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

[EarthScienceguy]

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.

For example

The big bang theory does not explain how the universe was created out of nothing it simply explains what happen after that the creation event.

The evolutionary religion does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

And then when pressed on the issue the response is simply that they have faith that science will eventually come up with the solution. That is by definition faith. They are believing something happen that did not actually happen.

Thesis

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics. Every event in this universe must have a cause, if they do not have a cause they are simply a believe or a religion.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

So, I can make the Big Bang Evolution theory more robust by just saying it was started by an angry man that hates ham and cotton-wool blends?

Nobel prize, here I come!

[Diagoras]

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.

The ‘Big Bang’ is not a religion. Evolution is not a religion. Christianity is a religion. The Aetherius Society is a religion. Ascribing false terms to things is not conducive to good debate.

The big bang theory does not explain how the universe was created out of nothing it simply explains what happen after that the creation event.

Correct. You even correctly identified it as a theory, not a religion - thank you.

The Big Bang is silent (pun intended) on a number of things. As a theory, it’s ‘job’ is to explain a specific set of phenomena, not to be some all-encompassing ‘reason for everything’.

The evolutionary religion does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

Theory, not religion - but you knew that. Otherwise, correct - for exactly the same reason.

And then when pressed on the issue the response is simply that they have faith that science will eventually come up with the solution.

Incorrect. Many scientists believe that the beginning of the universe won’t be ‘solved’, for example. So not as ‘simple’ as you make out. That’s the thing about science - it’s actually quite difficult.

That is by definition faith. They are believing something happen (sic) that did not actually happen.

Are you saying that life didn’t begin on Earth? I feel I’m not taking too much on faith by saying that it definitely did start at some point.

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics.

You’re confusing ‘theory’ with religion again. Let’s use the proper terms for your ‘thesis’ and see what results:

“Creationism is a much more self-supporting religion because it ignores the laws of physics.�

Every event in this universe must have a cause

There’s a well-known philosophical argument to be made there...

if they do not have a cause they are simply a believe (sic) or a religion.

I pretty much agree. The idea of an ‘uncaused cause’ (i.e. a ‘first cause’, or some hypothetical ‘eternal being’ to cause everything else) is simply a religion.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

And yet all naturalistic religions like the Big Bang religion and the evolutionary religion has its origins in uncaused events.

Do you actually think that calling scientific theories "religions" is going to get you anywhere? This amateur tactic is so old and worn I'm surprised you still think it is even worth the tiny effort to type it out.

The evolutionary [strike]religion[/strike] theory does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

Of course ... and that is exactly what it is meant to do. Do you think the heliocentric theory of our solar system is invalid because it does not explain how the planets formed? That is exactly the same analogy. Why should ToE explain how life began? It has nothing to do with that subject, and the fact that you evidently think it does is just more proof that you don't understand what ToE even is.

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself as far as any credibility as an "earth science guy" when you post stuff like this. It is better to remain silent and be thought (to know nothing about science or how it works) than to speak up and remove all doubt.

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics.

There is no such thing as creation "theory." Creation stories abound in various religions and the biblical version is just one of many. But again, the fact that you continue to come here and preach it just reaffirms that you cannot back up anything you claim with actual science.

[Bust Nak]

And then when pressed on the issue the response is simply that they have faith that science will eventually come up with the solution. That is by definition faith.

It is also irrelevant because the truth of said explanations does not depend on the issues you brought up. For example, evolution is demonstrably true, regardless of how life began here on earth.

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics.

That's a fail right off the bat. What do you think miracles are, if not laws of physics being broken?

Every event in this universe must have a cause.

Why just in this universe?

if they do not have a cause they are simply a believe or a religion.

What about cases where there is a cause but we simply don't know what it is, as opposed to not having a cause?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras]

The ‘Big Bang’ is not a religion. Evolution is not a religion. Christianity is a religion. The Aetherius Society is a religion. Ascribing false terms to things is not conducive to good debate.

Religion can be defined as "a particular system of faith and worship."

All the laws of physics states that any type of action needs a cause. The Big Bang religion does not have a cause. To believe that some sort of Big Bang happen takes a particular system of faith, a person must believe that an action occurs without any cause.

Worship is defined as: "to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion." Scientists have shown very extravagant respect and devotion to these theories. Even with castestraphic problems with the theories.

Religion is definitely the correct word.

Quote:
The big bang theory does not explain how the universe was created out of nothing it simply explains what happen after that the creation event.

Correct. You even correctly identified it as a theory, not a religion - thank you.

The Big Bang is silent (pun intended) on a number of things. As a theory, it’s ‘job’ is to explain a specific set of phenomena, not to be some all-encompassing ‘reason for everything’.

Yes that phenomena is everything. The creation of the universe, how is the universe not everything. Unless you are part of that subsect religion called the multiverse.

Quote:
The evolutionary religion does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

Theory, not religion - but you knew that. Otherwise, correct - for exactly the same reason.

If people want to believe in some sort of uncaused event they are free to do that. Just like people are free to believe in turtles that hold the Earth up do you believe in that also.

Quote:
And then when pressed on the issue the response is simply that they have faith that science will eventually come up with the solution.

Incorrect. Many scientists believe that the beginning of the universe won’t be ‘solved’, for example. So not as ‘simple’ as you make out. That’s the thing about science - it’s actually quite difficult.

Quote:
That is by definition faith. They are believing something happen (sic) that did not actually happen.

Are you saying that life didn’t begin on Earth? I feel I’m not taking too much on faith by saying that it definitely did start at some point.

I pretty much agree. The idea of an ‘uncaused cause’ (i.e. a ‘first cause’, or some hypothetical ‘eternal being’ to cause everything else) is simply a religion.

It is a belief that does not break any laws of physics, unlike your beliefs in your religion.

The eternality of God is a belief that is over 4000 years old. Today physicist are in search of something eternal because it is understood that only something eternal could have created our universe.

The problem is entropy. For something to exist forever means the object cannot have any change in entropy. For over 3 millennia it has been believed that God is unchanging. God does not change.

Malachi 3:6
“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."

God knows the end from the beginning.

For 3 millennia it has been believed that God is omnipresent. He presently at every point in time and at every point space all at the same time.

So for over 3 millennia the Yahweh the God of the Jews, and Christians have believed in a God that had all the characteristics needed for a being to be eternal.

[Clownboat]

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.

For example

The big bang theory does not explain how the universe was created out of nothing it simply explains what happen after that the creation event.

The evolutionary religion does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

And then when pressed on the issue the response is simply that they have faith that science will eventually come up with the solution. That is by definition faith. They are believing something happen that did not actually happen.

Thesis

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics. Every event in this universe must have a cause, if they do not have a cause they are simply a believe or a religion.

It appears that religious explanations have become so weak that the best effort to keep them relevant is to falsely attribute all competing theories as being religions as well.

Person A) My religious explanation may be terrible, but if I call your scientific theory a religion I can play pretend and consider them equal.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 7 by Clownboat]

I must have missed your explanation of the cause of the universe and the cause of life. if an event does not have a cause the event has to be believed to have happen by faith.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 4 by DrNoGods]

Do you actually think that calling scientific theories "religions" is going to get you anywhere? This amateur tactic is so old and worn I'm surprised you still think it is even worth the tiny effort to type it out.

So are you saying that events happen without a cause. Even the most amateur students of physics knows that nothing happens without a cause. If you believe in some "theory" that requires a belief in an uncaused event you are free to do that. But it has no basis in science.

Quote:
The evolutionary religion theory does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

Of course ... and that is exactly what it is meant to do. Do you think the heliocentric theory of our solar system is invalid because it does not explain how the planets formed? That is exactly the same analogy. Why should ToE explain how life began? It has nothing to do with that subject, and the fact that you evidently think it does is just more proof that you don't understand what ToE even is.

In correct, the "heliocentric theory" is not a theory it is an OBSERVATION. It ceased being a theory when observations were made of the objects in the solar system. Do you believe in the "Circular Earth Theory?" Is that a theory or an observation?

You are correct in saying that ToE is not meant to describe where life came from. There is no theory that can explain where life came from except CREATION THEORY. Therefore ToE is a "theory/religion" with no cause.

Like for example:

If the force and angle of a ball is known when it is thrown. Where the ball lands and how far the balls rolls can be calculated if the laws of physics do not change. .

Now the reverse is not necessarily true. How fast the ball is rolling can be calculated but the path that the ball traveled to get to that point cannot. All a physicist can do is measure the speed the ball is rolling at the present time but there could be lots of paths that ball could have taken to get to that point.

The problem with evolution is that it does not obey the laws of biology and thermodynamics. Even if we say that evolution does follow the laws of biology and thermodynamics, but it just follows a very unlikely path. It would still require great faith.

[Diagoras]

All the laws of physics states that any type of action needs a cause.

Radioactive decay apparently doesn’t.

To believe that some sort of Big Bang happen takes a particular system of faith

No - a particular observation, and one which can be independently tested and verified as having happened. No faith required.

Worship is defined as: "to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion." Scientists have shown very extravagant respect and devotion to these theories. Even with castestraphic problems with the theories.

I’m sure that this directly contradicts your own previous position - I’m not going to trawl through hundreds of posts to find an example - but the defining strength of science is its willingness to immediately discard old theories when better ones (i.e. more accurately explain phenomena) are produced. Scientists do not worship theories at all.

If people want to believe in some sort of uncaused event they are free to do that.

That’s a relief. The alternative would be some form of suppression of thought - a bit like Galileo might have experienced at the hands of the Church, I imagine. So clearly we’ve moved on from those dark days of having to believe just what the priests told us.

Just like people are free to believe in turtles that hold the Earth up do you believe in that also.

I don’t personally believe that. It’s hard to tell, but I sense a certain sarcasm in your tone. If that’s the case, I don’t find that particularly respectful. So you might want to consider that if we’re to have a civil and engaging debate.

The eternality of God is a belief that is over 4000 years old.

Argument from Tradition. A fairly common logical fallacy.

Today physicist are in search of something eternal because it is understood that only something eternal could have created our universe.

Perhaps you can provide a cite for your claim that physicists are in search of something eternal.

The problem is entropy. For something to exist forever means the object cannot have any change in entropy. For over 3 millennia it has been believed that God is unchanging. God does not change.

<bolding mine>

You appear to be committing the same logical fallacy: ‘argument from tradition’. Here’s an explanation for you:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ition.html