Creationists' theory in detail

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think you have a monopoly on understanding.

Yep, I'm a big meanie. A stinky one, even. A stinky meanie.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.

I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.

Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

Ouch ... strictly speaking, gravity is an effect of our frame-of-reference and the topography of our local timespace ... a pseudo-force ... so, no, it's not real ... sorry ...

Creationism is philosophy ... on what bases can we compare this to biological evolution ... except that (ha ha ha) folks who have believed in creationism, and strictly followed the Laws of God, were generally better citizens in our societies, and has better access to the more desirable mates within said society ... thus increasing and expanding the reproductive success of the creationist within that society ...

The heathen know their DNA is complete shit, mating with other heathen makes shit babies ... thus the heathen use the variety of birth control to insure their shit DNA dies with them, never to be passed on ... thank you ...

It takes faith to believe in creationism ... do you want a faithful mate to help raise the children? ... maybe you should look in churches instead of swinger bars ...

There are two kinds of evolution. There is adaptive evolution which are small changes over a long period of time. There is mutative evolution which is a sudden leap of change. The mutant might or might not survive. Creationism is compatible with both forms of evolution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Read this please Mendel, Darwin and Evolution In it it states not only that Mendel's theories and Darwin's where not at odds but that Mendel's work helped with the biggest problem that Darwin's theory had. I also suggest you look at Darwin's biography, you will notice that before he published his theory of evolution he had published before and was already a member of a naturalist society. By the way, claiming he wasn't a scientist seems bizarre since most modern scientific fields where still being developed and darwin was a thoroughly educated man. Also, the author of your article has himself no degree in any field of science besides computer sciences yet he felt qualified to write a book that claimed to disprove evolution, hows that for irony?

As to the rest. It is a description of how elements came to be, nothing more nothing less. It is you who keeps presupposing matter had to come from nothing. I have said on multiple occasions that I don't know.

So tell me, in a court of law if the prosecutor keeps on bringing forth witnesses who refuse to be cross-examined as our astrophysicist or outright lies as our computer consultant. Or if the prosecution refuses to deliver documentation as you have when I asked you to produce proof Jesus existed. How much chance do you think that the prosecutor has to win their case?

The existence of Christ is not on trial. We can cover that later. If 100 witnesses came forward to tell you about Darwin, you'd dismiss it. You want to be judge, jury and executioner because you cannot sustain a critical analysis of the bottom line regarding YOUR position: Can't get something from nothing.

You took issue with me saying that there's no secular proof for the existence of Jesus. I simply asked you to provide such evidence since you took issue with it. That's what happens when someone questions something.

When you have said things I don't agree with I have provided evidence to support that objection. The fact that you are unwilling to extend me the same courtesy says everything about the strength of your position.

Ah, you have a problem with me not sustaining a critical analysis of something? Analyzing the available evidence on where matter came from leads me to only one conclusion. There are theories abound but none that have been proven. Wich makes "I don't know" the only valid response. I could guess but then I would be guilty of what you do. Assume stuff.

By the way, you are the one that has said that you believe God came from something. I would be very curious about what that something would be. The God of God? Aliens? And what you think would support such an assertion since I don't believe that it is supported in scripture. I rather suspect that you just said that because the existence of God means by your definition that God came from nothing but hey prove me wrong.

Since you did not quote me word for word, I don't have the time or inclination to argue something that I did not say. God gave me no indication of his origin. I take it on faith, just as you take your theories on faith.

 

[forkup]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.

I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.

Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.

How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Anyone else notice?

28 pages and still no creation theory.

I noticed that there is no scientific evidence of the Big Bang theory.

You find it at Harun Yahya.

Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.

By the way, the Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the "explosion" itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery

You should research the term confirmation bias. Of course religious people are exploring the science of creation. It's just that secularists don't acknowledge their work. Why would they?

Confirmation bias? Do you realize that so far you offered up 2 sources that you claimed should make you think. And that of these 2 sources one is a scientist refusing to subject himself to peer review. And the other a computer consultant who chooses to write a book trying to disprove a theory that hasn't been seriously challenged by any scientist in relevant fields in about a century.

In order to find these people and deem them credible, one literally has to go down in the bowls of the internet. And do absolutely no further research in checking their claims or credibility. And you accuse others of confirmation bias?

Yes, I accuse you of confirmation bias. You want sources to be approved by those who see the world through your lens.

 

[forkup]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Read this please Mendel, Darwin and Evolution In it it states not only that Mendel's theories and Darwin's where not at odds but that Mendel's work helped with the biggest problem that Darwin's theory had. I also suggest you look at Darwin's biography, you will notice that before he published his theory of evolution he had published before and was already a member of a naturalist society. By the way, claiming he wasn't a scientist seems bizarre since most modern scientific fields where still being developed and darwin was a thoroughly educated man. Also, the author of your article has himself no degree in any field of science besides computer sciences yet he felt qualified to write a book that claimed to disprove evolution, hows that for irony?

As to the rest. It is a description of how elements came to be, nothing more nothing less. It is you who keeps presupposing matter had to come from nothing. I have said on multiple occasions that I don't know.

So tell me, in a court of law if the prosecutor keeps on bringing forth witnesses who refuse to be cross-examined as our astrophysicist or outright lies as our computer consultant. Or if the prosecution refuses to deliver documentation as you have when I asked you to produce proof Jesus existed. How much chance do you think that the prosecutor has to win their case?

The existence of Christ is not on trial. We can cover that later. If 100 witnesses came forward to tell you about Darwin, you'd dismiss it. You want to be judge, jury and executioner because you cannot sustain a critical analysis of the bottom line regarding YOUR position: Can't get something from nothing.

You took issue with me saying that there's no secular proof for the existence of Jesus. I simply asked you to provide such evidence since you took issue with it. That's what happens when someone questions something.

When you have said things I don't agree with I have provided evidence to support that objection. The fact that you are unwilling to extend me the same courtesy says everything about the strength of your position.

Ah, you have a problem with me not sustaining a critical analysis of something? Analyzing the available evidence on where matter came from leads me to only one conclusion. There are theories abound but none that have been proven. Wich makes "I don't know" the only valid response. I could guess but then I would be guilty of what you do. Assume stuff.

By the way, you are the one that has said that you believe God came from something. I would be very curious about what that something would be. The God of God? Aliens? And what you think would support such an assertion since I don't believe that it is supported in scripture. I rather suspect that you just said that because the existence of God means by your definition that God came from nothing but hey prove me wrong.

Since you did not quote me word for word, I don't have the time or inclination to argue something that I did not say. God gave me no indication of his origin. I take it on faith, just as you take your theories on faith.

3) God came from somewhere if he exists.

Here you go.

 

[forkup]

Anyone else notice?

28 pages and still no creation theory.

I noticed that there is no scientific evidence of the Big Bang theory.

You find it at Harun Yahya.

Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.

By the way, the Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the "explosion" itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery

You should research the term confirmation bias. Of course religious people are exploring the science of creation. It's just that secularists don't acknowledge their work. Why would they?

Confirmation bias? Do you realize that so far you offered up 2 sources that you claimed should make you think. And that of these 2 sources one is a scientist refusing to subject himself to peer review. And the other a computer consultant who chooses to write a book trying to disprove a theory that hasn't been seriously challenged by any scientist in relevant fields in about a century.

In order to find these people and deem them credible, one literally has to go down in the bowls of the internet. And do absolutely no further research in checking their claims or credibility. And you accuse others of confirmation bias?

Yes, I accuse you of confirmation bias. You want sources to be approved by those who see the world through your lens.

You, mean the lens of the scientific method? Yes, of course, I do. The reason for it is simply because that lens is the only lens that has shown reliable results in getting to the truth of the world around you. You hypothesize, test, and then let the findings be judged.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.

I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.

Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.

How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?

I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.

Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.

Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.

 

[RWS]

I was just pointing out that your original assertion was flawed because we can know God from what he created through reason and experience. No book needed. And we can use science to study what was created to inform our reason.

You know bias goes both ways, right?

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

So you reversed your position that we can know God exist using reason?

No I have not. Our confusion comes from what you mean by 'know God'. If you mean that, through reason, we can prove the existence of God, the answer is no. If you mean that if, through faith, we presuppose a God exists, then we can know something about Him through studying the natural world, then yes we can see what he has created and what he values.

They are one in the same.

I submit that you have never truly considered the possibility that God exists. You can prove me wrong by telling me what your perception of God is. Because that will demonstrate the level of your consideration. Mind you, you should limit your perception to what you can observe through nature and not what any specific religious text tells you. Because I am not asking you what religion thinks God is, I am asking you what you think God is.

Hi five!!! Ding has got it right!

 

[RWS]

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

Facts go through the Bible as science backs it up. It does not back up evolution. Your mountain of facts is a lie as you could not explain that photo you posted. If it was explainable, then you would have done so. It should not be that difficult to convince someone with an open mind.

What is troublesome is you explain God only one way. What makes you think what you claimed? I've been telling you that God created our world as perfect, but Adam's sin made it imperfect, fallen, and we ended up as regular flesh and blood. It was Satan who took dominion of the world away from Adam. We had free will, so we have to accept the consequences and that is our death. However, there is a way to be saved through Jesus. Thus, Satan has tricked many into not believing in Jesus nor in God. Otherwise, how can evolutionary science of ToE and the rest come to contradict everything that is in the Bible?

Facts don’t go through the Bibles. Material facts contradict much of what is in the bibles. There are means and methods available to examine the natural world. How does anyone examine your imagined immaterial or supernatural realms?

I'm not clear why you’re blaming an entity you call “Satan” for anything. If your gods are so weak that they can’t control the “Satan” character, convert to a different religion that won’t cause you such angst.

Facts are facts. We can all use facts to reach our conclusions. One thing about the Bible is that it's an auto-biography. A supernatural being explains how he did it. Thus, it's written in the past tense. His story can't change. He gave his testimony. Now, Satan did the same thing with his Antibible. It is a story of his being like God. Except his story can change now because its fake science with no God. Maybe soon the billions and millions of years theory will collapse as less people begin to believe it. Then the atheist scientists will make up another story to fit evolution.

Who wrote the bible? Seems like the OT was written over a thousand years of collected stories, which stemmed from the Sumerians in 4000 BC. But they rewrote their version about 1000 BC or so. Nowhere close anyway... So they likely plagiarized Sumerian texts. Which I have shown in abundance.

The NT was based on texts that Paul sent which was decades after Jesus. 50-60 years after Jesus. He couldn't have been there. And then it was rewritten again by mr King James 1500-1600 years later... who definitely had no idea...

This is what you base your hatred and genocide on...

 

[RWS]

Like Ding said, take another look at what you think is "god".

It's not about following a religion. It's about finding your spirituality.

 

[RWS]

I can't believe I quoted ding... But yes, he's on the right way!

Better not be fuckin with me dude...

 

[RWS]

If your religion does bad things, you have to open your eyes, and let go. And not follow it anymore.

You can still find spirituality and faith outside of those religions. You don't need to be locked into something that is morally wrong just because you were borne into it.

 

[RWS]

I sincerely hope you are all well, and your families! Tough times ahead. Our bs arguments don't matter, what matters is that we all live through this... So be safe.

I'm not going anywhere, just sayin... Love you all!

 

[RWS]

 

[RWS]

And something local food places need now... This is the first play of Scenes from an Italian Restaurant! for audiences... A little raw, but awesome!!!!

 

[RWS]

Imagine if you're in the crowd and are among the first to hear this!!!!

 

[zaangalewa]

... Not so simple an issue. Even if your eyes work perfectly you still need your brain to understand what your eyes see. I think the eye-brain connection really begins to develop only after birth.

I guess this is a real mistake. So let me correct it: Who knows something about evolution is able to know that the eye is an organ, which has in case of human beings the origin in brain tissue. So our eyes are directly part of the brain. Not so in case of an octopus for example, although the eye of an octopus looks very similar. Whatever: in case of human beings the visual center of the brain is behind the backside of the skull. The complete eye is a very big part of the biological landscape between the cornea and the visual center.

And the "idea" an unborn human being is hot a human being is by the way totally absurde. Most abortions hurt without any doubt the human right to live.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Generally speaking, atheists believe in stuff that make no common sense. For example, the billion of years old universe and Earth. ...

You are wrong. Common sense is a some billion years old universe and a younger - but also billions of years old - planet Earth. And let me say in general: You speak often a very crazy nonsense in the name of Christians. Intentionally?