Evolution, Big bang religion; no cause= no theory = religion

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Evolution, Big bang religion; no cause= no theory = reli

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 28 by EarthScienceguy]
Romans 1:20

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Why should we give any credibility to what some ancient goat-herder said in Romans 1:20?
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Diagoras
Sage
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Evolution, Big bang religion; no cause= no theory = reli

Post by Diagoras »

EarthScienceguy wrote:The only problem with the chaos theory is <..>
Can we add chaos theory to your list of things you have a problem with?

Here’s a representative sample - by no means an exhaustive list - of debates in which you’ve struggled with:
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem with evolution is ...
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem is entropy.
EarthScienceguy wrote:... this Problem that Einstein created
EarthScienceguy wrote:Well, it is quite complicated and fraught with problems and paradoxes.

<snip>

4. Problem with generating life which we see on this planet

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
Problem 2: Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis
Problem 3: RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence
Problem 4: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life
EarthScienceguy wrote: The problem is not making heavy molecules it is where they came from in the first place.

<snip>

So the problem is how does the gas cloud condense down the Jean length? Several mechanisms has been suggested the main one seems to be a shock wave from a supernova. The problem is there were no stars to produce shock waves for the population III stars. So there is no way for stars to form.
EarthScienceguy wrote:A second problem is Mercury's magnetic field.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem is star formation

<snip>

But there is a big problem with gravity.
EarthScienceguy wrote:Naturalist theory has the same problem.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The Big Bang theory has the same electromagnetic travel problem and has the added problem of flatness.
EarthScienceguy wrote:This problem is not new problem it has been around since Darwin's time.
EarthScienceguy wrote:Radioactivity is not over the whole planet that is the problem.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem is creating new genes for an upward organizational movement of a species.
EarthScienceguy wrote:A Second problem is the degeneration of the genome over time.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem with your little bateria (sic) story <...>
EarthScienceguy wrote:There is still the lithium problem.

There is still the no population III stars problem.

There is still the problem of stars and galaxies older than the supposed age of the universe.

There is still the time heat problem.

There is still the problem of failure to predict dark matter.

There is still the problem of a consistent 2.7 degree Kelvin temp of the CMB
EarthScienceguy wrote:There is the accretion problem. It doesn't work.

There is the solar radiation problem. There is not enough.

There are the problems with stellar evolution in general.
EarthScienceguy wrote:You see the problem is that especially in geology Hutton's uniformitarian principle is only used when it fits uniformitarian ideas.

<snip>

The problem with the Grand Canyon, if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old, is that it should not be there.
EarthScienceguy wrote:This is the problem with the naturalistic theory.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem is not the energy involved it is organizing the energy into a state that will allow chemical reactions in the direction of increased organization.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem there is only one set of microstates of energy TdSth and atom arrangement TdSc that give lets say man.
EarthScienceguy wrote:Now the problem with evolution is that there are many possible sets of microstates but only one that will give the results of an upward movement.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The problem with the giant-impact hypothesis is <...>
(In the spirit of fairness though, I did find this):
EarthScienceguy wrote:I personally do not have a problem with the possibility that solar systems can form from natural processes.
What all of these ‘problems’ have in common is this: they are only a problem for someone who shackles themselves to faith-based dogma and accepts Statements of Faith like this as true. For everyone else, who doesn’t continually get stopped by this biblical roadblock to progress - but who ignores it and instead conducts actual proper science - answers to your ‘problems’ can be found.

I don’t have a problem with evolution, chaos theory, gravity, the Grand Canyon, radioactivity, Mercury, lithium, etc. I do however have a problem with Statements of Faith designed to blindfold people against the fact that what we observe of the natural universe can be wholly understood and explained by natural laws.

Simply stating: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record� achieves nothing positive or constructive for human progress. It does not and cannot invalidate the vast body of scientific knowledge we have and continue to amass.

I can confidently predict that as science continues to expand our knowledge in all spheres, your ‘problems’ will only increase in number if you remain on the sinking ship of scriptural relevance, rather than climbing into the lifeboat of scientific open-mindedness.
“Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.�

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1125
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolution, Big bang religion; no cause= no theory = reli

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 32 by Diagoras]
I can confidently predict that as science continues to expand our knowledge in all spheres, your ‘problems’ will only increase in number if you remain on the sinking ship of scriptural relevance, rather than climbing into the lifeboat of scientific open-mindedness.
Wow, spoken like a real close minded person

I don’t have a problem with evolution, chaos theory, gravity, the Grand Canyon, radioactivity, Mercury, lithium, etc. I do however have a problem with Statements of Faith designed to blindfold people against the fact that what we observe of the natural universe can be wholly understood and explained by natural laws.

Simply stating: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record� achieves nothing positive or constructive for human progress. It does not and cannot invalidate the vast body of scientific knowledge we have and continue to amass.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1125
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolution, Big bang religion; no cause= no theory = reli

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 32 by Diagoras]
What all of these ‘problems’ have in common is this: they are only a problem for someone who shackles themselves to faith-based dogma and accepts Statements of Faith like this as true. For everyone else, who doesn’t continually get stopped by this biblical roadblock to progress - but who ignores it and instead conducts actual proper science - answers to your ‘problems’ can be found.
No not really they are real problems in the scientific theory.

I don’t have a problem with evolution, chaos theory, gravity, the Grand Canyon, radioactivity, Mercury, lithium, etc. I do however have a problem with Statements of Faith designed to blindfold people against the fact that what we observe of the natural universe can be wholly understood and explained by natural laws.
This is an incorrect statement and you sited all the times when naturalistic theory cannot explain the natural world.


Simply stating: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record� achieves nothing positive or constructive for human progress. It does not and cannot invalidate the vast body of scientific knowledge we have and continue to amass.
I have never said anything about the scientific knowledge we have amassed. In fact, I believe the scientific knowledge we have amassed points to the need for a creator God. As we look farther and farther out into space the evidence in support of a creator God becomes greater and greater.
I can confidently predict that as science continues to expand our knowledge in all spheres, your ‘problems’ will only increase in number if you remain on the sinking ship of scriptural relevance, rather than climbing into the lifeboat of scientific open-mindedness.
That is a great quote I am going to use that. I will definitely give you credit for it. Although my ship is not the one sinking right now.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Danmark »

Did you know that virtually every mammal has 7 cervical vertebrae? Humans, mice, giraffes, seven. Over 5000 mammals have 7 bones in their neck. Exactly seven. Manatees and some sloths are the exceptions. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Post by Gracchus »

"One the cornerstones of physics is the idea of causality, every event has a cause. And yet all naturalistic religions like the Big Bang religion and the evolutionary religion has its origins in uncaused events."

Cause and effect are illusions arising from incomplete information. For instance: There is a board fence with a verticle crack. A cat (It might even be Schroedinger's cat!) passes the crack. First, you see its nose, then its muzzle, it's whiskers its neck its forelimbs, then its torso, then its hind limbs, then its tail. After lots of cats (or the same one) pass the crack in both directions are you justified in concluding that the nose causes the tail?

What you have observed is not "cause and effect" but a single phenomenon in a universe arbitrarily, partially, and necessarily obscured by the availability of information limited by the ignorance of the real nature of spacetime (reality). Cats and kittens, humans and monkeys, waves and particles, are localized fluctuations of the one spacetime universe.

:study:

Post Reply