15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's odd because you have spent a considerable amount of time arguing the universe didn't pop into existence.

I personally feel it's possible the universe did in fact spontaneously appear from nothing.

Now say "Then god did it!", and watch as I don't care.

 

[ding]

I personally feel it's possible the universe did in fact spontaneously appear from nothing.

Now say "Then god did it!", and watch as I don't care.

Why would I? That's only one piece of the puzzle.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why would I? That's only one piece of the puzzle.

I don't know, that's a question for you to answer.

 

[ding]

I don't know, that's a question for you to answer.

Exactly. Which I just did by asking why would I.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Exactly. Which I just did by asking why would I.

Because you say it about anything and everything. Obviously.

 

[ding]

Because you say it about anything and everything. Obviously.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Grow up, ding. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[ding]

Grow up, ding. You're embarrassing yourself.

You justy claimed I say that about anything and everything. If that were true it should be easy to link to a post that proves that.

So who is embarrassing who?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You justy claimed I say that about anything and everything. If that were true it should be easy to link to a post that proves that.

So who is embarrassing who?

It is true.

You're going to have to have this hissy fit by yourself. Sorry.

 

[ding]

It is true.

You're going to have to have this hissy fit by yourself. Sorry.

Then link to an example, dummy.

 

[zaangalewa]

Lately we've had a Bimbo Outbreak here, with kweationist klowns and konspiwicysts starting whacky strings. Virtually all the challenges are answered here briefly.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, ...

Do you know - for example - that "survival of the fittest" - an essential term for the theory of evolution - came from the philosopher Spencer - and was the first time used in the fifth edition of Darwins On the Origin of Specieses? So the first four editions had been garbage. And many thoughts he used came from others.

This man was no genius. He was a painstaking, narrow-minded, pale grumbler. An unpleasant person.

Darwinism - as an ideology - for example made all people "officially" to idiots - with the help of believers in science like you - who thought that learned experiences from the parents play also a role in genetics. Such people had not be taken serios for more than a century. Now we know more about this mechanisms - including epi-genetics - and so we know now that it's really possible that children are able to suffer under traumata from their parents or grandparents without to know anything about because they get this "information" (or stress-reactions) biologically via epi-genetics. The bible says by the way in a similarly context that god punishes bad deeds up to the fourth generation (and rewards good deeds for thousand generations) - what's not far from the current knowledge about epi-genetics.

So what about if "scientists of the day argued over it fiercely" would do the same today? Would this be wrong?

 

[zaangalewa]

Thank god I'm not the only athiest who thinks this way. I guess it is to be expected. Atheism as a movement is relatively young, unorganized and by its nature without an orthodoxy. It doesn't yet have a defined positive cause, and very well may never - but it has defined itself so far in what it's against. That might just be all it can be...

Against what is atheism? Atheism is first of all only a simple belief. Atheism for example is not able to explain why something exists at all. Does this mean nothing is existing?

 

[fncceo]

Sure, it's a fossil fish...science determined and named it that

Yes, that's what scientists and naturalists do ... they classify and name discoveries.

Someone has to do it.

Somehow, the various scriptures don't identify every creature on Earth.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's not. Saying the universe as a whole was "created" creates a problem for nobody.

You should see how Richard Dawkins reacts to the idea!

This is just sprinkling the ineffectual claim "God done did it!" on something. It affects nothing. It adds no useful information, explains nothing, and yields no useful predictions.

It's a proposition - can be true or false, that's all it is.

Which is a pretty sure sign of utter nonsense, but I digress...

To call a proposition "nonsense" means the proposition is false, paradoxical or somehow contradictory to other facts, that isn't the case here though so how can it be described as "nonsense"? To say some proposition is false requires an argument that leads to that conclusion, do you have one?

See? you do have a problem, the mere stating of the proposition causes you to reject it out of hand, that's not a rational reaction.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I personally feel it's possible the universe did in fact spontaneously appear from nothing.

Yes that too is another proposition, but contradicts the belief we have in a deterministic material universe subject to laws. So I reject it for that reason.

Now say "Then god did it!", and watch as I don't care.

Perhaps you should care, attributing the universe to "God" is intellectually more rational than attributing it to nothing. Also science requires us to attribute effects to causes, to claim the universe just appeared does not do that, it attributes an effect to no cause, so its unscientific - nothing logically wrong there but you should consider the implications of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You should see how Richard Dawkins reacts to the idea!

Irrelevant. Also, go ahead and post how you think he reacts, and I will show you how you are wrong.

It's a proposition - can be true or false, that's all it is.

It's also useless in general, for the reasons mentioned. And it has the hallmarks of utter nonsense. For the reasons mentioned.

To call a proposition "nonsense" means the proposition is paradoxical or somehow contradictory to other facts, that isn't the case here though so how can it be described as "nonsense"?

No, it can just mean something is false.

Yes that too is another proposition, but contradicts the belief we have in a material universe subject to laws.

False. It does not. I think you need to brush up on recent theory.

Perhaps you should care, attributing the universe to "God" is intellectually more rational than attributing it to nothing.

False. I can attribute it to nothing based on consistent, mutually supportive theoretical and physical evidence.

There are entire volumes written on this.

You have none of this to support the god hypothesis.

So what you just said is totally backwards and incorrect.

 

[zaangalewa]

... False. It does not. ...

Sorry this is impossible. It makes sense in natural science to follow the paradigma that all natural laws always existed since the very first Plank time (a better expression would be "Plank second"). The relation between the circumferrence and the diameter of a circle always had been pi. And when for example the elctromagnetic power froze out then it was always an existing fact that this will happen when the universe will cool down to the temperatur where this will happen. So the "spirit of physics" (=this what the human language "mathematics" is able to speak about) also always had been a fact. An immaterial but structural fact. If such a scientific paradigma not exists then we can forget research in physics. How do you like to do physics without mathematics?

 

[zaangalewa]

I personally feel it's possible the universe did in fact spontaneously appear from nothing. ,,,

Why? Why is it more easy that a universe exists then it is easy that a universe not exists?

 

[Woodznutz]

Just quit debating the Bible Bangers. Their thoughts simply aren't worth a debate, any more than we should debate Flat Earthers or Holocaust Deniers.Tell them they are deliberately ignorant and you aren't going to waste your time debating them. If they are really interested in the subject, they can take a biology class or two and a trip to the nearest public library.

Evolution is just the atheist's explanation of life. Not terribly important.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Irrelevant. Also, go ahead and post how you think he reacts, and I will show you how you are wrong.

Wrong about what? I've read Dawkins for years, he's a militant atheist, I've watched many debates with him, he really doesn't like the idea of creationism, his debates with John Lennox are entertaining to watch, he is unschooled in mathematics, logic, physics, theology and philosophy yet that is the very essence of what he tries to debate with Lennox.

It's also useless in general, for the reasons mentioned. And it has the hallmarks of utter nonsense. For the reasons mentioned.

Useless to you perhaps. Without some means of measuring utility I don't see how you can make that claim.

No, it can just mean something is false.

Well a false proposition is best described as a false proposition then, not "nonsense" when you describe something as "nonsense" it carries with it the connotation that it is paradoxical or contradictory and I don't think that's appropriate in this case.

False. It does not. I think you need to brush up on recent theory.

Yes it does, to say matter, energy, fields and laws can come into existence uncaused is to abandon science. That's fine, that's not the problem, the problem is when one uses that as if it were a scientific argument.

False. I can attribute it to nothing based on consistent, mutually supportive theoretical and physical evidence.

But you cannot interpret evidence scientifically unless you presuppose the universe behaves scientifically, but if you do that then you cannot argue it came from nothing because that's unscientific, that's a nonsense position to hold.

There are entire volumes written on this.

Yes, I likely have many of them in my library.

You have none of this to support the god hypothesis.

So what you just said is totally backwards and incorrect.

The "God" hypothesis avoids the self contradiction inherent in your belief, that the universe can just begin to exist uncaused. This is what you need to understand, when we compare the two.

The creation hypothesis has a cause for the universe existing, your hypothesis does not but asks us to abandon a belief in causality, if we must argue that ultimately the universe is uncaused then everything is uncaused, we can't say gravity causes orbits is an explanation for something when at the same time we are believing that gravity itself exists uncaused.