Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Does Religion cause Wars
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 2/7/2013 7:04:19 PM
Certainly does.


Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare


Encyclopedia of Wars.

But History tells us it is not the Primary cause as many anti-religious websites promote.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1325 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/17/2013 6:20:36 PM
robertus, You should probably ask yourself what to the Catholics is considered a heretic? Try anyone not Catholic including Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and even other Catholics. You're either willfully ignorant of the facts, or willfully lying


Willfully ignorant or lying? Try this:


An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heresy

Heresy only applies to Catholics.So who is ignorant?


Btw, in my reading of Catholic Encyclopedia, they freely admit they used and condoned torture as a regular part of the Inquisition. Kinda hard to defend people like that but feel free


BTW I’m curious about some teachings in a Jewish Holy Book and what they mean?Here are some.


"The Non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves" [2]
Midrasch Talpioth 225



A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.
- Sanhedrin 54b



Jews May Steal from Non-Jews - Baba Mezia 24a



"Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is of three years of age."
- Yebhamoth 11b


"If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there"
- Moed Kattan 17a


"The Non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves" [2]
- Midrasch Talpioth 225


Does one take these teachings literally? If so. Pretty hard to defend people like that but feel free.


Christianity itself was based and founded upon the idea that the Jews killed Jesus


Wrong. Christianity was founded upon the teachings of Jesus.

Here is another perspective on the Noahs Ark thing. If you lived in say Tasmania a 1000 years ago your perception of how big the world was would be Tasmania. If Tasmania was completely flooded you would indeed think there had been a World wide flood.

Now if that happened where Noah lived they might well have thought the whole world had been flooded.What is the big deal about that?There may well have been an Ark built and all the animals on board were from the local area because that is all they had knowledge of.

Doesn’t prove there ever was a world wide flood, nor does it prove it was the work of God.However the positive thing about the Noahs Ark story is that it has led Humanity to investigate the possibility of there ever being a world wide flood.

The evidence suggests that there was flooding on a large scale across the world.Now if ancient people did not write about it, we would have no knowledge of it.Correct?

Now why Creationists would take the story literally is beyond me.The only factual thing about the Ark is the dimensions are compatible with how modern ships are built.So they did indeed know how to build a large vessel.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1311 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/16/2013 7:31:05 PM

You seem to have forgotten that evolution is already a proven scientific fact, as well as an already proven scientific theory.


Wrong.The Common Ancestor aspect has never been proven.


So the fact that Catholics persecuted the Jews for centuries, created the infamous "blood libel", created a place to hang Jews in Rome (which wasn't taken down until relatively recently) and a recent Pope even revived a prayer that called for the conversion of the Jews not instances of Catholic Antisemitism?

What prayer would that be?Making stuff up?


Catholics aren't anti-semitic? Oh! Well I'm convinced. I'm sure all the Jews and suspected Jews murdered in the Inquisition just for being Jews or friends of Jews will rest easier now huh


The Inquisition was anti-heretic not anti-semitic.Seeing the Inquistion card was thrown.

What does this mean?


Deuteronomy 20:10, "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord, they God, hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself: and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee...But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."


Did that include babies throughout History? Russia and Armenia come to mind where millions of Christians were killed.Is Genocide perfectly acceptable to Jews? Must be it is in their Scriptures.


And that whole assisting fleeing Nazis after WWII to foreign countries was all just a misunderstanding right


Some individual Bishops were involved, but the Vatican was not aware of and did not condone those actions. Pope Pious X11 (wartime Pope) was fiercely opposed to Nazism.He was actually dedicated to rescuing Jews.After the war he was very outspoken about bringing Nazi war criminals to trial.He even spent a lot of his time preparing evidence for many Nazi war trials.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1297 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/15/2013 3:28:09 PM

By your statement above, you seem to think that the gospel accounts are historical, eyewitness accounts, that Matthew was just writing down what the Jews actually said --- an unbelievably naive viewpoint! The gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts, nor were they written at the time of Jesus. They were written by anonymous, highly-educated, Greek-speaking Christians decades after the fact. Furthermore, there is every reason for the authors to include anti-Jewish elements into the gospels, since their religion was based partially on Judaism and the Jewish revolt of 70 CE made the Jews a hated group. Therefore, the Christians had to de-link themselves from the Jews as much as possible, and so they created the gospels where it's the Jews who killed Jesus.

As for your question, I studied theology at Tyndale University & Seminary. How about you?


Well if you studied Theology you must know that no one knows when the gospels were exactly written.Doesn’t mean they were not reflective of what happened.Get over it Jesus existed and was crucified.You are just trying to invalidate Christianity by saying Jesus didn’t exist.The evidence is too ample to ignore

Would be a better argument to ask a Christian to prove his Divinity, which is the real issue.Don’t ask me though because I don’t really give a shit to be honest


As I said already, I was raised Christian, and heard it from the mouths of Christians that Jews (and not the Italians) killed Jesus, which is a bunch of crap told about a possibly mythical individual, I STILL hear it from the mouths of Christians, and it's been portrayed exactly that way in movies, and it is a VERY sick idea that Christians continue to perpetuate


Well if Christians are still saying stuff like that they are not Christians at all. If you were raised a Catholic you should know that ant-Semitism was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Did some Popes, Saints and Priests twist the scripture to imply this? Yes they did. But we must remember the Catholic Church ruled most of Europe for centuries.It was all about power.

Catholicism actually considers itself a fulfilment of a Jewish propechy.Does the Catholic Church have a perfect record? No it doesn’t. But no one is perfect.

Luther who was the founder of Protestantism really twisted the anti-Semitism thing.He even wrote a book about it.


Some can cut DNA apart, and others can put it back together


How did the DNA code originate? .It has more information than a library of books.


Since Creationists believe that the Noah's Ark story can be proven scientifically, I'd also like to see the evidence on that


Ah the Noahs Ark thing. Well for a start it should not be taken literally.Ancient writers often used Mythology to convey stories about events.We should really be asking what were they trying to convey? .
Well some sort of Great Flood and how Humans and animals survived.Ancient writers must have got the notion of a Great Flood from somewhere.Why else would they have written about it?.

It is curious though that even other ancient cultures have passed down stories of some sort of cataclysmic flood.Was there a Great Flood on Earth that nearly wiped out all life? Or were there massive localised floods?.No one really knows..
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 499 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 10:11:40 PM

And evolution proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that life did not begin on this planet by some supernatural means, as is claimed in the bible


The Theory of Evolution does not even address or prove how life originated.How did you come to that conclusion? It has never been proven how life originated.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1285 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/13/2013 6:32:12 PM

How was "His blood be on us and our children!" quoted out of context? This passage declares that the guilt/responsibility for the death of Jesus is the Jews and their descendants (there is no possible other way it could be taken!).

Please tell me how that statement was out of context, else retract your statement.


It was the crowd that condemned Jesus that said that.Because Pilate thought he was innocent.You have made it sound like it was written by Christians.It was never intended to be an anti-Semitic statement.The author (Matthew) would have been Jewish anyhow.

Therefore you are quoting out of context.Where did you study Theology? Sunday School?


I think you should be happy things aren't any worse for the religious crowd. If it were up to me, I would pound christianity right back to the bronze age where it came from.


Do you also want to get rid of Judaism and Islam?


What is true is that I don't find it nonsense that to this very day Christians continue the myth that Jews killed Jesus (if there was such an individual). I also don't find it amusing at all. I think it's a very serious thing, as it has led to everything from blackballing, to pogroms, to The Holocaust


Once again stating that Christianity caused the holocaust is just as dumb as saying that Stalin caused more deaths than the crusades or the holocaust put together and then blaming atheism as the sole cause.

Pogroms in Russia were retaliation for the assassination of Alexander 11 by Jewish terrorists.


This guy (dan) read a scientific paper and he's STILL spelling things like "reed" and "summery"??


I don’t think he is a native English speaker.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1214 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/11/2013 4:10:04 PM

I am referring to the fact that Germany was a Protestant nation, which meant they were Christian. The Holocaust went over fairly winningly in Germany, and I have 3 ideas about that – first, the whacko Christian bs that “Jews killed Jesus” - a sick Christian idea for sure, when it was the Italians that killed him, if he did exist. Second, that Germans, being nationalistic to the hilt, saw Jews first as Jews, and second as German because Jews maintained themselves as a non-proselytizing religion, which meant they were cohesive, and Christians were not easily incorporated into the group. Third, that in any nation with major financial problems and a right wing government, it never fails to be that scapegoats are chosen to blame the problems on, and the Jews were a likely target for the second reason I stated.



More proof you don’t know what you are talking about.The Christian population of Germany in the 1930’s was Protestant/Catholic to start with..Many church leaders openly opposed nazism.When they did many were arrested and never seen again..The whole country lived in fear and if you want to know the truth very few people of the general population had any knowledge of the holocaust.All they knew was that Jews were being imprisoned but not systematically killed.Some historians think that Hitler hated the Jews because he blamed them for losing WW1.But no one really knows what motivated Hitler.

If Christianity was the motivation behind the holocaust, then how do you explain the estimated 3-4 million Polish Catholics that were also killed.? Hitler also wanted to rid Germany of Christianity.That is why all Bibles were confiscated from schools.Christians and Jews lived in peace in Germany until the Nazis came to power.

How do I know this?My Mother was born in Germany in 1930.Nothing better than an eyewitness I would think.


Generally speaking, people don't question the actual existence of Jesus. They question who he actually was. Finally, there are secular historical writings about Jesus and other Biblical stories.


Good point. To deny the existence of Jesus in light of historical evidence is indication of either serious ignorance or simply a biased mind regarding the subject.


All of these are A.D. and loooooooooong after the alleged life of Jesus, which is what we've been talking about. There is nothing from the time when the alleged Jesus lived. It's just all people writing about the religion.


So what.A lot of historical figures were not written about until a long time after their death.


Considering the amount of contradiction amongst the stories, it's hard to say they are even talking about the same thing


The stories would have been passed from one generation to another.That would be word of mouth.So if for example your two Grandfathers were Babe Ruth fans.And you wanted to write a book about Babe Ruth, do you think the two stories you get from your Grandfathers would be identical? Don’t think so.Might be roughly identical but not entirely.The stories might even have contradictions.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1203 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/10/2013 5:43:59 PM

Jews and Muslims do not believe Christ existed.


Wrong.Muslims believe in the second coming of Christ just as Christians do.


Unlike muslims, there is no "official" position on jesus for jews, because jewish holy scripture predates christianity. Jews can believe anything they want, including that jesus is a mythical character, rather than a historical figure. Their beef is with christians...whom actually do exist


Isn’t it part of the Jewish faith to not interfere in other religions teachings?.So there is no beef with Christians at all.


I have not Tried to push one religious view on anybody, Im not quoting scripture and asking people to repent. I'm looking at the bible and life of Jesus from a historical stand point


You haven't.
Jewish scholars acknowledge he existed.Doesn’t the Vatican own part of the Cross anyway? The one that says on it "Jesus of Nazareth" and the writing has been dated to the 1st Century.Now that wouldn't be a coincidence would it?I think Pontious Pilate had it written on there.


These are events that I'm pretty sure would make the local blogs...... but they didn't


What do you think they had newspapers and books in the 1st Century and even before that?.Very few people could read and write back then.The few people who could were mostly clergy.


How about the Crusades? How about the monstrous Holocaust, in which a Protestant Christian country premeditatedly plotted to rid the world of Jews?


So are you blaming Christianity for the holocaust?If so that would mean the rest of your post is fluff as well.


humans absolutely do kill rampantly and you have given an example. another is the actual genocide of the tasmanian aboriginal. yet another is the attempt at the genocide of the australian aboriginal.


Wrong.It was mostly disease that killed Aboriginals in Australia (smallpox).It wasn’t an attempt at genocide at all.It was actually illegal to kill Aboriginals in the early colonies of Australia.Many Europeans were put to death for exactly that.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Will atheism be Americas new way? WHen?
Posted: 1/8/2013 3:04:09 AM
How can North America embrace atheism when it says on their currency "In God We Trust"Does that mean that they don't believe in money also? One would think that by the Trillions they owe.Strange how the Chinese are embracing Christianity.Did you know that atheism is a Fools Philosophy?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 449 (view)
 
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 1/7/2013 6:19:47 PM

I'm not trying to argue whether these things happened or not.
I'm simply sharing that there are a lot of people in the scientific community who think these assertions are true


Why the rejection of the notion that there was a world-wide flood? Typically atheists reject the notion because it says so in the Bible.Where does the notion come from then? Why did they write about it? Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maoris and I believe American Indians all have passed down stories of a devastating flood at some point in history.Might have been local floods.Who knows.No one knows for sure if there was a world-wide flood.

But it is curious that ancient people wrote about such an event and have passed down sories about such a thing happening.


There is also very little evidence to suggest that the Kingdom of David ever existed (we only have one piece of evidence, which mentions a "house of David") and not a single trace of Solomon's great empire


Haven't they found evidence that Solomon's temple actually existed?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 453 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 3:37:40 AM

Science has established as fact, that a god as defined by catholics, muslims and others, has never and will never exist.


Do you have a link for that or are you just making more shit up as per usual.Did you know the LCE is out of date?Where is the scientific evidence? Facts would be good? You said facts. Where are they?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 306 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/1/2013 1:44:33 AM
Did you also know that the Value Of Science to Atheism=ZERO.I will have to repeat it.The Value Of Science to Atheism would be the total sum of ZERO.The value of science to atheism would be ZERO.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 305 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/1/2013 1:32:49 AM
Did you know that atheism is a fools philosphy? Ask an atheist how life originated? Ask an atheist how the Universe originated? They have no answers.Other than Bullshit.They are simply the biggest liars that God ever put breath into.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1032 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:10:23 AM

You have lost none of your talent for oblivious self-mockery
.

Didn’t they teach you in primary school science that nothing is absolute.? Or didn’t you pass the entry exam to start with?

This is a lie


No it wasn't.
It was widely believed but the the belief wasn't based on anything 'scientific'. It was implied by theological interpretation of, supposedly inerrant, 'scripture'

So really, the idea that the 'earth is flat' was actually a 'theological fact', or in other words - a lie


There is no where in the Bible that describes the Earth as being flat.The Bible describes the Earth as it is (spherical).

It is not a ‘theological fact’ Ancient cultures thought the world was flat because that is what their senses told them.It had nothing to do with theology.You are a liar.


Although overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth,it is still an open question whether the universal common ancestor existed or not. Theobald (Nature 465, 219-222 (2010)) recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test applied to aligned sequences of conservative proteins sampled from all domains of life and concluded that the universal common ancestor hypothesis holds. However, we point out that there is a fundamental flaw in Theobald's method which used aligned sequences. We show that the alignment gives a strong bias for the common ancestor hypothesis, and we provide an example that Theobald's method supports a common ancestor hypothesis for two apparently unrelated families of protein-encoding sequences (cytb and nd2 of mitochondria).This arouses suspicion about the effectiveness of the "formal" test


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22666131

Same article.Why didn’t you quote this? That would be cherry picking.

It has never been proven that there was a UCA.What part of that don’t you understand?.It is too difficult to prove.You have missed the point.Sadly you lack comprehension skills.


It hasn't.
The only thing that's collapsed (a loooong loooong time ago) is your credibility.
Though you continue to stumble about in the ruins, mining whacko sites like 'world-mysteries.com' and quoting noted crackpots such as Richard Milton


Come in spinner!.Milton is an atheist.I’m still laughing you spent all that time discrediting him.’Crackpot atheist” does have a nice ring to it.

You never had any credibility to start with.Evidenced by your misrepresentation of the ‘flat earth’ thing.Misrepresentation is a particular trait of this poster.In other words a liar.

Did you know that internet atheists have the lowest IQ on the planet? Here is a link to the truth.


internet atheist

Angry atheist who trolls internet sites denouncing God, Christians and religion; Atheist internet troll who demonstrates a basic ignorance of reason; Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same; Atheist who contradicts themselves through poor reasoning, especially one who exhibits hypocrisy


I really like the comments about being ignorant of science and logic You fit the bill perfectly.Which is evidenced by your “flat earth” comments.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1027 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/20/2012 12:58:44 AM

Robertaus, don't feel bad. You're not the only person to make this mistake. A lot of people do, since both words, theory, and scientific theory use the word theory in them. Get regular speech theory and SCIENTIFIC THEORY straight in your head, and I guarantee you'll be able to see science from a rational perspective, rather than something to be suspicious and mistrustful of


What part of this definition do you disagree with? Accepting a theory as absolute is not being rational.You need to get that straight in your head.You have missed the point entirely.


Definition:In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result



scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)


At one point, 'The earth is flat' was a scientific fact.

Don't feel bad .Nothing is absolute.


That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science that continues to explain vast numbers of facts in biology
(Wikepidia)


Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life,despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses



Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarelybeen subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463738

Don’t feel bad that wikipedia got it wrong.

It has never been proven that all life has a common ancestor(it is an unproven assumption).It has never been proven that simple life forms evolved into complex life forms.

No need to feel disheartened that the “tree of life” has collapsed.


And while the evidence for evolution itself remains persuasive -- especially the homologies that are found in comparative anatomy and molecular biology of many different species -- much of the empirical evidence that was formerly believed to support the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection has melted away like snow on a spring morning, through better observation and more careful analysis



"As a science journalist and writer with a lifelong passion for geology and palaeontology -- and no religious beliefs to get in the way -- I was in a unique position to investigate and report on the state of Darwin's theory in the 1990s. The result was unambiguous. Darwin doesn't work here any more."



So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory


http://www.world-mysteries.com/rmilton_darwin1.htm


The list that robertaus quoted was from 2001. I could post a list of famous people who thought that the world was flat and the sun revolved around it but what would be the point?


The 2011 updated list is here.The point is that sometimes things that were regarded as facts are not facts at all.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Even now some Cambridge University educated people are on the list.


Thank you for clarifying that your science education is high school. So, well below that of my three children. Only the 16 year old thinks your posts are funny BTW - the other two think they are boring and ignorant


What’s your point? Didn’t Einstein fail exams?

What countries teach creationism as science anyway?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1022 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/17/2012 11:30:28 PM

The article wasn't about proving evolution (evolution is already proven, no need to prove it again)


Wrong.


Yes, the word "theory" gives the misleading notion that evolution is just an idea, yet to be proven. Scientific terminology can confuse the uninitiated. For instance, I'm sure many creationists would see a statement like "evolution is both a fact and a theory" to be contradictory.



Definition:In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result


What the Theory of Evolution doesn’t prove is that all biological life has a common ancestor which Darwin assumed. Also there is no proof that a species can change beyond its genetic capability(another assumption).Therefore the Theory of Evolution is not a settled fact and is open to question.If the assumption is correct that all biological life had a common ancestor.Was the common ancestor male or female?

If every aspect of the Theory of Evolution has been proven.Then why is it still called a theory?Isn't saying a theory is a fact and a theory an oxymoron?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 1008 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/16/2012 3:11:06 PM

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.


Want some more?

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 983 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/14/2012 2:31:43 PM

Abiogenesis is taught as the best explanation for the origins of life on earth. If it is irrefutable, it is only as far as the current limits of knowledge - that is, new information can always prove it wrong, just like any other scientific theory (in case you missed my point, nothing in science is technically irrefutable since science is always tentative).



If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids being laid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their all being joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the astronomical figure of 1 in 10950. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth


Yep the odds of spontaneous generation are about zero.Why is it taught as fact?

http://www.world-mysteries.com/rmilton_darwin1.htm


BTW, you still haven't addressed the point about the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution. Are you ready to concede on this point and admit that creationists are an extreme fringe minority within science? (it's no big deal if you were wrong)



“This sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being – der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity – a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law.”

–Abdus Salam, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in electroweak theory. He is here quoted in his article entitled Science and Religion.

.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

–Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.

.

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details.”

–Albert Einstein

.

“God [is] the author of the universe, and the free establisher of the laws of motion.”

–Physicist and chemist Robert Boyle, who is considered to be the founder of modern chemistry.

.

“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

–Physicist Paul Davies in his book God and the New Physics. Davies is the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards).

.

“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”

–Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, former post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology and author of The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God.

.

“The universe is a put-up job.”

– Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, referring to the fine tuning of the laws of nature which he felt “could not be just a happy accident,” as his Cambridge colleague John Polkinghorne put it in Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity.

.

“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

–Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow. Please see Jastrow’s book God and the Astronomers for further reading.

.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

.

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”

“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”

“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

–Sir Isaac Newton, who is widely regarded to be the greatest scientist the world has ever produced.

.

“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

–Max Planck, (the Nobel Prize winning physicist considered to be the founder of quantum theory, and one of the most important physicists of the 20th century, indeed of all time).

Religion and Natural Science (Lecture Given 1937) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 184

.

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” [Emphasis added]

–Albert Einstein, as quoted in Antony Flew’s book, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

.

“…Those laws are within the grasp of the human mind. God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts… and if piety allow us to say so, our understanding is in this respect of the same kind as the divine, at least as far as we are able to grasp something of it in our mortal life.”

–Johannes Kepler, the German mathematician and astronomer who discovered the laws of planetary motion which later served as one of the foundations for Issac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation. Kepler is considered to be one of the founders of the field of astronomy.

.

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

–Charles Darwin, who is considered to be the founder of evolutionary biology, as quoted in his autobiography.

.

“The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is nonintuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief that God became Man around two thousand years ago, may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense intuitions.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Tony Hewish as quoted in the forward to John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale’s book Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions about God, Science, and Belief.

.

“The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

“If there are a bunch of fruit trees, one can say that whoever created these fruit trees wanted some apples. In other words, by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.”

–Arno Penzias, the 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics as cited in New York Times on March 12, 1978 (first quote) and ‘The God I Believe in’, Joshua O. Haberman – editor, New York, Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994, 184. (second quote)

.

“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.”

–Physicist Paul Davies, mentioned above.

.

“I believe that a full understanding of this remarkable human capacity for scientific discovery ultimately requires the insight that our power in this respect is the gift of the universe’s Creator who, in that ancient and powerful phrase, has made humanity in the image of God (Genesis I: 26-27). Through the exercise of this gift, those working in fundamental physics are able to discern a world of deep and beautiful order–a universe shot thorough with signs of mind. I believe that it is indeed the Mind of that world’s Creator that is perceived in this way. Science is possible because the universe is a divine creation.”

–Former Cambridge University professor of mathematical physics John Polkinghorne, as quoted in his book Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship. Polkinghorne is a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) and Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE). In part because of his insights about God from physics, Polkinghorne changed careers and joined the Anglican priesthood.

.

“It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, ‘Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to expect.’”

–Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize, as quoted in his essay Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God.

.

“It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed.”

–James Joule, propounder of the first law of thermodynamics (on the conservation of energy). Joule also made important contributions to the kinetic theory of gases. The unit of heat known as the “Joule” is named after him.

.

“Let me say that I don’t see any conflict between science and religion. I go to church as many other scientists do. I share with most religious people a sense of mystery and wonder at the universe and I want to participate in religious ritual and practices because they’re something that all humans can share.”

–Sir Martin Rees, the British cosmologist and astrophysicist who has been Astronomer Royal since 1995 and was the president of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010. Rees is the winner of the Crafoord Prize (which is the most prestigious award in astronomy), amongst many other awards.

.

“A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

–Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize, as above.

.

“Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details–the blade of grass, the Conus cedonulli, or the resonance levels of the carbon atom–also suggest a God of purpose and a God of design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist.”

–Owen Gingerich, former research professor of astronomy and of the history of science at Harvard University

.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

–Albert Einstein

.

“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

–Physicist Tony Rothman, former post-doctoral fellow at Oxford University

.

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

“From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.”

–Professor of mathematical physics Frank Tippler

.

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

“Religion is founded on faith. It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime.”

“But the context of religion is a great background for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork’. Thus scientific research is a worshipful act, in that it reveals more of the wonders of God’s creation.”

–Arthur L. Schawlow, professor of physics at Stanford University and winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics

.

To the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”

Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”

–Nobel Prize winning chemist Christian Anfinsen

.

“You accept the historical Jesus?”

“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

–Albert Einstein, from an interview with the Saturday Evening Post

.

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

–Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist Arno Penzias.

.

“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

–MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowsky

.

“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

–Cosmologist and astronomer Edward Robert Harrison

.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

–Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle commenting on the incredible fine-tuning necessary for life to exist (as quoted in The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross).

.

“Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.”

–Former Harvard University research professor of astronomy and the history of science Owen Gingerich, who is also the senior astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Gingerich is here reflecting on Fred Hoyle’s above comment.

.

“Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.”

–Imperial College of London astrophysicist C.J. Isham.

.

“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

–Astrophysicist and mathametician Edward Milne (winner of the Royal Society’s Royal Medal, the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and the Bruce Medal)

.

“We all know that there are regions of the human spirit untrammeled by the world of physics. In the mystic sense of the creation around us, in the expression of art, in a yearning towards God, the soul grows upward and finds fulfillment of something implanted in its nature. The sanction for this development is within us, a striving born with our consciousness or an Inner Light proceeding from a greater power than ours. Science can scarcely question this sanction, for the pursuit of science springs from a striving which the mind is impelled to follow, a questioning that will not be suppressed. Whether in the intellectual pursuits of science or in the mystical pursuits of the spirit, the light beckons ahead and the purpose surging in our nature responds.”


– The great physicist Sir Arthur Eddington as quoted in his classic work The Nature of the Physical World

.

“What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation.”

–Astronomer Robert Jastrow from Until the Sun Dies

.

Then, last week, American scientists announced the discovery of radiation patterns in space that may mark the beginning of time itself. Said astrophysicist George Smoot, leader of the research team: “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God. The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it.”

“Whatever caused the rapid expansion of the universe following the Big Bang–the same forces caused tiny ripples. Because if you try to do something too fast, you shake a little. God might be the designer. ”

–Maclean’s, May 4, 1992 (the two above quotes are by astrophysicist and cosmologist George Smoot).

.

“It is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life.”

–Nobel Prize winning chemist Richard Smalley

.

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

–Albert Einstein

.

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.”

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

.

“For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-’In the beginning God.’”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Arthur Compton, discoverer of the Compton Effect.

.

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

“Something which is against natural laws seems to me rather out of the question because it would be a depressive idea about God. It would make God smaller than he must be assumed. When he stated that these laws hold, then they hold, and he wouldn’t make exceptions. This is too human an idea. Humans do such things, but not God.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

.

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

.

“This much I can say with definiteness – namely, that there is no scientific basis for the denial of religion – nor is there in my judgment any excuse for a conflict between science and religion, for their fields are entirely different. Men who know very little of science and men who know very little of religion do indeed get to quarreling, and the onlookers imagine that there is a conflict between science and religion, whereas the conflict is only between two different species of ignorance.”

“The first important quarrel of this sort arose over the advancing by Copernicus of his theory that the earth, instead of being a flat plane and the center of the universe, was actually only one of a number of little planets, rotating once a day upon its axis and circling once a year about the sun. Copernicus was a priest – the canon of a cathedral – and he was primarily a religious rather than a scientific man. He knew that the foundations of real religion are not laid where scientific discoveries of any kind can disturb them. He was persecuted, not because he went against the teachings of religion but because under his theory man was not the center of the universe and this was most displeasing news to a number of egoists.”

“To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.”

“Religion and science, then, in my analysis are the two great sister forces which have pulled, and are still pulling, mankind onward and upward.”

“The impossibility of real science and real religion ever conflicting becomes evident when one examines the purpose of science and the purpose of religion. The purpose of science is to develop – without prejudice or preconception of any kind – a knowledge of the facts, the laws and the processes of nature. The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the consciences, the ideals and the aspirations of mankind.”

–Robert Andrews Millikan, who won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect.

.

“I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.”

“Science, with its experiments and logic, tries to understand the order or structure of the universe. Religion, with its theological inspiration and reflection, tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure, and structure ought somehow to be interpretable in terms of purpose.”

“At least this is the way I see it. I am a physicist. I also consider myself a Christian. As I try to understand the nature of our universe in these two modes of thinking, I see many commonalties and crossovers between science and religion. It seems logical that in the long run the two will even converge.”

–Charles Hard Townes, who received the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics.

.

“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible.”

“I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.”

“Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me. It is also perfectly natural for the many scientists I know who are also people of deep religious faith.”

–William D. Phillips, who was granted the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.

.

“Science is experimental, moving forward step-by-step, making trial and learning through success and failure. Is not this also the way of religion, and especially of the Christian religion? The writings of those who preach the religion have from the very beginning insisted that it is to be proved by experience. If a man is drawn towards honour and courage and endurance, justice, mercy, and charity, let him follow the way of Christ and find out for himself. No findings in science hinder him in that way.”

–William Henry Bragg, winner of the 1915 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contribution to the analysis of crystal structures by means of X-rays.

Bragg’s daughter Gwendolen Mary Caroe wrote about her father’s faith:

“Religious faith to W. H. Bragg was the willingness to stake his all on the hypothesis that Christ was right, and test it by a lifetime’s experiment in charity.”

.

“The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer; the more I feel that the so-called science, I am occupied with, is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves.”

“I am proud to be a Christian. I believe not only as a Christian, but as a scientist as well. A wireless device can deliver a message through the wilderness. In prayer the human spirit can send invisible waves to eternity, waves that achieve their goal in front of God.”

–Guglielmo Marconi, winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics for his invention of the first successful system of wireless telegraphy. Marconi is the inventor of the radio; his revolutionary work made possible the electronic communications of the modern world.

.

“I believe in God, who can respond to prayers, to whom we can give trust and without whom life on this earth would be without meaning (a tale told by an idiot). I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in many ways and through many men and women, and that for us here in the West the clearest revelation is through Jesus and those that have followed him.”

–Sir Nevill Mott, recipient of the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physics for his research on the magnetic and electrical properties of noncrystalline semiconductors.

.

“Physics filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me closer to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. Whenever one of my students came to me with a scientific project, I asked only one question, ‘Will it bring you nearer to God?’ ”

–Isidor Isaac Rabi, who won the 1944 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the magnetic properties of atomic nuclei.

.

“Science is a game – but a game with reality, a game with sharpened knives. If a man cuts a picture carefully into 1000 pieces, you solve the puzzle when you reassemble the pieces into a picture; in the success or failure, both your intelligences compete. In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game – but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce. The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained, and how many apparently are caused by your own mental inertia, while the solution generally becomes possible only through freedom from its limitations. This is perhaps the most exciting thing in the game.”

–Erwin Schroedinger, winner of the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics “for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory.”

.

“I believe in God. It makes no sense to me to assume that the Universe and our existence is just a cosmic accident, that life emerged due to random physical processes in an environment which simply happened to have the right properties. As a Christian I begin to comprehend what life is all about through belief in a Creator, some of whose nature was revealed by a man born about 2000 years ago.”

–Antony Hewish, winner of the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of pulsars.

.

“Jesus knows our world. He does not disdain us like the God of Aristotle. We can speak to Him and He answers us. Although He is a person like ourselves, He is God and transcends all things.”

–Alexis Carrel, who won the 1912 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology “for his work on vascular suturing and the transplantation of blood-vessels and organs,” as quoted in his book Reflections on Life

.

“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.”

–Sir John Eccles, who received the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for establishing the relationship between inhibition of nerve cells and repolarization of a cell’s membrane.

.

“Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist – I don’t see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation – the way it emerged – it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I’ve never seen a conflict.”

–Joseph E. Murray, winner of the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for work that “proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients.”

.

“As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.”

–Sir Joseph J. Thomson , Nobel Laureate in Physics, discoverer of the electron, founder of atomic physics.

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

–Princeton University quantum physicist Freeman Dyson.

.

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

–Astronomer Allan Sandage, winner of the Crafoord Prize in astronomy (which is equivalent to the Nobel Prize). Sandage is considered to be one of the founders of modern astronomy and the greatest living cosmologist.

.

“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it. So there is a chance that the best of all possible mathematics will be created out of physicists’ attempts to describe nature.”

–Russian theoretical physicist Alexander Polyakov, winner of the Lars Onsager prize in 2011, the Dirac Medal and the Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics in 1986, the Lorentz Medal in 1994, and the Oskar Klein Medal in 1996.

.

“If we need an atheist for a debate, we go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”

–Robert Griffiths, winner of the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics.

.
“For many years I have believed that God is the great designer behind all nature… All my studies in science since then have confirmed my faith. I regard the bible as my principle source of authority.”

–Sir Ghillean T. Prance, the knighted British botanist and ecologist, Fellow of the Royal Society.

.

“I build molecules for a living. I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. My faith has been increased through my research. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

–James Tour, one of the world’s leading nanoscientists

.

“The common belief that… the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility… is not only historically inaccurate, but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability.”

–Cambridge University historian of science Colin Russell

.

“An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.”

–Srinivasa Ramanujam, who is widely regarded to be one of the greatest mathematicians of all time (on a similar plane with such greats as Archimedes and Newton).

.

“God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.”

“The observations and experiments of science are so wonderful that the truth that they establish can surely be accepted as another manifestation of God. God shows himself by allowing man to establish truth.”

–Sir Derek Barton, winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, as quoted in Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens.

.

To the question, “What do you think should be the relationship between science and religion?” Walter Kohn replied: “Mutual respect. They are complementary important parts of the human experience.” (Kohn 2002).

And to the inquiry, “What do you think about the existence of God?” Walter Kohn gave the following answer: “There are essential parts of the human experience about which science intrinsically has nothing to say. I associate them with an entity which I call God.” (Kohn 2002).

–Walter Kohn was the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

.

“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

–Werner von Braun, the father of space science and the most important rocket scientist involved in the development of the U.S. space program.

.

“There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before [the Big Bang] and were suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”

–English mathematical physicist Edmund T. Whittaker, winner of the Copley Medal, which is the most prestigious award in British science.

.

“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

–Harvard educated NASA astrophysicist John A. O’Keefe.

.

“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]

–Physicist Richard Conn Henry from Johns Hopkins University

.

“In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anyone would have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly this is happening…in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers.”

–Time magazine, April 1980

.

“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”

–George Wald- Nobel Laureate in medicine and physiology

.

“There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on a temporary lack of knowledge.”

–Geneticist Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project and currently the director of the National Institutes of Health in the United States.

.
“I am not a religious person, but I could say this universe is designed very well for the existence of life. The basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of . . . carbon-based life.”

–Austrian physicist Heinz Oberhummer, professor emeritus from the Vienna University of Technology.


——————————————————
Want some more?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 977 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/13/2012 7:15:13 PM

Add Carbon to water with the right atmospheric conditions and eventually you have a living thing


Are you sure?


First, there was the simple fact of the tremendous amount of supposition involved in the original Miller-Urey experiments. Yes, the experiment successfully produced some amino acids, but it did so only as a result of the use of an atmosphere specifically engineered to yield amino acids, since simple molecules containing all the needed atoms were conveniently provided. Evolutionists justify the use of this atmosphere on the basis of their claim that the "early earth" had a reducing atmosphere (one lacking oxygen or other oxidising agents). Yet, the sole reason that this reducing atmosphere is proposed is so that they can then use it to justify their theories! Instead of searching for evidence and then revising their theories to the data, they were (and are) engineering the (proposed) conditions to yield the data they desired. The "reducing atmosphere" of the early earth is completely an evolutionist construct. Evolutionists themselves will make the circular argument that the earth must have had an early reducing atmosphere, since we know that chemical evolution happened, and chemical evolution could only happen in a reducing atmosphere2! In point of fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the earth has ever had a reducing atmosphere at any time, and the available evidence suggests the opposite3. Even the oldest rock layers in the geologic column, those said by evolutionary geologists to predate the formation of life on earth, all show evidence that the earth had an oxidising atmosphere at the time of their formation, due to the presence of oxidised minerals and metals contained in those rocks


http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html

Isn't abiogenesis taught as an irrefutable fact?

Did you know that only recently it was discovered that some present day humans have Neanderthal DNA.? Instead of just concluding that Neanderthals must have originated in Europe..Scientists are twisting the whole scenario to fit the “out of Africa” theory.Why not just tell the truth? It is no big deal if the “out of Africa” theory is wrong.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 237 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 12/10/2012 1:47:58 PM
]quote]My mistake. But say... have you heard about the secret recordings that have surfaced in which the Pope himself mocks the idea of a 'supernatural entity', laughs at peoples gullibility in falling for the whole story, and openly admits that the Catholic Church is really just a money making scam?

What a good scam then.Did you also know that centuries ago people had to pay to go to confession and get absolved of their sins.Now that was a good scam!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 969 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/10/2012 1:37:00 PM

I'm going to humor you just this once. I have a citation (in fact, many) to back up my point about matter having always been here (NOT that it is eternal). However, the thought of you reading an actual science publication is farcical. I'm going to give you a website where Hawking explains it in terms that most people could understand


No one can claim that matter has always existed. It is a Cosmological riddle.But somehow you can declare it as a fact. Scientists agree that matter (along with energy, space and time) were created at the Big Bang,.which was caused by a singularity.What caused the singularity? No one knows.Oh I forgot you must.That would be why it is a theory.The thought of you even understanding this would be farcical.


You didn't do very well on the causality thing, did you? You said it was a law of Physics. It's no such thing. It may be a concept but it's not a law. It's little wonder you don't understand science. You aren't even familiar with the lexicon


Wrong again. Causality is The Law Of Cause and Effect.Didn’t do very well on that one did you?I was hoping you would say it is only a principle. It is obvious you don’t know what you are talking about.


The law of science known as the Law of Causality, or Law of Cause and Effect, says that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause (Miller, 2011)



You also demonstrated that you don't even know what a citation is. A citation is an abbreviated reference to a science journal where a peer-reviewed article is published. Got that? Let me give you a citation


Now you are defining words to suit yourself.A citation is a quote.Look it up, it is a synonym of quote.Got that?A citation is not a specific reference to a scientific journal.Further proof you don’t know what you are talking about.


The book Peter Pan mentions London so that must be true as well. You live in a very simple world


Believes in fairytales!


So long. I might comment on your idiocies now and then. For now, this conversation is over


Masquerading as a scientist is not really your forte anyway.


An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists"


Grab a hanky.That Gallup Poll is 20+ years old.The debate now has nothing to do with creationism.


Pierre Grasse was known as the greatest scientist in France, and he disputed the value of mutations when he wrote, “...No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Grasse went on to say that it “is not true” that bacteria are evolving quickly because of numerous mutations. He reminds all that “To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized.” Devious, deceptive, and dishonest evolutionists now claim that change is evolution, but that is so silly it is embarrassing. Everyone admits to change, but the change is never from a simple to a more complex creature. Never.

Grasse was supported earlier by Professor N. H. Nilsson of Lund University who said, “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” Nilsson added, “It is therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22722


Yup, *and*... what I find interesting is that someone can use C14 dating of the Siloam tunnel as accurate and "proof", and yet then can claim that C14 dating of things prior to 6000yrs ago when they believe the Earth was created, is not accurate and not proof. Seems like "cherry picking" the validity of things around your belief, not around science.


Where have I ever said the earth is 6000yo?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 963 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/9/2012 7:15:47 PM

Read a book about modern Physics. Then return with an apology. In the meantime, science has established that matter has always existed. Chew on that one


Got a citation for that? The one that says matter is eternal will do.


No such law of Physics. Thanks for playing



Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29


The Causality Principle

Perhaps most basic of all the principles of physics is the causality principle. In its simplest form, it reads: “Every effect has a cause.” In more precise language, it reads: “Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause.” Let’s examine these components, and see why each is required


http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/physicshasitsprinciples.asp


I don't even consider claims this ignorant to be worth my time. If you ever, in any of your rants, included citations, I might (but I doubt it). Give us a citation


Chew on this then:


Biblical accounts of the construction of an ancient underground tunnel below Jerusalem have been verified by dating the material lining its walls


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4156-radiodating-authenticates-biblical-tunnel.html


Such is why I don't converse with you. I did this time because there are others on this forum who seem to believe as you do. You don't know the first thing about science yet you have the gall to criticize it. All because of some lame book who someone who didn't know either told you that it was the written word of some god somewhere. You are deluded if you think anyone who knows science will consider anything you say worth researching. I know I don't


I don't really care what you think.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 954 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/9/2012 8:11:43 AM

I am eager to hear what Dan or any of the other Creationists will respond to this


Why? It is a Strawman Argument.


Quite simply, time only exists when space exists. Matter has always existed. Energy existed before time began. If any theist out there defines their god as pre-Big Bang energy, give yourselves a gold star


How could energy exist before time existed? How can matter always have existed?That would defy causuality which is a law of Physics.Give yourself a Bronze star.

Did you know that Scientists used C14 dating to prove that the Biblical account of the Siloam Tunnel is accurate.? Let me guess.Would an atheist now claim that C14 dating must be grossly inaccurate.? I would nearly bet on that.What a shock!. The “absurd book of lies and fairytales” is actually right.


Of course there will always be some scientists who dissent, but the vast majority of scientists (~95%) and the vast majority of biologists (~99%) see evolution as an established scientific fact


Really?


Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 930 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/7/2012 3:25:38 PM
Science, unlike religion, corrects itself when it increases its knowledge. Religion proves nothing, studies nothing scientifically, and simply accepts inherited mythological notions, and the notions they added to these notions.


Religion studies nothing scientifically? That would be a display of religious ignorance.


Since the Academy and its membership is not influenced by factors of a national, political, or religious character it represents a valuable source of objective scientific information which is made available to the Holy See and to the international scientific community. Today the work of the Academy covers six main areas:

fundamental science
the science and technology of global questions and issues
science in favor of the problems of the Third World
the ethics and politics of science
bioethics
epistemology

The disciplines involved are sub-divided into nine fields: the disciplines of physics and related disciplines; astronomy; chemistry; the earth and environmental sciences; the life sciences (botany, agronomy, zoology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, the neurosciences, surgery); mathematics; the applied sciences; and the philosophy and history of sciences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Dennett lost me when he claimed that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor 8 million years ago.Has he got his timeline right? He is just clinging to Darwinism even when aspects of the theory have been proven wrong.Do we have a fossil of the original ancestor?That wouldn’t be a transitional fossil.That would throw out the window the claim that all fossils are transitional fossils.Isn’t he the same philosopher that claims computers will become self aware? Where did he get that notion? A “Terminator” movie?

"Something from Nothing" Now that is an interesting concept! How can something come from nothing? Equating anyone’s belief in God to a belief in a tooth fairy is a non-sequitor.Internet atheists who don’t know what they are talking about always wheel that out.My Cat even knows that.


But, insists Andersen, “when I read the title of your book, I read it as ‘questions about origins are over.’” To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to it.”

In all seriousness, Prof. Krauss, you ought (moral) to take your own advice and be honest with your readers. Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers, and then bitterly complain when “moronic” philosophers dare to point that out


http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html

Does Krauss claim that a Quantam vacuum is nothing? Wouldn’t there be atoms somewhere?


I don´t have anything against science and I am not implying that science is wrong, in fact atheists are the ones who believe that science is wrong, atheists believe that scientific laws like the fists law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis are wrong. If atheism is true, then science has to be wrong, current science and atheism are not compatible


Do atheists believe in the “myth” of abiogenesis then? Is that called faith?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 913 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/6/2012 10:04:49 AM

They started as singled celled organisms floating around in a soup for a few billions years consuming each other until one day (It was a Friday) two bumped into each other and instead of consuming they joined and paired and in a nano second billions of years independent evolution came together and that one living thing now was twice as smart.

One would hope that the primordial soup "myth" is not being taught as fact:


The Primordial Soup Myth:
Excerpt: “Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a “thick soup” containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive “thick soup” or “primordial broth” is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support.” – Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life. http://theory-of-evolution.net.....p-myth.php



New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life – Feb. 2010
“Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life, But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.” William Martin, an evolutionary biologist
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....101245.htm


In other words the primordial soup "myth" defies the law of physics.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 909 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/5/2012 5:20:46 PM

Yet, in the face of scientific evidence that the planet is several billion years old, you'll go back to what a 1000+y/o book says


Is the 1000+y/o book the Bible? If so can you please quote the verse that says anything about the age of the Earth?


Today, we can for the first time observe and understand Darwin's reasoning as the trillions of tiny robotic agencies called cells, that know nothing of the role they are playing, work together to compose the human minds that are able to discover this very fact.


Those tiny robotic cells must be pretty complex.Where did they come from?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 905 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/5/2012 3:53:39 AM

...until robertaus came on and said that junk dna is not junk and has thrown darwinism out the window. There's just no way that he really doesn't know in exactly what way that statement is bizarre.


About time atheist biologists let go of some aspects of 19th Century mythology.


Now scientists have discovered a vital clue to unraveling these riddles. The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits ofDNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?_r=0

Here is what the atheist biologists thought of junk DNA.They were blinded by Darwinism bias.


Here’s biologist John Timmer to explain the orthodox Darwinian view of DNA from 2007:

Personally, I fall into the “it’s all junk” end of the spectrum. If almost all of these sequences are not conserved by evolution, and we haven’t found a function for any of them yet, it’s hard to see how the “none of it’s junk” view can be maintained. There’s also an absence of support for the intervening view, again because of a lack of evidence for actual utility. The genomes of closely related species have revealed very few genes added from non-coding DNA, and all of the structural RNA we’ve found has very specific sequence requirements. The all-junk view, in contrast, is consistent with current data
.

Let Richard Dawkins explain evolution and the role of evidence:


“My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” — p. 287, Blind Watchmaker” (1986)


What this now means is that 80% of non-coded DNA is biochemically functional.The atheist biologists refused for decades to even consider this because they thought that non-coded DNA was a leftover from evolution and hence useless.


It’s just another prediction of Darwinian orthodoxy falsified by experimental evidence published in the top scientific peer-reviewed journal. Will this cause Darwinians to revise their theory to fit the evidence? Not likely. Their motivations for clinging to naturalism, the religion that undergirds Darwinism, are entirely beyond correction by evidence.
I wonder what people like P.Z. Myers and Larry Moran do when their religion comes into conflict with scientific evidence from lab experiments? Do they bitterly cling to their mythology from the 19th century? Or do they adjust their worldview to be in line with the progress of science?

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/new-peer-reviewed-paper-in-nature-falsifies-darwinian-junk-dna-prediction/
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 902 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/4/2012 6:56:15 PM

Based on that statement it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of evolution, because if you did you would know that every-single fossil is a "transitional fossil"


Saying that every fossil is a transitional fossil.Is the same as saying "we can't explain the lack of transitional fossils so we will call all fossils transitional fossils". An oxymoron.

This shows you don't know what you are talking about:


When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."


……….. / Wikipedia

The term "transitional fossils" is really a misunderstanding of evolution.No species would have evolved to the extent that it was unrecognizable from its ancestor.The traits developed by sub-species were the result of adaptations to the environment.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 234 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 12/4/2012 5:25:19 PM

Why even bother? Anyone who believes that NASA (or anyone else) can scan the universe for temporal mismatches with a calendar has been watching too much Star Trek. The statement is just ming-bogglingly ignorant of how measurements are made and the limits of our present technology. And this is from someone who argues against science at every turn. Might as well talk to a three-year-old.


Umm der!.It was a joke.Didn't you get it? If the truth be known it wasn't even posted on this thread.Pointing out what Science cannot explain is not arguing against Science.

But somehow i get subjected to comments that sound like they are an ad hominem from a schoolboy.


I don't read anything by robertaus. That level of density is too much for me to cope with. He's a poster child for religious hubris. Knows nothing of science yet, imbued by a few hours of scripture and homilies from non-scientists, he imagines he knows better than the professionals who use science every day. I will admit you're no robertaus.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 895 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 12/4/2012 6:43:00 AM

Evolution should be taught and that is it.


Why? The recent discovery that "junk DNA" is not "junk" at all has all but thrown Darwinism out the window.The implication is that life did not evolve at all.Lifeforms arose somehow but did not evolve as Darwin predicted.They simply became extinct for one reason or another.That would explain the lack of Transitional Fossils.

The scientists that were biased by Darwinism did not bother studying "junk DNA" for decades.Thus inhibiting progress in possibly finding cures for diabetes, cancer and other diseases.I would guess those scientists would have been atheists.The atheist scientists thought that "junk DNA" was a leftover from evolution.Which it has been proven it wasn't.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 231 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 12/3/2012 3:58:28 AM

Aren’t atheists building a temple in London?



Posting untrue statements is a speciality of that particular poster


Since when does asking a question constitute posting an untrue statement?Just for your information this(?) means a question.Do you have a cognitive issue?


Here's another recent one from him –



Did you know that NASA's latest scan of the Universe found a missing day?Proving the Bible correct.!


Which Post No.in this thread are you referring to?Another cognitive issue?


Don't confuse this for support for robertaus' eternal nonsense.


Eternal nonsense? This would be eternal nonsense The LCE has irrefutably proven the non-existence of a Creator .Can you please provide a scientific model that proves that the Universe is a natural creation?Please feel free to use any known scientific law you wish.I note you have avoided that issue.Or alternatively provide a link.Oh sorry you can’t.Even though you have been asked countless times.Make sure you provide some credible research in lieu of nonsense which is your norm.


That wasn't a personal attack. It was simply an observation (easily verifiable from your posts in this thread and many others) that your claims are not only strongly biased towards religion but, additionally, they are consistently unsupported by any credible research.


(Pfft)! See above.Where is your credible research?

I haven’t made any claims.I am just pointing out the BS that some atheists perpetrate{you}
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 225 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 12/2/2012 3:52:13 PM

Dangerous stuff indeed


How so?

Didn’t the Human brain evolve to consider and accept religious beliefs?Religious beliefs are a product of Human evolution.How can it not be?Religious belief has always been a part of Human history.It is believed that religious beliefs increased the cognitive efficiency of the Human brain and probably still does..

Humans have religious instincts that are the result of our evolution.In other words for humans to have religious beliefs is a natural human condition which results from our evolution.Whether those beliefs are true or false is irrelevant.Whether those beliefs lead to good or evil is simply a reflection of the human condition.

The fact that some atheists choose to mock and ridicule religion is actually mocking something that is the result of Human evolution and therefore Humanity itself..How ironic!


The higher the level and quality of education is in a population, the higher the percentage of Atheists and Agnostics. (see demographics of Atheism)


Is that why the young and University educated in China are turning to Christianity by the millions?.The Govt. is even funding this.Predictions are that China will become the world’s largest Christian country.The decline or repression of religiosity leads to a decline in scientific research and progress.Studies and History clearly indicate this(The Soviet Union is just one example)..


Knows nothing of science yet, imbued by a few hours of scripture and homilies from non-scientists, he imagines he knows better than the professionals who use science every day. I will admit you're no robertaus


Are ad hominems part of the scientific method.?


I don't feel that anyone has to stand up for science on a dating site. Moreover against the ignoramuses who chose POF to attack whatever science they perceive as inimical to their creed. No one takes them seriously here, let alone worthier forums dedicated to science. This forum could certainly use an Ignore button


Another ad hominem Why didn’t you just wheel out an historical fallacy ? They are much more amusing.But whilst I’m at it.Karl Marx’s idea of “utopia’ (Communism) which included the elimination of religion doesn’t hold much weight.That would be why 30-40 million people in Russia now identify themselves as Christians after decades of religious oppression..And that doesn’t include the other former Soviet States.

Aren’t atheists building a temple in London?.What are they going to worship? Nature? That would be an oxymoron(rolled over laughing!} Are they going to pray to science? What hymns will they sing?A suggested dogma could be “I’ll believe in things without empirical evidence”Is that called FAITH?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 863 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 11/29/2012 4:32:23 PM

and it is a fact that known natural laws can´t create life nor universes


Good point.Do ad hominems refute that?As atheism is a Religion. Does that mean that it would violate the US constitution by teaching it in schools?

Did you know that NASA's latest scan of the Universe found a missing day?Proving the Bible correct.!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 194 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/29/2012 4:20:06 PM

If the hypothesis was that some people are incapable of absorbing information and chronically oblivious to the principles of rational argument - you are providing continuous proof that the hypothesis has merit.


Now that is funny^^^^^^^ But of course you are exempt and have no issue with saying things like this:


We could demolish all the churches, use the stones to build universities and teach rational modes of relating to reality, instead of listening to deluded crackpots intone perverted fairytales gleaned from a book of lies


Now is that a rational argument?(Pfft)Statements that would be offensive to some people are not a rational argument..

Did you forget?Let he who is without sin cast the first stone From the ‘book of lies’ How ironic.

Judge your own principles of rational argument before you judge anyone else’s(however I’m not claiming to be an angel either)


This is a very good article, and I agree with it. In the context of this particular discussion, I should say that the article's claim and justlooking's claim have subtle but important distinctions. That, or perhaps it shares the identical claim to justlooking, it's just that the article is simply far better at explaining and contextualizing the claim than justlooking is


That article talks about providing a model for the Origin of the Universe.However fails to provide one itself based on every known natural law.

Model-Origin of the Universe-Natural Means

1/ The universe is a system of energy.

2/ All known systems of energy conform to the LCE

3/The LCE states that energy cannot be created naturally.

4/The Universe cannot have been created by natural means.

5/Any scientific explanation that violates known laws is unscientific.

6/Was the Universe a supernatural creation?Logic based on any known natural laws would suggest that.

There is no known scientific law that explains the origin of energy by natural means.The Universe wouldn’t even exist if it originated by any known natural laws.It would violate the LCE.

The article did not acknowledge that fact.So how is it a good article?It is not even objective.Saying that the LCE cannot be violated actually proves that the Universe was not a natural creation.How ironic!

Saying that the Universe is a natural creation is not an absolute.

The Big Bang cannot be the origin of energy.That would violate the LCE. Can’t have that now can we?


Call it anti-theism if you must - I call it integrity



Anti-theist is ambiguous. Against the ignorance and immorality of organised religion? Yes. Gnostic atheist? No


Where does the definition of integrity include stating that religion is ignorant and immoral?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 185 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/27/2012 9:35:42 PM

Thus to say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed as a tenet towards the absence of a creator is as vacuous as saying that such a creator doesn't exist because of the concept of evolution! Hope I made myself clear



The verified premise, the law of conservation of energy (let's call it LCE from now on), states creation is not possible, therefore the believer's premise is false.
Justlookingvt


Sorry but this is wrong. It says nothing of the sort. We might argue that nature might be atemporal. But you are overboarding here.



If you can demonstrate this clearly without question that energy is present "anywhere" even outside the Universe; then you should be a shoe in for the Nobel prize for science; You will have answered the sought after riddle that all cosmologists are looking to find the answer to for decades; that is what is behind the singularity! But don't hold your breath as there may be way more crack-pots in front of you that have to be vetted out, before you get your turn


]quote]Its quite clear by this statement that you are talking straight out of your rear-end. Sorry to say, but you have no idea what you are talking about! A rational discussion with someone who says things like this, is not possible!


So wait, you are attempting to debunk the existence of God based on a law that is reliant upon a hypothetical system.. ? You derive 'irrefutable proof' from this??



Justlooking.

Sorry mate but half of what you say is not true.

You keep asserting that the law of con of energy is never violated. Well thats not strictly speaking the truth. In fact it is violated constantly - but only in such short time periods that virtual particles pop in and out of existence. We can't measure them directly. But we can there effects. For example the casmir effect



So much for your irrefutable proof.



For that I've lost all interest in arguing with you.
The energy is 'returned' in order to satisfy LCE. I don't see the irony there. It is still violated in the process.
But hey - it's YOUR argument anyway (the LCE being perfect) and I don't see anyone rushing in to agree so far..



You are failing to follow the rules of Logical Argument. You are declaring that you can win, not by reasoning, or factual analysis, but simply by refusing to actually argue the premise you claimed to be taking on



Justlooking.. repeating the same thing over and over doesn't change the fact that you have NO proof that God doesn't exist, sorry.



You haven't even proven irrefutably that the universe is a closed system (which your entire argument rests upon), let alone that there is no God



Actually, from what I've read.. the big bang DID violate the LCE, but allowances have been made for that.



Justlookingvt:

While I'm sure you are correct in what you say about the LCE, I think we must be intellectually honest here.



How come it IS enough for many other atheists to not believe?


]quote]Despite the lack of evidence disproving the supernatural, there is a plethora of evidence that lying to further an agenda exists- and that it is usually characterized by an unwillingness to stand up to scrutiny


I haven't read every post but I've only noticed justlooking claiming to have such certainty based on the LCE. No-one else agreed with that, that I saw
.


It ironically weakens his position and puts him in the realm of needing to defend something... needlessly. But I've wasted my breath enough.


Are you getting it yet?If not.

You must have Kangaroos loose in your top paddock!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 172 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/27/2012 12:24:29 AM

The "revelation" is called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It was published in the 19th century. You're way behind in your reading!. That reminds me, when are you going to provide proof the "supernatural" exists ?


Now here is a revelation for you!.Bit behind in your reading are you?

I’m sure Godel proved that The Law of Conservation of Energy is violated during extreme events such as Tornados and other violent events and conditions.What are you going to do now?Claim Tornados are only a theory?

That would make this statement invalid.


However, No proof that the LCE has ever been violated exists as of today, is still the case



You wanted the LCE published in "Mad" ? ...are you mad !??... that's what you read ??? No wonder your knowledge of basic sciences is such a tragedy. That's explains it.
Another Strawman.Is that the best you can do?


Instead of "Mad", try reading, Discover Physics - by Benjamin Crowell - Lightandmatter.com , 2007. It's available for free. It specifically goes over the conservation laws. An important topic, don't miss those chapters. ;-)


Is that where you read: the Law of Conservation of Energy Irrefutably proves the non-existence of God ? Perhaps you read comic books ALL the time.Your assertion is Science-Fiction.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 169 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 6:41:25 PM

As is usual, you misinterpret, fail to comprehend, and then miss the point.


Really?


The scientific method requires observations of NATURE to formulate and test hypotheses.[1] It consists of these steps:[2][3]

1 Asking a question about a NATURAL phenomenon
2 Making observations of the phenomenon
3 Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4 Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5 Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6 Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment
.................Wikipedia.

Note the word NATURAL.I have highlighted it for you just so you don't miss the point or fail to comprehend.Or misrepresent science again.


Since you decided it does per [1] above. I doubt I am the only one interested in seeing how you apply the scientific method to prove the existence of a god that doesn't exist. In passing you'll be refuting your own statement... quite a feat :-)


Did not I say that that it was a dumb statement.Just as dumb as using the scientific
method to prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity.? Strawman.

When is the revelation that the ‘scientific method’ has been used to disprove the existence of a supernatural entity getting published? That would be comedy on a TRAGIC scale.Perhaps you could get it published in a Comic Book.”Mad” comes to mind.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 164 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 5:33:12 PM

Following from the above (concentrate now) can god things be 'observed'? (No) Tested for? (No) Is there any evidence that any exist? (No) Can the existence of any god things be verified? (No)
This ^^^ is a basic application of the scientific method, and the outcome from no test, no observation, no evidence, and no verification is the unavoidable conclusion that 'belief' can not be justified.
OK, concentrate really hard now -
Q) What is a lack of belief in deities called?
A) Atheism

I await your proof that 'atheism is not an expression of the scientific method' [/falls over laughing]


Now that^^^^^^ is a delusion.Since when does the scientific method apply to any supernatural entity?Science can neither prove or refute the existence of ANY supernatural entity.[cries with laughter!]Science is the study of natural things.How did science test for something that would be outside the laws of nature?Who doesn’t know how science works? Your claim is as dumb as this:

1) Careful observation of a phenomenon(The Universe and Life exists=God’s creation)=Yes

2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.(God might exist)

3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.(check to see if your Cat is still breathing.If so=evidence of life.)

4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.(God does exist)As the Universe and Life exists.

A believer could use the ‘scientific method’ to justify his/her belief.Your claim that atheism is a basic expression of the scientific method is erroneous.Nice try though.



his BB argument sounds to me like you're trying to prove the LCE false at some point in time, in that case, it would contradict your statement "No one is saying the LCE is false," or is it you're just trying to say it was false at some point in time which you could then use to squeak god through the time crack ? No proof that the LCE has ever been violated exists as of today.


Is there proof that energy always existed?.If energy didn’t always exist THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY would not have existed.Are you are claiming that energy is eternal?.Then that would mean that energy existed before the Universe existed.Can you explain that?Funny how you can dismiss one theory to validate your theory.The LCE can be violated.Someone in an earlier post pointed it out you but you chose to ignore it.

The Universe was CREATED.We just don't know how.Must have been a whole lot of energy created to create the Universe though.Would that invalidate the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.?


(A) is impossible for the same reason that god is impossible. Violates the LCE.
(B) ... somehow created. Violates the LCE. about the "unnatural" means, nature encompasses all that exists. The only "unnatural" things are those that don't exist, that keeps nature free of fallacies.

The one you forgot. The energy we see is the result of a perfect balance where the sum of all energy is zero thereby making the creation of energy unnecessary. How that happened ? .. that I do not k


Are you sure the sum of all energy is zero?I thought it was an hypothesis.Has nature always existed? Must have had a cause.


Are you trying to prove something ? :-) Get yourself out of the believers camp ? :-) It's a worthy goal, you have my full support :-)


Get yourself out of the intellectually dishonest camp.It is clearly where you are at.


Piece of cake. Atheism did not prove the non-existence of god, Science did. The LCE is the result of applying the scientific method. In turn the LCE refutes god as you and the believers defined it. Don't wait... read about physics and the LCE in the meantime


Still no link to the evidence.Physics and the LCE doesn’t even mention God.Let alone provide a refutation.

Are you really this stupid?It is scientifically impossible to prove or refute a supernatural entity.An intelligent atheist(not you) would not even make such a stupid claim.Why hasn’t your claim been published in any Scientific Journal?Because no scientist would endorse such a stupid claim.That is why.


n other words, scientists avoid pissing people off (particularly when some of them write their paychecks). This thread should certainly shed some light as to why. Not only are the believers in the group of people who refuse to understand the consequences of some scientific laws, even some Atheists refuse to understand them as well


This thread has definitely shed some light on some atheists.In particular the scientifically ignorant ones.


As you can tell, I am not winning a popularity contest here... LOL (I already lost the robertaus election... LOL)


Aren’t you wondering why?Stop telling lies might help.

If anyone believes that everything has naturalistic origins.The facts are there are ZERO scientific explanations (only speculation)

What term is used to describe something you believe to be true but has no evidence?

That would be FAITH

No different to a theist really.

How ironic.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 154 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 9:57:32 AM
Here is the comment you requested... The consequence of a god that can create is to violate the LCE. Therefore god is not possible, unless YOU prove the LCE is false. A tall order considering the LCE is upheld billions of times per second on earth and countless trillions of times per second in the universe.


If ENERGY cannot be created, how did it originate?
Where did the entire physical Universe come from?Must have taken a lot of energy to CREATE the Universe.The Universe is not eternal.

It is impossible to CREATE energy through natural methods. But it exists.The only answers to how energy originated can only be:

(A) ENERGY CREATED itself from nothing.
(B)ENERGY was somehow CREATED by unnatural means.

Care to explain?Because i don't know. Bearing in mind that both answers violate THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

Can you also provide a link to the evidence that atheism has proven the non-existence of God using the 'scientific method'.

Can't wait for that!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 777 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 11/23/2012 3:01:31 AM

Message posted to the mods:

Just to let you kow that those people who do not support creationsism are now boycottting this thread. It is for the creationsists only now. I requested that you locked this thread weeks ago. You choose not to. So it is going to be a bit one sided now. Are you going to ban us all for refusing to participate or simply cave in to the creationists


I'm curious?Are not Creationists entitled to their opinions?Just like anyone else.Some of the statements they make about the Theory of Evolution are actually correct.Is that what irks you?What an easy exercise it is to scientifically debunk the Noahs Ark fable.Is anyone proud of that? I could explain the true meaning of the Noahs Ark fable.But that would be a futile exercise to a religious bigot.

Did you report posts like this that are purely vitriolic?


You're a moron. Plain and simple.
Get an effing clue will you. You're a grown man and you come up with arguments that LITERALLY rival my 7 year old sister. Just effing grow up and read a goddamn book once in a while.
I'm done even attempting to respond to an abysmal half-human like yourself and people like you.
You're not worth my time, you can't even reach my level and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

In the space of a week (or more) you've managed to demonstrate such an inept failing of basic knowledge (and the other 2 like you on here) on the information you argue against at every hurdle to the point where your education system, society, your own mind and especially your parents have clearly and objectively failed you.

You have no ability to comprehend facts (or wilfully choose it to be so), cannot construct even remotely consistent and substantiated answers, consistently provide infantile approaches to complex facts and quite frankly, you're simply wasting everyones time whilst you try to perform 9th rate mental gymnastics to account for ANYTHING...ANYTHING(!!!) that would even remotely support even a single verse of your entire book, and still fail at that to the point where not a single onlooker can read your posts without the words 'dumbass' flashing in their minds several times a line.

Morons.
End.


I would suggest that you didn't.

Are you going to report posts like this that clearly have racist overtones?And is just denigrating people who are on the lower end of the socio-economic scale sometimes through no fault of their own.


Well Stephen, I guess I'll have to do a little translation from Southern USA to UK. Starting from the inside of a womans ankles...head straight north until you come to an intersection usually recognized by high moisture content and substantial undergrowth.....that's "coochie"! "Skank"....can usually be found wandering around a trailer park with a warm bottle of beer in one hand and a cigarette butt in the other....followed by three snot nosed kids with different fathers. Now, if you don't have trailer parks in the UK, let's try this....she's the gal hanging over the side of Buba's truck bed puking her guts out in the parking lot of the "Let's get crazy club".

I'll bet you don't.Are atheists racists as well?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 151 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 2:03:05 AM

It's only 'illogical' if one applies, as you do, flawed logic to a misinterpretation of 'science'.


Is the 'scientific method' flawed?


I did. Now I'm waiting for you to define the 'creator' you think has withstood the refutation to see if your claim has merit.
Care to define 'the creator'?


Easy: Creator=Creator of the Physical Universe and Originator of Biological Life.


I did. Since all you offer are unreasoned contradictions. and conclusions based on your shallow opinions.


Unreasoned contradictions? “atheism is just a basic expression of the ‘scientific method'There is no definition of atheism that even states that.Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?.Shallow opinions?That is only your opinion which you are entitled to.Doesn’t mean it is true.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 147 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/22/2012 3:41:47 PM
For instance, you don't yet seem to have grasped the idea, despite that it too is obvious, that atheism is just a basic expression of 'the scientific method' - specifically the parts that relate to observation and testing. This, apparently complete, incomprehension is presumably what allows you to keep repeating, entirely nonsensically, "The thread topic is "The value of science to atheism" .... The answer is ZERO."


Atheism=Non-Belief in the existence of a deity.How is that an expression of the ‘Scientific method’?Which is:

1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.
2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.
3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.
4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

The ‘scientific method’ is not even relevant to atheism.Unless of course you are claiming that atheism has applied the ‘scientific method’ to disprove the non-existence of a Creator.How can that be?When it is an empirically untestable hypothesis.That is illogical. .An atheist in this thread has claimed that science has proven the non-existence of a Creator.Care to comment?


Considering the above, this applies to you more than anyone else in this thread.
For instance, to argue a position in a thread titled 'The value of science to atheism' one should have at least some understanding of the terms, yet all you have done is provide a continuous demonstration that you really really don't understand the concept of rational argument, haven't got a clue how science works, and have somehow avoided grasping what 'atheism' means as well.


Who hasn’t grasped how science works and what atheism means? You have after all claimed that atheism is just a basic expression of the ‘scientific method’.Which would be nonsense.Whose arguments are irrational?

Nice try though


On this point, I will agree with you, Robertaus. However, I still don't believe in God



For once you will get some people to agree with you (it's a miracle!... don't thank god, thank me for that) :-)... that must be quite a new and enjoyable experience for you... :-) On the other hand


I can only thank a fellow atheist of yours.


Some understand why and how, others don't. It's just the way it is, either way the validity of the statement remains unaffected


The only one who claims that your statement is valid would be you.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 144 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/21/2012 9:41:29 PM

The LCE irrefutably proves god not to exist.


Are you just a Troll? If not.

Personal attacks such as "full of yourself" are not logical arguments, they are disappointing arguments
.

The statement "you are full of yourself" would have to be the only logical conclusion that anyone could ever come up with to to describe your ridiculous claim.

argumentum ad nauseum is boring and you are simply making a fool of yourself.

Which God have you disproven? You have never even defined the God you have claimed to proven does not exist.

Don't you realise that what you are claiming would mean you believe in miracles or the supernatural if you like?

Lets put your claim to the test shall we:

Who is prepared to accept this claim as fact? The Law of Conservation of Energy Irrefutably proves that God does not exist
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 139 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/21/2012 9:11:57 AM

Falsified? In what way? And falsified by whom, you?
In case you didn't know, the jury is still out on how the universe came about. It's been determined that the universe was transformed/created from a singularity, but that's about all we know. This is an area of research that we can honestly say we don't know much about, and yet you theists cling to this desperately, saying that you cannot rule out a creator precisely because we don't know about it! This argument has been used so many times throughout history, from lightning to comets to the seasons, and all of them have been debunked so thoroughly that it would truly be miraculous if you theists ended up being correct for once


What about Fred Hoyle?.The atheist scientist who resisted the evidence all his life that the Universe had one beginning. Because of his atheism he invented the “Steady State Model” which has been thoroughly discredited.Lightning, comets and seasons is just a Strawman.Nice try though.Would truly be a miracle if atheists produced any logical arguments against a Creator.Correct,we don’t know.But atheists already know what no one else knows.How can that be?


This is not an atheist claim, it is a scientific one (abiogenesis). Despite what you may think, atheists are not so powerful that we can determine the validity of scientific theories. As I've said so many times, this is something that only scientists can do - the only thing we do is defend it.


Isn’t abiogenesis an atheists belief as to the Origin of Life even when there are “gaps”?


With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of God, the Flying Spagettii Monster (FSM), is that we know what the raw chemicals are capable of doing (or NOT doing, in this case) and we know that the overall reactions produce results that go in the wrong direction (away from life). All the origin of life experiments are failures at providing anything that actually works... but since the atheists "knows" that the materialistic universe is all that exists, he invokes his own mantra about unknown conditions and processes and convinces others that THIS is the only logical and scientific response in spite of the resulting facts.
www.blogspot.com

Atheists are just in denial that life may have had a Creator.Once again how do they know what no one else knows?


This is the bottom line: if there is no evidence, then there should be no belief. This should be standard operating procedure for any claim, especially an extraordinary claim. You seem hell-bent on using demanding negative evidence when what you should really be doing is providing positive evidence. "Prove that I did NOT crash my car into the White House yesterday! If you can't, you are being irrational in dismissing the possibility of it!"


Humans have no evidence that life ever existed on Mars.Many believe it did for various reasons.But still no evidence.The possibility that water once existed on Mars is still not evidence that life once existed.Scientists investigating this have a belief with no evidence.Does that mean atheists would not bother investigating because there is no evidence.?

Your White House scenario is just a Strawman.Nice try though.


So put your cards on the table. [/joke] (I know you don't have any)


I have.The thread topic is "The value of science to atheism" I fail to see where you have addressed the thread topic.The answer is ZERO.

To prove me wrong you need to falsify this statement Science has Not Irrefutably proven the Non-Existence of a Creator

I await your rational discourse, which more than likely will be ZERO.So therefore can only be:

(A) A Strawman argument

(B) A subtle or direct ad hominem

(C) Irrelevant references to Unicorns,Fairies etc.

(D) A page of rhetoric that equates to nothing but belittlement directed at anyone that does not share your worldview which proves you are consistently Intellectually Dishonest

Want some examples?


Science has not ruled out that invisible pixies riding unicorns didn't create the universe either, but that doesn't mean, imply, or suggest in any way, that invisible pixies riding unicorns might have created the universe or that 'science', or anyone, thinks the idea might have merit


A non-sequitor.How does saying that science has not ruled out invisible pixies riding unicorns creating the Universe negate the premise that ‘Science has not ruled out a Creator’?Your argument is invalidNice try though.


Here's why - if you think the statement "Science has not ruled out that a Creator is not necessary" 'means' something (is not meaningless), then other statements about things 'science has not ruled out' must automatically carry (some of) the same 'meaning'.


A statement about something specific is not relevant to anything else.Your argument is invalid.Nice try though..


So, what does the statement 'Science has not ruled out that invisible pixies riding unicorns didn't create the universe' 'mean' in regard to the creation of the universe? Or indeed, to the likelihood that such things as unicorn riding invisible pixies might exist at all
Do tell.


Once again saying that ‘Science has not ruled out that invisible pixies riding unicorns didn’t create the universe’ does not negate the premise that ‘Science has not ruled out a Creator’ Another non-sequitor Nice try though.Your argument is invalid.


Apply your own logic, such as it is, to the beliefs of theists, perhaps you'll gain some insight


I can only conclude that you believe that all things have naturalistic origins.You haven’t denied it just shifted the goalposts.Therefore you believe something without evidence.How ironic.Have you gained some insight yet?


I agree. That ^^^ is an argument from ignorance. It's hard to believe one person can generate so many


Once again you have shifted the goalposts.You haven’t denied my claim that atheists believe the fallacy life came from non-life.I can only conclude that you believe a fallacy.Once again you believe something without evidence..How ironic.


Classic ^^^.
Double-talk, with a touch of double negative lunacy leading to a nonsense.


You use a lot of double negatives without seeming to notice the implications. The above quote for instance, resolved into sensible grammar reads - 'Atheists encourage belief with evidence'. Yet you find fault with that idea... hahahaa!


I have already demonstrated that you have belief without evidence.That would negate your failed attempt at a twist to ‘atheists encourage belief with evidence’You don’t realise the implications of what you don’t deny.Nice try though.BTW ‘hahahaa! Is a sign of intellectual dishonesty


Crazy ^^^ You are implying that a complete absence of evidence - nothing has been discovered in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, and nothing is evident in the 13.7 billion year history of the universe either - is some kind of irrelevant curio of no particular significance.


Another Strawman.Nice way to avoid the questions though.I’ll ask again.Is there a timeframe involved? Have you searched the whole Universe and found no evidence of a Creator?4.5 billion or 13.7 billion years is irrelevant.


You have out-done yourself ^^^. This 'question' demonstrates incomprehension of both atheism and rational discourse.

1) Atheism is simply an absence of belief - note that people who don't believe in fairies have no obligation to prove fairies don't exist.

2) The 'burden of proof' is always on those who make the positive claim. This principle is unrelated to the topic - it's a basic cornerstone of rationality and logic, which is why it often gets emphasised in debates


You have simply missed the whole point, but why does that not surprise me.Burden of Proof only applies to proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt in a legal context.Outside of that if someone makes a public and affirmative statement then they have the Burden of Proof to provide reasons for that statement.Typically though this is misunderstood by atheists.They think that on an Internet forum they can say anything they like such as “God doesn’t exist” and are exempt from providing reasons for that statement.Well they are wrong.

Atheist: I don’t believe God exists (no burden of proof)
I know God doesn’t exist(burden of proof applies)

.Atheists will openly say “I know God doesn’t exist” and wrongly and smugly think they have no Burden of Proof. Why didn’t the atheist just say “I don’t believe God exists”.

Because they can’t be honest.An atheist can’t even open his mouth without lying.Want another example. An atheist can make an affirmative statement like this science has irrefutably proven the non-existence of God which it hasn’t and claim he is exempt from any Burden of Proof.That is intellectually dishonest.

Sound familiar?

Rational discourse(Pfft!)
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 127 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/20/2012 3:51:21 AM

I think theists put a lot of emphasis on the creation of the universe because this is currently an area where science hasn't provided definite answers yet. I don't really think this area of research is all that special; it's not like the existence of God depends on this one area, it's just an area we don't know much about (again, it's classic god-of-the-gaps). Once we have a credible theory for this, theists will take their arguments elsewhere, as always.


Atheists have already taken their arguments elsewhere to deny that there might be a Creator.Science has not ruled out that a Creator is not necessary.But yet they will claim that a Creator is not necessary or even relevant.Who are they trying to kid?Themselves?.That is what scares atheists the most.So they make up pseudo-science to compensate for this.When it was proven that the Universe was not eternal and had a beginning and thus was created. Atheist scientists went to extraordinary lengths and devised a lot of theories to try and prove that the Universe was not created by unnatural or even supernatural means.Sadly for them those theories all got falsified.


1/Atheists will deny that the Universe might have been created by unnatural or supernatural means.How do they know that? They don’t. If the Universe was created.Who/what created it?No one can even dare to suggest that there might be a Creator.Because the atheists will wheel out one of their favourites “God of the Gaps Fallacy”Just because anyone makes an assumption that all things may not have naturalistic origins does not make that assumption false.Atheists have somehow concluded that this assumption is false.How do they conclude such a thing without the knowledge to prove it is false.?In other words it is an Argument from Ignorance.

2/ Atheists will deny that life was a creation.They think illogically that life must have came from non-life.Another fallacy atheists rely on to rule out a Creator.Atheists have once again gone to extraordinary lengths to prove that life came from non-life.Thus far it has all been in vain.Many will claim it has been proven.Another Argument from Ignorance.



I actually think it's pretty sad that theists have been reduced to arguing from human ignorance. They are purely on the defensive, never providing new knowledge or logic, but always pointing to current gaps in our knowledge to keep their god alive.


Atheists encourage non-belief without evidence.Thus discouraging even imagination.No logic there.What new knowledge have atheists provided?I find it sad that atheists arguments are all illogical.


The only thing to say about god(s) is that if they exist, and if they influence the world in some way, then there would have been tangible evidence by now. We've identified the fundamental forces of the universe, mapped out the periodic tables, and peered into the universe millions of years back, but still have not found any trace of a god. This is especially perplexing since most holy books claim that God intervenes in the world vividly (in the OT, God is constantly active), and that God works miracles in the modern world. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - except when the evidence should be there. If I claim that a comet landed in my backyard and yet there is no evidence of it, then the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.


Why would there be tangible evidence by now? Is there a timeframe involved? That doesn’t make sense .Have you searched the whole Universe and found no evidence of a Creator?


The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. If I say that I had crashed my car into the White House yesterday, it is up to me to provide evidence, not for you to provide counter-evidence. If I don't provide evidence, then you are under no obligation to believe my claim. This is especially for extraordinary claims - as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Why is an atheist exempt from any Burden of Proof.? Atheists have made an affirmative statement that they have a non-belief in any deity.Is there not a burden of proof to provide reasons for that non-belief.? How convenient that atheists shift the burden of proof from themselves.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 698 (view)
 
Creationism in schools
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:40:56 PM

Theory: The universe has been created.


Wrong.The Universe was created, that is a fact not a theory.Typically though atheists rely on pseudo-science like the String Theory to explain away the Creator.Just like when it was discovered that the Universe is not eternal.Atheist scientists went to extraordinary lengths to invent theories to explain away the Creator.Didn't work though, those theories have been falsified.How come they still teach them in schools?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 121 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:15:26 PM

Read this slowly....


Why?


One of the many consequences of the LCE is that the SUM of all that exists is ZERO.


How?

Energy has never been nor, will it ever be "created" in the sense you use the word. ZERO also tells you that no one "created" anything, not your god nor anything nor anyone else.


Energy must have been created.It can't be eternal, that violates science.


About your "natural" case... if it isn't "natural" as you put it, then it simply does not exist. if god is supernatural then god does not exist. Don't even need the LCE for that one.


So nothing "natural" exists?


About all your eternal nonsense, it applies just as well to your "god" whether supernatural or not. Don't go supernatural because that stuff does not exist.


What eternal nonsense?In your view is not energy eternal?


Sorry, there is no god for you or for anyone else and the same goes for those who want to have an immortal soul. No such things.


Prove that Humans don't have a soul.Good luck with that.


Among the supernatural creations are eternal bullshit and gods. At least I did you a favor there, I created god which shall remain in the supernatural delusions trapped in illogical minds.


You are illogical.


Absent a valid argument proving the LCE false, the LCE irrefutably proves the non existence of god.


Maybe one day your delusional mind will understand that it doesn't.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 118 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/19/2012 5:27:06 AM

Absent a valid argument proving the LCE false, the LCE irrefutably proves the non existence of god.


Still going are we?

The Law of Conservation states that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any NATURAL means, which is all that science can deal with. But the idea of eternal energy violates the most fundamental law of science – causality. In science nothing happens without a cause and nothing exists without an origin. The Law of Conservation however indicates that the initial cause of energy and matter must not have been natural.

So you need to now demonstrate what created energy.Energy can't be eternal as that violates Science.So what naturalistic event created energy? Is energy a supernatural creation? Could be, but ""i don't know". But you already know that nothing is supernatural and you have clearly ruled that out.

So how was energy created? And how does The Law of Conservation prove the non-existence of a Creator?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 279 (view)
 
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 11/18/2012 11:20:55 PM

^^^^Halflifes, Did you just say "What does it matter what anybody else is doing or believes? "

Maybe you didn't give this enough thought before you posted. Hopefully your question won't be answered someday when a big bright shockwave is heading toward you at mach 4.5 over issues between a bunch of jew based religions



We're in this together, brother, against the forces of religious hegemony. No longer will our skeptical brothers and sisters think freely isolated and in the closet. We must let them know our numbers are great and that there is strength in numbers.



Just love it when the troops come out of the woodwork. That they're out there...keeps me warm at night.



"They should be put to death" is too vague for you?


Definitely some Military overtones here.Just confirms my Theory that internet atheists are fundamentally Morons.
Just as a matter of interest who do you hate the most? Christians, Jews or Muslims? And which do you plan to exterminate first?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 116 (view)
 
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/18/2012 5:26:44 PM

I've proved it countless times. I welcome an argument from you that is based on verifiable scientific facts and sound logic free of circular references e.g, because it's in the bible or god did it.


You haven't proven anything.Where have I referred to the Bible or said God did it?


Yes but, the scientists that do so label their formulations as hypothesis. They never claim them as fact, until and unless, they prove


Why are you stating the obvious?Why didn't you just agree that many scientific discoveries have been the result of Human imagination?


You still won't admit god doesn't exist and, you have provided no support whatsoever for your claim. I've supported my claim with scientific law and thus far, you and others, have been unable to cast reasonable doubt upon it. When will you accept that god does not exist ?


You have stated on more than one occasion that science has irrefutably proven the non-existence of a Creator.When will you accept that you are wrong.? I have never said that science proves a Creator.Do you also claim the the Universe is eternal?


Justlooking.. repeating the same thing over and over doesn't change the fact that you have NO proof that God doesn't exist, sorry.


Correct.


Actually, from what I've read.. the big bang DID violate the LCE, but allowances have been made for that. As for the singularity having transformed, that's exactly what I've been talking about in 'defence' of the theist's beliefs as far as creation. I guess you just 'don't understand'


Does that mean he has proven the Big Bang can't have happened either?


It's painful trying to discuss a topic with someone when they think that they already have all the answers and arrogantly say that it's your lack of understanding (stupidity) that causes you to come to a different conclusion. It's ironically very similar to dealing with a fundie. And I'll respond how I do with them. Without proof all you have are your (black and white) opinions, and I'll leave you to them. Toodles.


Good idea!


Oh you mean the 2000 year old zombie the catholics keep eating bits of at mass.

Heres a gem, the pope actually declared that transubstantiation is a firmly held belief of the chatholic church, so....this means they literally believe the bread and wine becomes the flesh and blood of christ, literally!

So yes, mass cannibalism....but hey its ok, theyre religious dont ya know


Is this a vaguead hominen.Grow up.
 
Show ALL Forums