Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 447,077 views
Chill Kiladonut ;)

i think wfooshee was not attacking you at all, you guys are probably in agreement...
He was just adding to your comment... nothing more...
He was NOT accusing you of any wrong doing ;)

so Peace out Man.
 
The site takes absolutely nothing from science, and its conclusions are arrived at in the manner of:

A: oranges are fruit.
B: 2 + 2 = 4

Therefore: Pigs can fly

My meaning is that the conclusions they jump to (as you put it) are exactly that. Huge phenomenal leaps of nothingness based on random speculation having nothing to do with the presented "facts," but couched in clever "logic" to make it seem real.

This is the same logic that says you can never reach a certain point along your path, because you keep getting halfway there. Half, then half, then half again, and you can never reach the goal. When did a limit of halfway become a condition?

By misstating some conditions and ignoring others, "logic" is like statistics: it can say ANYTHING. That's all I found on that site. Logic fallacy, and none of it new. Not "interesting" at all.

It was not a personal attack, but a statement of the ludicrousness of the site's "conclusions" and "proofs."
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html

Here is an amusing article which suggests that we are living in a "designer universe", but one designed by men and women like us and not by any God.

This is an appealing thought to many rational people because of the improbability of our current, known universe having its various physical constants and properties of matter and energy set up in such a way as to be stable and conducive to human life and evolution. This being so unlikely in a purely random universe that many scientists calculate that there must be a near-infinite number of other more chaotic universes in which life is impossible. Thus the "multi-verse" theories which validates that human life is random after all and nothing special, nothing anti-Copernican, so to speak.

Here is a snippet from the article:
"This idea provides the best resolution yet to the puzzle Albert Einstein used to raise, that "the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible". The universe is comprehensible to the human mind because it was designed, at least to some extent, by intelligent beings with minds similar to our own.

The great British astronomer Fred Hoyle suggested that the laws of physics were so uniquely conducive to human existence that the universe must be "a put-up job". I believe he was right: the universe was indeed set up to provide a home for life, even if it evolved through a process of natural selection, with no need for outside interference. It isn't that man was created in God's image – rather that our universe was created, more or less, in the image of its designers.

Dr John Gribbin is a visiting fellow in Astronomy at the University of Sussex and author of 'In Search of the Multiverse'..."

My own opinion:
1) No evidence of other universes has yet been uncovered.
2) The idea that the present universe is uniquely or specially suited to human life is farcical, since rocky and watery little planets endowed with biological life seem so scarce, and is itself an anti-Copernican idea. In truth, we are freaks, we are lucky, the universe isn't all about us.
3) Since more than 99% of the known universe consists of plasma, the logical conclusion must be that, if anything was designed, it was designed for organization, reproduction and communication among plasma. (Please see post #355 in the Aliens thread for more thoughts along this line.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
I'd like to see more of the full report on that. The way the article makes it sound is that they found a tooth in situ with tools that are between 400k and 200k BP. The average person would read that and wonder how in the world a tool dates a tooth.

My guess is that it's a modern human-like ancestor. 80k YBP to upwards of 400k YBP seems like a huge jump to me. Interesting never-the-less.
 
ledhed
We had a thread like this maybe 600 pages long I guess the forum ate it .
Click to expand...

This is that thread??

Depends on your posts per page setting as to how many "pages" it is.

But this thread has been around for almost as long as the Christian world :lol:
 
Hey ledhed, I think you should add a poll to this, asking if we believe in evolution, theistic evolution (i.e. God had some role in it), Old Earth Creationism or Young Earth Creationism.
 
I don't think you can believe in Evolution. You either accept it or don't, I don't say I believe in Evolution, just as much as I don't say I believe in Gravity.
 
The Journal of Cosmology has published an interesting paper which refutes both religion and the big bang as fashioned from the same whole cloth.

This is what their masthead says:
Journal of Cosmology
Astronomy - Astrobiology
Quantum Physics
Earth Sciences - Life
Peer Reviewed. Free, Open Access to Scholars, Scientists and the Public
The Journal of Cosmology Receives Over 500,000 Hits
and Over 50,000 Unique Readers Per Month.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology8.html
An infinite universe conflicts with the basic tenants of the Jewish-Christian religion which has had a strangle-hold on scientific thought for almost 2,000 years. Thus, in western culture, students and scientists alike, are taught the universe is finite and was created. To maintain this dogma requires that all experimental evidence be interpreted as supporting creationism, i.e. the theory of a big bang. Therefore, when it comes to the ultimate nature of the universe, the mainstream scientific community refuses to consider or apply the basic laws of nature and the laws of math and physics, and instead embraces "religion masquerading as science." According to the mainstream view preached by the scientific community, nature is wrong, and patterns do not repeat themselves, but come to a sudden halt with individual galaxies. Symmetry and the patterns of nature should not be applied to the known universe, and this is because the patterns observed in nature are not really repeating patterns, but emerged out of chaos, from a big explosion, where nothingness, or a point of singularity existed in-itself, like a primal seed which had no origin. And then this primal singularity exploded for unknown reasons which can't be explained by any branch of physics, including "relativity", "quantum physics" or the "Standard Model"; and this creation event produced an opaque light and created a finite universe--exactly as described in the Jewish-Christian Bible.

The Jewish and Christian religion and their Bible, has dictated scientific thought for almost 2,000 years. In the Bible's opening chapter, Genesis, we are told that in the beginning there was nothingness, and then: a miracle! God creates the heavens and the earth but which are without form and all was a void (Genesis 1.1-1.2).

Likewise, according to the acolytes of the Big Bang, at first there was nothing (or a singularity), and then, a miracle! The heavens are created, but they are without form and there was a void. And then, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang creation event, there was light; a “wall of light“ and the universe became opaque, and then, light was separated from the darkness, and the universe became transparent. And then, matter began to form--exactly as detailed in Genesis of the Jewish-Christian Bible.
 
That reads like BS.
It suggests scientists in general are religious.
Big Bang has nothing to do with creationism or religion. People can interpret it to have a link, but it has no link or evidence of a link to a god. What rubbish.
Mainstream science has no affiliation with religion, or presupposed mental methodology in scientific approach or research.
I would bet most scientists have not even read the bible or other religious holy books, or been to church.
The linked website seems unprofessional at first glance:
"Note to the Reader
The Journal of Cosmology has begun receiving threatening and harassing emails directed at this article and Dr. Joseph for writing it and to the Journal of Cosmology for publishing it. The overarching message is this work is upsetting and should be censored, removed, and banned. Therefore, you
have been warned: This article contains information which some people find threatening and upsetting. "
A serious publication does not wrote those kind of warnings/messages.


Jewish/Christianity has not had a stranglehold on science for 2000 years. Quite the opposite Science has over the years killed religion and hopefully in the not to distant future it will totally kill it, or god whichever comes first.

:sly:
 
Last edited:
blaaah
That reads like BS.
It suggests scientists in general are religious.
Big Bang has nothing to do with creationism or religion. People can interpret it to have a link, but it has no link or evidence of a link to a god. What rubbish.
Mainstream science has no affiliation with religion, or presupposed mental methodology in scientific approach or research.
I would bet most scientists have not even read the bible or other religious holy books, or been to church.
The linked website seems unprofessional at first glance:
"Note to the Reader
The Journal of Cosmology has begun receiving threatening and harassing emails directed at this article and Dr. Joseph for writing it and to the Journal of Cosmology for publishing it. The overarching message is this work is upsetting and should be censored, removed, and banned. Therefore, you have been warned: This article contains information which some people find threatening and upsetting. "

A serious publication does not wrote those kind of warnings/messages.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Yet this is the same journal that is publishing NASA's findings on life inside meteorites! Supposedly it will be the most peer reviewed paper ever published in the history of science. What kind of scam is this?
 
Did they say "tenants" where they meant "tenets"? Who proof-read this?
 
Dotini
The Journal of Cosmology has published an interesting paper which refutes both religion and the big bang as fashioned from the same whole cloth.


An infinite universe conflicts with the basic tenants of the Jewish-Christian religion which has had a strangle-hold on scientific thought for almost 2,000 years. Thus, in western culture, students and scientists alike, are taught the universe is finite and was created. To maintain this dogma requires that all experimental evidence be interpreted as supporting creationism, i.e. the theory of a big bang. Therefore, when it comes to the ultimate nature of the universe, the mainstream scientific community refuses to consider or apply the basic laws of nature and the laws of math and physics, and instead embraces "religion masquerading as science." According to the mainstream view preached by the scientific community, nature is wrong, and patterns do not repeat themselves, but come to a sudden halt with individual galaxies.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaat?

In what universe does science "refuse" to consider an infinite universe? The physics jury is still completely out on that one.

And scientists insist patterns "end at individual galaxies"?! Horsepuckey. My Astronomy 101 course more than 20 years ago demonstrated solid evidence that there are not only clear clusters of galaxies, but also clusters of clusters or superclusters.

Whoever wrote that has taken the time-honored and wholly incorrect tack of trying to pass of assertion as fact.
 
Let's not forget the factual errors, starting with the assertion that electrons orbit around the nucleus of an atom much as planets orbit a star. Or the apparent confusion between the terms "symmetry" and "self-similarity". Or that the Big Bang theory is "creationism". And silly assertions like "objects with the smallest masses have the most energy".

I could go on and on, but I'll stop there.
 
Duke
Whoever wrote that has taken the time-honored and wholly incorrect tack of trying to pass of assertion as fact.
Click to expand...

BobK
Let's not forget the factual errors, starting with the assertion that electrons orbit around the nucleus of an atom much as planets orbit a star.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's astonishing that such amateurism as the Journal of Cosmology passes for peer-reviewed science, and that they have the effrontery of trying to actually sell their publications. It's not enough to be a Ph.D. or a NASA scientist. Every assertion they make on any subject must now be doubted, no matter the degrees or institutions of the contributors. Their explanation for redshift for instance seems to replace dark matter with black holes, and their explanation for comets makes no sense as it allows for jets far from the Sun, yet ignores plasma and electrical charge effects all the while asserting that the Sun's heat can only thaw ices while the comet is close to the Sun down among the inner orbits.

Personally, I don't rule out panspermia explanations, but their electron microscope photos of fossilized bacteria-like objects are not enough to accept it. If it were alive, that would be better.
 
Last edited:
I believe in the circular big bangs and contractions. Cause and effect dates back indefinitely and will go on indefinitely. No need for a creator (and answering who created the creator). Existense is a flunctuation of void. God exists and is the physical laws.

I can't prove it but it's my instinct.
 
Dotini
It's not enough to be a Ph.D. or a NASA scientist. Every assertion they make on any subject must now be doubted, no matter the degrees or institutions of the contributors.
Click to expand...

Dotini - How can you lend any creedence whatsoever to something that makes a hypothesis containing such bold faced lies as "science refuses to accept the possibility of an infinite universe" and "scientists insist that patterns not be applied beyond the scale of the individual galaxy"?

I'm practically at a loss for words at the staggering scale of the incorrectness of those 2 statements alone, and you're just shrugging them off...

I really hate to direct this at you, and in all sincerity it's not intended as a personal insult, but your complete lack of discernment in choosing your sources makes pretty much everything you post here useless in any kind of factual discussion.

I mean, anybody can come up with intriguing new data points and theories if they just pull them completely our of thin air.
 
Duke
Dotini - How can you lend any creedence whatsoever to something that makes a hypothesis containing such bold faced lies as "science refuses to accept the possibility of an infinite universe" and "scientists insist that patterns not be applied beyond the scale of the individual galaxy"?

I'm practically at a loss for words at the staggering scale of the incorrectness of those 2 statements alone, and you're just shrugging them off...

I really hate to direct this at you, and in all sincerity it's not intended as a personal insult, but your complete lack of discernment in choosing your sources makes pretty much everything you post here useless in any kind of factual discussion.


I mean, anybody can come up with intriguing new data points and theories if they just pull them completely our of thin air.
Click to expand...

As can be seen from my comments, I don't lend any special credence to The Journal of Cosmology. It seemed worthwhile posting in the first instance because it has a new twist on the old theme of science vs religion here in the thread on Creation vs Evolution.

I do try to stick to the facts, but obviously even Ph.D.'s and NASA scientists make some pretty big boo-boos. I'm not a NASA scientist trying to convince the world of aliens in meteors. I make no claims to knowing the truth or posting the truth. I'm sorry if you find no value in my posts. Surely if I am in error then you or other members are encouraged to post better ideas.

With regard to the infinite universe question, I think you will find the current prevailing view is that the universe is finite but expanding -actually accelerating - from a singularity or big bang.

The older view which I like is that the universe is in a somewhat steady state (Hoyle), and is not infinite.

I don't think science rejects the view that the universe may be infinite, but my impression is that it's in 3rd place at best among physicists, astronomers and cosmologists as a whole.

With regard to the "fractal" nature of scalability from the sub-atomic to the cosmic, I am a fan of that.
 
Last edited:
Dotini
Yes, it's astonishing that such amateurism as the Journal of Cosmology passes for peer-reviewed science, and that they have the effrontery of trying to actually sell their publications.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with you on this. A comment by P. T. Barnum on the birth rate of suckers might be relevant here as well.

Dotini
It's not enough to be a Ph.D. or a NASA scientist.
Click to expand...
No NASA scientists involved here. I suggest you check out what field Rhawn Joseph's PhD is in, but I'll give you a hint: it is totally unrelated to astrophysics, astronomy, physics, or any other hard science.

Dotini
Personally, I don't rule out panspermia explanations, but their electron microscope photos of fossilized bacteria-like objects are not enough to accept it. If it were alive, that would be better.
Click to expand...
What does panspermia have to do with anything in this thread? Are you referring to the findings of Dr. Richard Hoover, who is a NASA scientist who wrote a paper recently that you mentioned in another thread?
 
[BOOBS]

(boob banner is there has a futile attempt to force US people to ignore my post :D)

I'm french, therefor living in a lay state, and just willing to say that creationism is an US debate (or maybe UK aswell ?) that isn't even put as an "interrogation" in my country. And I'm feeling great with that.
Current interrogation about religion in my country is "do people should have the rigth to expose external signs of their religion", because here it's forbidden. But as all laws in France, they are there, but nobody applies them. People calls us a latine country just for that :D

If we allow this, we know that we are taking the risk that french people figth between themselves because of religion. Europe, esp France, invented crusades and religion wars, you know. Plus it's in our constitution so the question is allready answered : no way religious guys asks that to us. atm Al-Qaïda asks that to us and the answer has been "no".

France's identity is "we are a lay state, go ask how God must be praised in a church or don't, we don't care because religion belongs private life of individuals, thank you very much."

Our burka question is 50% about women's rigths, 50% about defence of the lay statea and external religion signs.

My beliefs in this are :
Evolution : proof ? Yeah plenty.
Creationism : yeah, proof ? "Well, my heart says..."
=> Evolution.

I love France's pragmatism just for that :)

[/BOOBS]

The former pope (JP2) said something like "Evolutionism is what the science tells, Creationism what the Holy Church (etc) tells. Creationism is an allegory of how God created (etc).".

Allegory.

Fairy tale for me, divine's words for others. Anyway, this is an allegory, not the real world. Science is the real world. School must learn allegories or the real world ?

[BIG DOUBLE BOOBIES]I think school must learn the real world.[/BIG DOUBLE BOOBIES]
 
Last edited:
BobK
What does panspermia have to do with anything in this thread?
Click to expand...

This thread has to do with creation and evolution of life on Earth, yes?

Panspermia theories seek to explain life on Earth as coming from beyond the Earth, such as microbes riding on meteors, comets, etc.

So unless you choose to interpret panspermia as rejecting both creation and evolution, which I don't think it does, I am puzzled by your question. It seems to me the worst thing that can said about panspermia is that it kicks the can down the road. But then, after all, it is only a series of observations, and cannot yet be said to be a completed and finished science.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini
 
Dotini
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
This is the current hot story on panspermia. Unfortunately, it is published in Journal of Cosmology, which we have debunked as pseudoscience in this thread.
Click to expand...

NASA don't do pseudoscience ? If the guy is from NASA he shouldn't tell bigoterries, don't you think ?

Come on, I want the life to be born in well, err... 1800 in well, err... France. Ok, biggoteries.

:D :D :D - yeah I know... But until somebody find a new piece of rock telling the opposite, E.T. is french, so give back the bucks, Spielberg :D :D :D

Maybe Lafayette brough ET with him ? That's about the same historic period. :D
OMG consp!r4cy !!ii11oneoneeleven
 
Last edited:
Dotini
With regard to the infinite universe question, I think you will find the current prevailing view is that the universe is finite but expanding -actually accelerating - from a singularity or big bang.

I don't think science rejects the view that the universe may be infinite, but my impression is that it's in 3rd place at best among physicists, astronomers and cosmologists as a whole.
Click to expand...

That's a very far cry from bluntly asserting "To maintain this dogma requires that all experimental evidence be interpreted as supporting creationism, i.e. the theory of a big bang. Therefore, when it comes to the ultimate nature of the universe, the mainstream scientific community refuses to consider or apply the basic laws of nature and the laws of math and physics..."

I know you love to get offended when your sources are criticized, but this statement is the purest ******** and invalidates anything it is attached to.
 

Similar threads

Chris30
My Mom Has Cancer! (Need Advice)!
2 3
Replies
64
Views
6K
Chris30
Chris30
Vince_Fiero
Creation of wealth, the ideal distribution
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Vince_Fiero
Vince_Fiero
HyperState
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution question
Replies
5
Views
4K
Magog
Magog
SYLVERIS
  • Locked
OFFLINE PLAYERS VS ONLINE RACERS, OFFLINE PLAYERS WON !
Replies
1
Views
1K
daan
daan
GranTurNismo
The Future of Joe Biden
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Imari
Imari

Latest Posts

Back