 

[shunyadragon]

Those opposed to a creator based first cause while invoking science as superior and a rational rebuttal fail to actually provide anything other than theory behind "first cause". That makes their theorem no more valid than the faith based theory they mock and ridicule.

And yet, the science based who insist something comes from nothing will call themselves rationalists.
Humor is an important co-factor in science apparently.

There could or could not be a first cause as far as science is concerned, and no science has never proposed that anything can come from nothing. An ignorance of the science of physics, Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology only compounds the contradictions of this bizzaro post.

 

[SugarOcean]

There could or could not be a first cause as far as science is concerned, and no science has never proposed that anything can come from nothing. An ignorance of the science of physics, Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology only compounds the contradictions of this bizzaro post.

"One creates from nothing. If you try to create from something you're just changing something. So in order to create something you first have to be able to create nothing." -Werner Erhard